To be disappointed with this gel manicure?

[Saturdayrabbit42]

As title. Nails short but not bitten etc. (need short nails for work). Went to the salon today, £25 for these. Have had gels elsewhere before elsewhere with same length nails and I was really pleased…not thick/cuticles tidied/edges and skin clean etc. I messaged them when I got home to say that I was disappointed and their reply was my nails were too short and I just had to wait for them to grow. Perhaps they were right and I am being unreasonable?

AIBU
Yes-suck it up buttercup/nails too short
No-dogs dinner, even if short result should be better than this!

PS realise this is a very first world problem!

They're a mess, but such short bitten nails were never going to look great. It's difficult to work with such small surface area.

I could have done better myself and I'm no nail technician.

They are very short though - not sure if that makes it harder to do them.

I would assume OP works in health care- infection control is v strict on short nails.

Different nail shapes and lengths can look better with certain colours and I think this colour wasn't the right choice for yours OP (or for any length/shape, it is a bit tipp-ex), but they've done a sloppy job. You can still have nicely shaped and painted nails but they've not done this. Was it a paint only manicure?

YANBU- that looks gloopy and wrong.
also if they were actually too short to do they could have advised you that and said don’t waste your money.

so they can’t have it both ways. Get a refund and go elsewhere.

Length doesnt help and it's a poor colour choice for that length but
also poorly applied (too thick) and the manicure to cuticles etc looks crap.

Buy an LED lamp and do it yourself at home its about £50 and honesty won't be any worse

The shaping looks a bit uneven. I have ultra short nails (they break easily so I like to keep the little buggers as short as possible) and they don’t look like with a rounded shape.

I want to know where you get a £25 gel polish though. It’s £35 round ma bit.

yes I’d be disappointed. The edges aren’t clean and they should’ve done your cuticles. To be honest this isn’t anything you couldn’t do yourself at home. Get a gel kit off Amazon with a UV lamp and sit yourself on the sofa to do them every few weeks.

Looks like when a 6 year old gets some nail polish from a magazine, I'd have been embarrassed to leave someone like that and charge them.
Also if the nails are too short, the tech should've said to just have a basic tidy up and clear polish, not leave them like that, the nail bed looks aggravated as well.
I would go back, have it removed and never go there again. It may have only been £25 but buy cheap but twice and a lot of cheap places aren't hygiene compliant or skilled

Why are they SO short. That’s not a normal length, they’re off the nail bed short.

How can you get them so short without biting? Are they not tender when you cut/file them so short?

I always avoid white nails when my nails are short otherwise they remind me of being bored at school and colouring them in with Tipp-ex. A milky pink looks gorgeous on shorter nails.

I have short nails and had gels done yesterday. Picture below I’d be horrified if I came away with ones like those.

They look really bad, just everything about them is unflattering! Would have genuinely looked better had you done them yourself.

I ended up with a similar experience and complained. She ended up giving me a 50% refund of both a manicure and pedicure. Life is too short to deal with inconsistent nail techs

The colour is dreadful. So is the prep but I think your nails need a bit more length on them too

They don’t look great but I’ve never had nails done at salon so I’m a shit judge but wanted to add, I have short nails (cut for easier living reasons such as typing and not scratching my newborns ass to shreds when changing her) and I find dark colours much more forgiving on shorter nails. The white colour doesn’t help I don’t think but the cuticle end also looks a bit raggedy so I’d expect them to at least sort that.

Sorry, but they look awful.

Also, what is the point of getting gels on such short nails. Why not just do them yourself?

I don’t think they did a good job there. Sorry, it’s disappointing when you try do something nice for yourself and it doesn’t go to plan. I think the colour perhaps wasn’t the best choice either. I got something similar once and it really didn’t look good on me which was a shame as I did like the colour.

I thought this too. The nails actually look as if they're bitten.
The colour doesn't help make a poor job look any better.

Some salons don’t see cuticle removal as part of the gel application, that’s a ‘manicure’ which costs extra.

They’re not that short. Although im a violinist so that’s the longest I can get away with.
They look lovely by the way.

Yes that colour is awful on most people. It’s never suited me, always look like tipex.

same as yellow -only really suits dark skins.

I had my nails done vanilla for the first (and last) ever time recently.

Jeez, it was horrendous.

what length were your nails before the manicure?

Personally, with nails that short, having a gel manicure is pointless. It's never going to look amazing. The colour is awful and emphasises the lack of length and general poor manicure.

My nails are very short and I always have gel manicures - albeit usually in darker colours.

I thin they look great and I get compliments so hardly 'pointless'.

The main issue is the colour IMO. It's too artificial looking.

You have nice hands and I actually like short nails, work aside. I have similar.

I think just putting some natural looking light pink or nude beige or neutral varnish on yourself would probably look great.

You want something similar to your hands but shinier/lighter. Not completely clear, but matching.

Get a few varnishes - light pinks and nudes - from a Pound shop (or Rimmel is cheap and sets quickly) and try them all on. One colour will probably look best. Keep this.