£3 (approx) cream tops the anti-ageing charts

bebebelle

Just as I thought.Im being conned by magazines.........I always buy stupid priced creams.Let this be a lesson to me lol.

Roger_Rampant

tara747 wrote: »

Er, aren't these all moisturisers?

I thought you would have understood my comment if you'd read the OP, but the point I think Which? are trying to make is that products described as anti-wrinkle or anti-ageing and given claims of "visibly reducing the signs of ageing" and so forth, and having premium price tags, are actually a con. A product which simply describes itself as "moisturiser" can be equally effective, if not more so. So it's not really about what it is, it's more about what it is claiming to be.

Anti-wrinkle creams are a con!

bootman

Does anyone know what others where tested?
I use Elemis, curious how low down it may have come being one of the more expensive ones. I shall definitely give the Simple one a go.

mrs_lds

you can get simple moisturisers from poundland

MrsE_2

bootman wrote: »

Does anyone know what others where tested?
I use Elemis, curious how low down it may have come being one of the more expensive ones. I shall definitely give the Simple one a go.

I think there's a feel-good factor to using the expensive stuff:o

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

bootman wrote: »

Does anyone know what others where tested?
I use Elemis, curious how low down it may have come being one of the more expensive ones. I shall definitely give the Simple one a go.

Ah, you see, I'd rather spend the money that it would cost me to buy the Which magazine to buy the Simple moisturiser instead - lol.

At the end of the day, we've got the overall findings (Which being renowned for their accuracy and fairness), and that's enough for me. If I do come across the full research article, then I'll post here. I agree that it would make interesting reading.

tara747

Roger_Rampant wrote: »

I thought you would have understood my comment if you'd read the OP, but the point I think Which? are trying to make is that products described as anti-wrinkle or anti-ageing and given claims of "visibly reducing the signs of ageing" and so forth, and having premium price tags, are actually a con. A product which simply describes itself as "moisturiser" can be equally effective, if not more so. So it's not really about what it is, it's more about what it is claiming to be.

Anti-wrinkle creams are a con!

Righto. Thanks for clarifying!

I just always thought of (any) moisturiser as both anti-ageing and wrinkle-reducing, those are my reasons for using it anyway.

mouse_potato

bootman wrote: »

Does anyone know what others where tested?

The article below lists the 12 tested:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1207797/The-3-wrinkle-buster-How-budget-moisturiser-outperforms-pricier-rivals.html

The volunteers voted Nivea's Visage Anti-Wrinkle Q10 Plus Eye Cream, which sells at £9.99 a bottle - or £6.66 per 10ml, as their best overall cream

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

Thanks for the link, mouse_potato.

I would normally have looked into this a bit more myself, but I've been up all night diagnosing faults on my laptop (this is after having my main computer die on me). Managed to disable a not so helpful 'Helper' file. Oh, the joys. One little thing, and the entire system freezes. Anyhoos, looks like I'm back on track for the bargain hunting once more - yay!!!

Thanks again for taking the time out to reply, and that goes to you all.

katthehat

Oh !!!!!!, gonna have to make some room in bathroom cabinet! i can't resist, especially the price, one of these days i might find 1 that works!! Thanks for the post.