The Spring Is Doing All the Work Here

Look at the pivot in the product photos and you can see what you are paying for. A spring sits behind the hinge, and the listing calls it out directly: a "specially designed contoured curve and stronger spring". Most curlers in this bracket are a hinge and a lever. This one adds resistance, and that resistance is the whole reason it keeps turning up in searches for lashes that refuse to hold.

The reviewer who explained it best gave five stars and picked up 7 helpful votes, one of the highest counts in the recent set. nir26 needed time to adjust from a simple curler to a sprung one, then found the result "more rewarding and extreme". Lauren Crossley made the same point more bluntly, saying the spring is the only reason this is the curler she uses, and that curlers without one do not work.

The handles are worth a look too. They are solid rubber paddles rather than the finger loops most budget curlers use, which changes how much control you have over the squeeze. One buyer upgrading from an old Primark curler found the handle "much more comfortable than the ones with the loop ends".

The catch arrives in the same breath as the praise. A stronger spring needs a firmer squeeze, and a firmer squeeze on a metal tool held against your own eye is where things go wrong. One one-star reviewer, initials KB, described that chain exactly: the force needed "makes it feel unstable", and on the day of the review that pressure caused the curler to slip sideways and pull out about a third of their lashes. That is the trade this product makes, and it is a real one.

Featured

15% OFF*Limited offer

One Sunday. A week of food, sorted.

23 high-protein recipes, cycle-synced for women who lift.

23 recipes · 60-page PDF · Instant download

£19.20 £16.32

See it on Etsy→

*Seller's discount on Etsy - may end at any time.

Two Reviewers Have the Exact Lashes This Is For

This is the part that should decide your click, and it comes with a caveat we are not going to bury. Out of 100 recent reviews, exactly two describe the lash type this article is about: straight, stubborn lashes that will not hold a curl on their own. Both gave five stars.

The more useful of the two is a verified buyer posting as JA Curly Gurly, whose review carries 2 helpful votes. She has medium length lashes so stubbornly straight that the technicians doing her occasional lash lifts comment on it, and mascara alone, she says, "does NOT hold a curl in my lashes". With this curler and a mid-range mascara she gets a curl that stays for most of a day. The same review calls the method fiddly, which is true of every clamp curler, and reports no sign of damage or lash loss.

The second is a one-liner from shirley o'brien: "I have very straight ,stubborn eyelashes. Works very well." Worth knowing before you weigh it: that is the single unverified purchase in the whole set of 100.

So the direct evidence for stubborn lashes is two reviews, and we would rather say that than dress two data points up as a consensus. What supports them is the wider pattern in the five-star pile, which is about hold rather than shape. Six of the hundred put a time on it. Curls that survive a full day. Curls that stay put once mascara goes on. Curls that outlast whatever the buyer owned before. George, with 4 helpful votes, described "a great lifted effect, similar to a lash lift", while conceding the clamp is strong enough that a couple of lashes occasionally come away with it.

Nine Buyers Got Nothing At All

Now the failure. Nine of the 100 most recent reviews say the curler did not curl their lashes, full stop. Not less lift than hoped, not a curl that dropped by lunchtime: nothing happened. Eight of those nine are one-star ratings, and the ninth is a three-star that was only rating the seller.

The most diagnostic is worth reading closely, because it is the only one that tries to explain why. "The pad is too stiff which means that there is no curl at all," a one-star buyer wrote, adding that the clamp "is too flat and doesn't get a good grip of all lashes - it needs to be more rounded". Hold that against the product photos: the top bar is wide and only gently curved, which is precisely the shape being described.

The three-star is the calmest voice in the group. Liddy got no curl, sent it back, and gave three stars purely for how quickly the refund was processed. At least two of the nine went straight to a return rather than a second attempt.

One review undercuts the neat wrong-lash-type theory. sharon longshank, a one-star, reports having "good lashes and a decent length" and still got nothing, adding that the curler "if anything make ladhes more straight". One oddity in the data is worth flagging too: the most-upvoted review of the 100, with 12 helpful votes, is titled "1 STAR - HORRIBLE" and reads as a scathing one-star, saying the curler has been "ripping my eyelashes out" and the curl disappoints next to the Charlotte Tilbury curler it replaced. Amazon's data has it logged as five stars. Read the 4.13 average as a little generous.

Short Lashes and Deep-Set Eyes Are the Dividing Line

If you read one section before deciding, make it this one. Seven of the 100 recent reviews raise a fit problem, and they line up into a single pattern: this curler is physically large, and it wants lashes long enough to reach the pad plus an eye shallow enough to let the head sit flat against the lash line.

Vanessa, a three-star, is clearest on eye shape: "If you have deep set eyes this is not for you. Could only get half my lashes in and that was uncomfortable." Nini, a four-star, reaches the same conclusion from the other direction while still rating it well: "It allows you to curl your eyelashes very well but you do need quite long lashes for it too work."

