75/ 100
C
OverallF59/100
Vintage COTY 24 Crème Lipstick Scarlet Red Collectible Tube Gold/White New

Coty · Lipstick & Lip Products

Vintage COTY 24 Crème Lipstick Scarlet Red Collectible Tube Gold/White New

C · Moderate

Vintage lipstick, lower PFAS concern. No waterproofing claims typical.

Verdict: BuyVintage Coty lipstick poses minimal established hazard risk; wax-oil base is chemically stable, no waterproofing claims reduce PFAS concern, and age suggests formula predates modern heavy-metal pigment restrictions.

Classic wax-based lipstick with no waterproof or stain-resistant treatment disclosed. Vintage formulation unlikely to contain PFAS, but brand provides no transparency.

Shop Coty on Amazon →

Material

Wax, oils, pigments in metal tube

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Vintage Coty lipsticks are composed of waxes (beeswax or synthetic alternatives), oils, and colorant pigments pressed into a metal tube. The formula lacks the synthetic polymers and water-resistant binders found in modern long-wear lipsticks, meaning the wax-oil matrix is inherently stable and unlikely to shed microplastics or leach problematic additives during normal use. The metal tube itself (typically aluminum with protective lining) is inert when intact and poses no leaching risk under typical storage and application conditions.

The brand's record and disclosure

Coty is a major cosmetics manufacturer but maintains minimal public disclosure on heavy-metal testing, formulation transparency, or PFAS avoidance policies. No major safety recalls or regulatory actions are on record for vintage Coty lipsticks. The brand does not publish safety data sheets or third-party certifications for discontinued vintage formulas, so ingredient verification relies on historical product labeling and material knowledge of 1970s-1980s cosmetic chemistry rather than modern testing.

How it compares in its category

Vintage lipsticks occupy a lower-risk niche compared to modern waterproof, long-wear, or transfer-resistant formulas, which often contain PFAS compounds and higher concentrations of synthetic pigments and stabilizers. Coty's classic cream formulation is simpler than contemporary offerings, reducing the number of potential chemical exposures. Collectible vintage cosmetics carry the trade-off of no contemporary safety data or reformulation oversight, but this particular product's simplicity is a safety advantage relative to modern cosmetic complexity.

If you buy it

Store the lipstick in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to prevent wax softening and pigment separation. Do not leave it in hot vehicles or near heat sources, as this can degrade the beeswax matrix and alter application texture. If the tube shows dents, cracks, or corrosion, the protective lining may be compromised and the product should not be used. Patch test on a small area of skin before full application, as vintage formulas may contain allergens (fragrance oils, lanolin) that modern products have phased out or reformulated.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Heavy metals in pigments

Vintage cosmetics from the 1970s-1980s may contain iron oxides, chromium, or cadmium in red pigments before stricter FDA limits on colorant purity were enforced. No specific testing data is available for this Coty formula, but the age of the product predates modern pigment safety standards.

Possible

Fragrance allergens

Vintage Coty formulas commonly included synthetic fragrances and essential oils (rose, citrus) that can trigger contact dermatitis or sensitization in vulnerable individuals. Modern lipsticks often reduce fragrance load; older formulas may contain higher concentrations.

Possible

Lanolin and botanical oil allergens

Wax-based vintage lipsticks typically relied on lanolin and animal-derived oils as emollients. Lanolin can cause allergic contact dermatitis in 1 to 3% of the population and may be contaminated with pesticide residues if sourced before modern agricultural standards.

Possible

Tube coating degradation

After 20 to 50 years of storage, the protective metal lining inside the tube may have developed micro-cracks or loss of adhesion. This can expose aluminum or allow pigment and wax oils to interact with the metal, potentially leaching trace aluminum into the product.

None known

Microplastic shedding

Wax-oil formulas do not contain synthetic polymers or microbeads. No risk of microplastic ingestion or skin accumulation is expected from this product type.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

More lipstick & lip products grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.