BurgerClosechevronBagSearchUser
  • Wishlist
  • Cart0
Palmer's® Cocoa Butter Formula® Swivel Stick 14g

Palmer's® Cocoa Butter Formula® Swivel Stick 14g

%0 4.88 | 33 reviews
Box

£4.49

In stock

If you like we can let you know when we have some more.

Product Description

This pocket-size Palmer's® Cocoa Butter Formula® Swivel Stick is ideal for on-the spot help to relieve rough, dry areas, marks and blemishes. Also may be used to moisturise and soothe dry, chapped lips. This innovative product is based on the Original ‘solid’ Formula - Palmer’s Cocoa Butter Formula Jar and has all the benefits of pure Cocoa Butter enriched with Vitamin E; vital for smoothing dry or damaged skin on the go.

Key benefits:
- Convenient stick perfect for your gym bag or hand bag when travelling.
- As the product contains 0% water, it does not freeze, so can be used on the ski slopes over the winter months when you need it the most.
- Also ideal to help relieve dry, cracked heels in an instant.
- For marks, blemishes and rough, dry skin.
- Moisturises dry, chapped lips.

Directions

Apply Palmer's® Cocoa Butter Formula® Swivel Stick as often as necessary.

Ingredients

Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Extract, Mineral Oil (Paraffinum Liquidum), Microcrystalline Wax (Cera Microcristallina), Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Butter, Tocopherol, Helianthus Annus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Fragrance (Parfum), Isopropyl Myristate, Zea Mays (Corn) Oil, Beta-Carotene (Cl 40800), Benzyl Benzoate.

See more...

Rated 1 out of 5 by from Such a shame I have been using this lip balm for many many years. Recently you have messed about with the formula. I read that you wanted to remove the SPF15 sunscreen. Fine I thought not a major factor. However I found that yiu completely changed the product. It was awful nothing like the old one. Then I read that yiu had returned to the old formula. Hardly surprising as it was terrible. So I gave this one a try. While it is better than the white version this is nowhere near as good as the original. It's a Mish mash of the new version and the old. It doesn't taste as good doesn't smell as good and doesn't last on the lips very long. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. The old adage of if it isn't broken don't fix it comes to mind. Now I have to keep trying other lip balms until I find one anywhere near as good as the old lip balm. Such a shame such a shame.
Date published: 2024-09-14
Rated 2 out of 5 by from CHANGED THE FORMULA This has been the only chapstick I have used for the past 16 years and the last several months I have noticed a big change; and not for the better. It’s too waxy and breaks off so bad. It used to be a creamier formula, not waxy and oily. I finally had my mom switch to this chapstick 3 years ago and she left the Chaptsick brand in the past. But the past two weeks, since she got a new 3 pack from me her lips have broken out in a type of allergic reaction. This is what ultimately led me to make this review. Because I could tell the formula had changed, and when she finally went through her stock pile and needed and new pack, she could tell instantly how different it was. And now she is battling an allergic reaction. Please consider taking out or putting back in, whatever component necessary, and go back to how it was.
Date published: 2024-07-25
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Mourning my favourite lip balm This was my absolute go-to lip balm for YEARS, I loved everything about it, the moisturising affect, the smell, the SPF, the packaging... And now I can't stand it. The reformulated version is slightly better than it was now than when they first changed it (which was vile) but it's still nothing like the original and has a nasty kind of acidy smell and taste, like something that shouldn't go on your skin. I reeeeally hope they change something to make it more like the original, but until then I'm not buying it any more :(
Date published: 2024-07-19
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Why have you changed it!? Palmers is the only lip balm I have bought for years! I am so disappointed that the formula has changed. The new lip balm feels uncomfortable on your lips, the texture and taste are unpleasant and it leaves a visible white residue, meaning you resemble a 1980s Australian cricketer. Such a shame have ruined what was an excellent product!
Date published: 2024-06-21
Rated 1 out of 5 by from New Formula sucks! I've been a loyal and proud consumer of Palmer's lip balm for a while. When they changed the formula, I had an allergic reaction that covered not just my lips but the skin around my mouth as well. This rash took 3 weeks to heal after I stopped using the balm.
Date published: 2024-06-09
Rated 1 out of 5 by from GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FORMULA WITH SPF 15! I’ve been a long time customer of the ORIGINAL lip balm. I’m highly disappointed in the new one.The original lip balm smelled good, and was smooth and clear. The new formula stinks and it’s gritty and white! Please add the SPF back!! Come on Palmers, listen to your customers and go back back to the original formaula! Now I have to find another brand to use.
Date published: 2024-05-11
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Why has this product changed? Really awful My old stock ran out, bought some more and have found that it has changed to something hideous that is not moisturising, smells awful and leaves white marks?? Please bring the old formula back, lip balm is one of my desert island essentials!!!
Date published: 2024-05-01
Rated 1 out of 5 by from What happened to the sunscreen Have used this for over 10 years. I had no ide the sunscreen was removed. My lips got super sun burned last weekend. Why remove the sunscreen?
Date published: 2024-04-24
  • y_2024, m_10, d_7, h_4
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.42
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_5, tr_266
  • loc_en_GB, sid_106626, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_feelunique
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getReviews, 109.83ms
  • REVIEWS, PRODUCT
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getContent, 125.17ms
  • QUESTIONS, PRODUCT
  • bvseo-msg: HTTP status code of 404 was returned;