For Victoria’s Secret Angel Josephine Skriver, being runway ready for the company’s Shanghai show means serious brow maintenance . . . and one foolproof insider trick for fuller lips.
Danish model Josephine Skriver is a master of the bombshell skin reveal—from her year-round beach-ready abs to her mile-long legs—in the name of work, play, and the Raiders. But an inside look at the Victoria’s Secret model and die-hard football fan’s morning beauty routine, replete with a “de-puffing” face wand, brow dye, and a stealth lip-plumping tool, is a rarity.
With her golden lengths tied into a high ponytail, Skriver—who is already prepping for the iconic lingerie brand’s highly anticipated Shanghai show later this month—announces that she typically wakes up with a puffy visage. (Angels—they’re just like us!) To remove those “angry nightmare wrinkles,” as she calls them, she uses a gemstone roller along her forehead, cheekbones, and jaw. Next, she massages in two drops of face oil by La Prairie, followed by two shades of SPF-infused liquid foundation by Giorgio Armani that she blends by hand to get the perfect skin tone match...
Filmed by Lucas Flores Piran
Filmed at the Beekman, a Thompson Hotel
Still haven’t subscribed to Vogue on YouTube? ►► http://bit.ly/vogueyoutubesub
Vogue is the authority on fashion news, culture trends, beauty coverage, videos, celebrity style, and fashion week updates.
Victoria’s Secret Angel Josephine Skriver's Lip-Plumping Secret | Beauty Secrets | Vogue
You are very good and very professional, we are QIBEST Cosmetics
This is our aliexpress store, if you are willing to evaluate our products
Interested in our products, please contact us,we also give you some coupon,
you can gift your fans
She looks very, average? I mean shes very pretty but I wouldn't think twice if I saw her on the street. VS angels are usually so easy to distinguish because of their feature. Not complaining though its nice with beauty people can relate to
An analysis of representative literature concerning the widely recognized ineffective learning of "place-value" by American children arguably also demonstrates a widespread lack of understanding of the concept of place-value among elementary school arithmetic teachers and among researchers themselves. Just being able to use place-value to write numbers and perform calculations, and to describe the process is not sufficient understanding to be able to teach it to children in the most complete and efficient manner.
A conceptual analysis and explication of the concept of "place-value" points to a more effective method of teaching it. However, effectively teaching "place-value" (or any conceptual or logical subject) requires more than the mechanical application of a different method, different content, or the introduction of a different kind of "manipulative". First, it is necessary to distinguish among mathematical 1) conventions, 2) algorithmic manipulations, and 3) logical/conceptual relationships, and then it is necessary to understand each of these requires different methods for effective teaching. And it is necessary to understand those different methods. Place-value involves all three mathematical elements.
Practice versus Understanding.
Almost everyone who has had difficulty with introductory algebra has had an algebra teacher say to them "Just work more problems, and it will become clear to you. You are just not working enough problems." And, of course, when you cant work any problems, it is difficult to work many of them. Meeting the complaint "I cant do any of these" with the response "Then do them all" seems absurd, when it is a matter of conceptual understanding. It is not absurd when it is simply a matter of practicing something one can do correctly, but just not as adroitly, smoothly, quickly, or automatically as more practice would allow. Hence, athletes practice various skills to make them become more automatic and reflexive; students practice reciting a poem until they can do it smoothly; and musicians practice a piece until they can play it with little effort or error. And practicing something one cannot do very well is not absurd where practice will allow for self-correction. Hence, a tennis player may be able to work out a faulty stroke himself by analyzing his own form to find flawed technique or by trying different things until he arrives at something that seems right, which he then practices. But practicing something that one cannot even begin to do or understand, and that trial and error does not improve, is not going to lead to perfection or --as in the case of certain conceptual aspects of algebra-- any understanding at all.