CHOICE membership

Ultra Violette Queen - is this sunscreen too expensive?


We received this report via Twitter about the Ultra Violette Queen Screen SPF 50+ sunscreen that costs nearly $1 per 1 mL, or $47 per bottle. That seems like it could make for an expensive day at the beach, but it does come in an ‘anti-ageing serum’…

What do you think, too expensive or worth it?


Glowing reviews, a bit pricey. Among it’s many ingredients there’s Dimethicone: also known as Silicone.

At the start of summer I got an anti -pollution, anti-aging, sunscreen from the Cancer Council, similar to a serum plus moisturiser plus 50+ spf. About $30.00 per 50ml. Only got it because my Cancer Council Everyday Face Suncreen (half that price) got Vit E and Aloe Vera added to it, and I don’t like either.


A sunscreen has one function, to protect the skin. It is far too expensive when the major supermarkets can sell equal performing 50SPF sunscreen at 100th the price ($9 per litre).

While it may not have the same perceived mojo factor, ones skin will look the same after same amount of time in the sun (either direct or indirect exposure).

I know where I would rather spend my hard earned dollars (or $100 bills in the case of Ultra Violette).


Value is in the eye of the beholder / consumer. If enough people are willing to pay, it is by definition worth it (to them). Is it value for money is another question, but in these days of ‘excessive haves’ as consumers, compared to the more ordinary economic sphere who weigh prices more carefully, it is apparently also value for money as that is not necessarily one of their prime considerations in purchasing.


,Face sunscreens are dissimilar to all purpose ones: most incorporate skin care + the usual mix of UV absorbers and scatterers.
More and more they are presented as ‘Anti-aging’ as UV rays are responsible for most of the ageing signs on our skin: sunspots, lines, wrinkles.
Which sunscreen would be best for us depends on our type of skin (sensitive, dry, etc.,) and our age: young skins break out if cream is too rich, and older ones would feel dry without a rich moisturiser. There are also appropriate ones for sensitive skins.

The Ultra Violette sunscreen has other ingredients besides UV blockers: moisture attracting Glycerin, shiny Mica, smoothing Dimethicone, and many others.
Also, as it can be applied by a dropper, it would last longer than a tube which can be squeezed too much.

But it looks like it is more of a cosmetic plus sunscreen, and that would explain the hefty price tag.


It depends who is paying for it, who it is for, and the quality of the gift wrapping? :partying_face:

Are we measuring an intrinsic value or something more meaningful and personal?

P.s. would Choice like to take on a blind sniff vs Value test of parfume/cologne/Brutt33! :thinking:
Tweed vs Old Spice, who comes out on top in the Choice members review?


Great idea @mark_m, I’m sure that would be an interesting test.

The anti-ageing factor is obviously the kicker here, good point @Gaby. Where it becomes a little confusing for me is the messaging on the bottle, but perhaps those who use this brand would understand it differently. Certainly as @phb noted, there are far cheaper products for sunscreen alone.

I’ve started a seperate thread on anti-ageing, please head over if you care to add your thoughts.


Technically all sunscreen is an anti aging product as it protects the skin from sun damage which cases premature aging.


Yep, it’s really not THAT much more expensive than other ‘facial’ suncreens I’ve seen on the market (and isn’t an eye-popping price when compared to a lot of other skincare/anti-ageing products out there). I think there’s a huge demand for these types of sophisticated facial sunscreens from people who wear them daily and have specific skin concerns or wear them underneath makeup.
Most supermarket or body sunscreens are very greasy and don’t have a pleasant feeling on the skin (which is why they’re so cheap), so would be awful to apply to your face every day, especially if wearing under makeup. So it makes sense that you’d pay more for something specially formulated to sit on the face or under makeup all day, every day.
I haven’t used this product but I would be sceptical of the anti-ageing claims (other than preventative effects of SPF on the skin over time) as there’s not much info out there about the ‘powerful anti-ageing active’ Dragosine Plus, but they do seem to know a lot about SPF. Another downside: they recommend using quite a lot each day - 2-3 full droppers - so, following that advice, you’d go through this stuff pretty quickly!
I don’t think it’s worth the price. I think a dedicated facial sunscreen that performs well (probably costing $20-$30) is a better way to spend your money. Would be keen to hear from anyone who has tried it though!


Good point! :smiley:


Gosh for that sort of money I could buy a fairly decent sized hat and protect more than just my face.

Also, the 50ml wouldn’t spread very far, so it has to go on really thinly. (Is it still SPF 50+ then??) With the recommendations I have read previously on Choice about reapplying sunscreen every couple of hours, that 50ml would run out VERY quickly.