Two short-lash reviews carry real weight with other shoppers. A1LondonLady praised the build quality and still sent it back over short lashes, collecting 7 helpful votes for saying so. suzanne belmont, a three-star with 4 helpful votes, rates the strength highly and still cannot catch short lashes with it. A two-star buyer cannot get it close enough to the lash line despite having long lashes, and a three-star buyer struggles to reach the outer corners. One one-star review is simply the words "Too big and pinches skin".

Not one of those is a manufacturing fault. It is a fit spec the listing does not publish, and the reviews are doing a job the listing should be doing. Look at the in-use photo: the head is wide relative to the eye it sits on, which is fine on a shallow socket and awkward on a deep one. Short lashes or deep-set eyes, and that is your answer, with nothing to do with how stubborn your lashes happen to be.

Pinching: Four Say Yes, Four Say Never

Four of the 100 say this curler pinches skin. Four others go out of their way to say it never has. Nobody can resolve that for you from a distance, but the mechanism one of the complainants describes is specific enough to check against your own face before you buy.

FJM30, a one-star, is precise about it: "as you open it to release the eyelashes, the mechanism underneath closes to pinch the skin on your face underneath the eye." That review reports it happening every single time and blames the design rather than technique. CWillo, a two-star, describes the same release-phase pinch landing on the cheek instead of the lid.

Against that, Jemima's five-star makes the opposite the headline feature: the curler "gives the perfect curl without pinching the eyelid like so many others". Three other five-star reviewers say the same in different words, including one who reports it "does not nip nor hurt when you squeeze".

Read both camps together and a theory falls out. The pinch happens on the release stroke, when the scissor linkage under the clamp closes as the handles open. It can only catch you if the tool is sitting tight against your face at that moment, which is far more likely on a deep-set eye. That sits alongside the fit complaints above, and one of the four pinch reviews opens with the words "Too big". If every curler you have owned has caught you, this heavier one is not the place to break the pattern.

Spare Pad, Nickel and How Long It Survives

The pack holds two things: the curler and one spare rubber pad, which you can see lying alongside the tool in the fourth listing photo. Six of the 100 reviews mention the pad, and Jemima explains why it matters, calling the pad "the first bit to break with all my past eyelash curlers". A spare in the box means the tool outlives its first consumable rather than going in the bin with it.

Two reviewers report pad problems anyway. Eloise Woollett, a three-star, says "the silicone rubber bit constantly falls out and I have to hunt in my makeup bag for it". Jo Anne Town, also three stars, got about a month out of hers before deciding she would not buy again.

The metal frame collects the opposite report. A five-star review with 6 helpful votes calls the curlers "so robust that you can put a deal of pressure on without damaging them", which the same buyer says helps get the lashes to curl. melissa knight was still using hers "months later", and A Marie has now bought three and will not buy another kind.

One review needs flagging for a specific group of buyers. Miss Jasmine, a three-star, had an allergic reaction, rang the product helpline to ask what the metal is, and was told it "may" contain nickel. That is one buyer's account of one phone call rather than a materials spec, and the listing does not state what the frame is made from. Treat it as a heads-up rather than a fact about the alloy, and if nickel jewellery is a problem for you, ask before buying.

On the listing's own claims, e.l.f. states that all its products are 100% cruelty-free and vegan. The pack is a clear hanging box with the product code 84067 printed on the header card, and only one of the 100 reviews complains about it turning up damaged.

Where the 4.1 Comes From, and Who Should Walk Away

Our working, in order. The 100 most recent UK reviews average 4.13 stars: 70 five-star, 6 four-star, 7 three-star, 1 two-star and 16 one-star. The listing's lifetime badge is 4.4 across 23,758 ratings, so recent buyers are marking it down by roughly a quarter of a star. The largest failure cluster is the nine who got no curl at all; the second is the seven who could not make it fit their eyes or lashes. Neither has a defect pattern behind it: no snapped springs, no rust, no bad batch. What there is instead is a tool that suits some faces and not others, sold with no fit guidance whatsoever.

We are scoring it 4.1 out of 5, below the lifetime average on purpose. A 16% one-star rate across the most recent hundred is too high to wave through, and a buyer with short lashes has a real chance of joining it.

Buy it if your lashes are medium length or longer, your eyes are not deep-set, and your problem is curls dropping out within the hour. That is the exact scenario the heavy spring was built for, and the one both stubborn-lash reviewers describe. Buy it too if you have been fighting a flimsy loop-handled curler, because the build-quality praise here is consistent and much of it comes from repeat buyers. You can check the current listing for availability and today's price on Amazon.

Skip it if your lashes are short, if your eyes are deep-set, or if you already own a curler that works and are only tempted by the spare pad. Go in expecting a strong-spring value tool rather than a luxury upgrade, and on the evidence of 70 five-star buyers it will do exactly what it says.