Sunday, 20 March 2011

Beauty Byte: Gel Nails


With apologies for the craptacular photography (...I never was good at that...), let us proceed with no further delay to the subject of GEL NAILS.

The newest innovation in the beauty sector, this manicure method has attracted praise (for the sheer indestructability of its results) as well as criticism (given that UVA/UVB rays are used to dry the nails, an increase in the incidence of cancer in the fingers has been seen in the United States among regular customers). But what do I think of it?
Firstly, the price is right. I got mine done for about €30, which for a long-lasting, new-to-the-market treatment is not bad - you can get standard manicures being charged at this and more. The process was also relatively quick (about 30 minutes) and painless (in spite of the fact that they do file away the top layer of the nail a little bit, and in spite of the use of the light mentioned above, which is the same type of ray used in tanning salons).

It was also a simple process, using two types of gel, and it gave what I think is a pretty damn good-looking professional manicure result. There's nothing messy about it and thanks to the light the gel dried instantaneously, allowing me to rummage in my bag for my purse afterwards without incident. This was also done ten days ago, with a promise that it would last a minimum of 14 days. Apart from one tiny chip in the gel on the right thumbnail and another chip on the middle fingernail of the left hand, this has proved true so far, and this minimal damage may not even be visible in the (unphotoshopped and unaltered) photo above.

This is not to say that I do not note any disadvantages. You have to go back to the salon to get this stuff removed, as your standard nail varnish remover will not make a dent in it. I've also heard (although as yet not experienced) that following removal your nails can be weaker than usual, although this can be treated with creams and oils. Finally, this type of manicure renders your nails totally useless as functional objects (the chips mentioned above came, I think, from the fact that I did not initially realise this): it is more difficult to do any of those things that we women often do, such as pick at dry skin or open a can of Diet Coke.

While having the gel nails is marvellously faff-free (to not have to worry about the colour coming off is blissful), I'm not sure I would opt for it full-time due to the potential damage to nails and fingers long term as well as the loss of any practical function my nails may have hitherto had. Plus, €360 a year, plus removal fees, is quite a lot to spend on your nails. Nevertheless, I will be going back just before my wedding at the end of April to get them done again: while they may not be a hundred per cent bullet proof, I can be certain of them getting me through my big day.

3 comments:

Sarah said...

Great article, I'd been wondering about the pros and cons of gel nails for a while. They look great but I don't like the idea of needing to go back to get them removed (as a busy mum!) Thanks again.

John said...

Nice post thanks for sharing.
Sleek NY

organicgel nails said...

I am agree with your idea Sarah this is really great article.

thank you for post.

Gel Nails