This product is aimed at those whose ego demands they have only the best. In this case you increase sales not by lowering the price but by raising it. To this mindset price is positively correlated with desirability. This is part of how you can pay $1000 instead of $100 for essentially the same pair of jeans. The purchaser gets a warm glow knowing they have the ‘best’. A kind of conspicuous consumption without necessarily having the label displayed on your backside. These are known as Veblen goods.

I recall a conversation about an elderly lady who always ate fish on Friday (as many did once) and complained about the small bones in the whiting that she bought. She was told that there were other species that were as tasty or better that had much larger bones, or even none if filetted, and were usually cheaper too. She was not convinced and was asked why she bought whiting. She replied that it must be the best fish. Why? Because it was the most expensive.


“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?”

Many might throw vast fortunes into poker machines, or buy a $10k share in a syndicated race horse. After all every young race horse is the next Winx?

Providing the product Ultra Violette Queen delivers the SPF50+ and the user feels younger, it is at least something for your money? :sunglasses:

Ultra Violette Queen does sound like it is made for someone who never goes out in the sun preferring the night and a mid 70’s blacklight disco?


I get a glow in knowing that I got a pair of jeans for $10.00 and look just as good, after all is the wearer that makes all the difference :wink:


The name made me think of a chocolate and honeycomb bar that has a violet in the name :smile: Your wallet/purse may crumble at the cost of the sunscreen though. Eat the bar and avoid the sun…much cheaper and probably more effective at avoiding getting burnt (burnt in possibly more ways than one).


For those who are interested, the ingredients are:

Active ingredients: Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (10%), Ethylhexyl Salicylate (5%), Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (4%), Methylene Bis-benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol (2%)

Inactives: Aqua, Cyclopentasiloxane, Cyclohexasiloxane, Isostearyl Neopentanoate, Glycerin, Lauryl PEG/PPG-18/18 Methicone, Silica, Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone, Cetyl Dimethicone, Hydroxyacetophenone, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Saccharide Isomerate, Benzyl Alcohol, Phenoxyethanol, Parfum, Mica, Decyl Glucoside, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Aminomethyl Propanol, Pentylene Glycol, Titanium Dioxide, Terminalia Ferdinandiana Fruit Extract, Propylene Glycol, Xanthan Gum, Citric Acid, Sodium Chloride, Iron Oxide, l-carnosine

I am now starting to think i is snake oil with claims like this on its website…


"We’re all about maximalism, be it accessories or SPF. Don’t be afraid to lather it on, because more is more when it comes to skinscreen. Use 2-3 full droppers of product each morning to ensure your whole face, neck, chest and ears are well protected."

A very small amount (2-3 droppers may be significantly less than a mL assuming the dropper holds a few drops of sunscreen) and is unlikely to provide the necessary protection to achieve the SPF50+ rating. This sounds suspect and may give one the false belief that they are protected from the sun to prevent premature ageing (from sun damage).

SunSmart suggests around 35mL for a whole of body application…the face, neck, (upper) chest and ears would make up about 10% of the total skin area meaning that around 3-4mL would be required for adequate protection. the manufacturer of UVQ recommended usage rate could be up to 100th that recommended by credible sources. This would most likely in a bright red glow if used as the recommended rate as a sunscreen.

If the Sunsmart application rate is applied (dropper happens to dispense 1-1.5mL), the 50mL bottle would last around 2 weeks or be about $3.50 per application.

Maybe it qualifies for a Shonky nomination and one for Choice to investigate further?


Ultra Violette’s label on the bottle actually says: Queen screen, Light weight Skin screen.
A skin screen is an SPF plus other hydrating skin care ingredients.


Typical medicine droppers hold approx 1ml or more full. 20 drops to the millilitre, nominally.

How much does the UVQ dropper hold? We don’t know although someone in the community might be able to assist.

At a guess 2-3 full droppers might me 2-3ml total which is not far off that 3.5ml suggested target.

I also wonder about the volume needed to include application to the chest? It might be a feminine one, and as to just how much the user chooses to expose to the sunshine can vary. Perhaps the area to protect from the sun and restore youth to is much less than we might imagine. Or is it the Australian Standard Chest, boarded with the bluey, often hairy and perhaps a bit whiffy? :roll_eyes:

Our choice is to expose very little. Bare pale skin is like a runway beacon to the horse flys at present. With their gas masks over their eyes they seem indifferent to repellant! There is an opening for a product much higher in content of titanium and iron.

Shonky? In the same way that a Rolls Royce has for most of motoring history been value for money and famous for reliability when compared to a Toyota Corolla! :worried:

It may still be worth a closer look at the marketing claims and user directions in respect of consumer law?


Might be, because the ingredient Mica gives the skin a shining look, and there’s
a Rose fragrance added.


And here was I thinking it was supposed to stop you glowing in the dark.