Tarte Empower Flower Amazonian Clay Collector’s Palette
Tarte Empower Flower Amazonian Clay Collector’s Palette ($42.00 for 0.64 oz.) includes eight eyeshadows, two blushes, and one bronzer. Tarte says it’s supposed to “empower you to play up your look from daytime to playtime,” though I’d say it’s more apt to say day to night, as there are some smokier, darkening shades that you could use for a more “nighttime” look. I tend to associate “playtime” with brighter, bolder, or more unique colors and/or finishes. It’s a disappointing palette with two exceptionally dismal eyeshadows and one unimpressive blush that really bring it down, but there were few shades here that were actually good.
I can understand when some feel that neutral palettes have reached a point of total saturation of the market, and I also understand that many are still hunting for just-the-right neutral palette. I also get that some brands have certain aesthetics, such as tarte, where they lean more towards neutral shades, which is perfectly fine. With that being said, I am a little confused why tarte released three neutral palettes for summer: this one, Poppy Picnic (C+), and Showstopper (B). Sadly, none of these were as good as their warm-toned neutral mega-palette V2 (A-) from last August or the all-matte neutral-hued Tartelette (B+). The majority of the shades in this palette were similar to other shades Tarte has done in the past (more so than usual it seemed to me).
Compassionate is described as a “cream.” It’s a light, slightly brightened beige with subtle, warm undertones and a matte finish. It had decent pigmentation but was powdery, so it was a little harder to work with on the skin so it didn’t look dry. It lasted for six and a half hours. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Vivacious is described as a “rose gold.” It’s a light-medium, muted gold with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. It had good color payoff with a soft, blendable consistency that stayed in place for seven and a half hours. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Pretty is described as a “bronze.” It’s a dark, coppered bronze with warm undertones and a soft, frosted finish. It had great pigmentation with a really soft, smooth, and blendable texture. The color lasted for eight hours on me before fading. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Powerful is described as a “dark brown.” It’s a dark brown with warm, yellow undertones and a matte finish. It had so-so pigmentation with a powdery, dry texture that was difficult to blend on the eye. It wore well for six and a half hours. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Energetic is described as a “taupe.” It’s a medium-dark, purple taupe with cool undertones and a matte finish. The color payoff was sheer with a very powdery, thin consistency that made it difficult to apply and blend on the skin. It lasted for five and a half hours. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Eco-chic is described as a “light plum.” It’s a dusty, muted mauve with warm undertones and a matte finish. It was, unfortunately, very powoder, which led to poor application, excess product everywhere (in the pan, applied–even after tapping off the excess). I had to really pat and pack it on and minimally blend the edges to keep it in place, but it was faded after five and a half hours. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Charitable is described as a “soft pink.” It’s a brightened, light pink-white with cool undertones and a satin finish. It was powdery but fairly pigmented, so I think it would apply better over a primer to avoid it sheering it out. It does get chalky on my medium complexion, so it is likely better suited for fairer skin. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Glamorous is described as a “dark plum.” It’s a deepened purple with a mostly matte finish and subtle, warm undertones. It had richer pigmentation, but the texture was somewhat powdery and dry, which made it harder to apply and blend evenly. It lasted for seven hours on me before creasing. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Trustworthy is described as a “nude mauve.” It’s a pink-peach with a satin sheen and warm undertones. The texture was very stiff and firm, so it was difficult to get any color coverage out of it. I used a paper towel to rub down the top layer, and the powder was easier to use, but it was very thin and dry–powder everywhere–and didn’t want to adhere to the skin well. It lasted for seven hours, which is quite below the 12-hours claimed. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Empowering is described as a “rose nude.” It’s a subdued, medium rosy pink with warm undertones and a satin finish. It had good pigmentation, but the texture was incredibly powdery to work with, even on the skin. With enough blending, I was able to tamp down a lot of the powderiness. This shade lasted for eight and a half hours on me. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.
Park Ave Princess is described as a “bronze.” It’s a medium-dark brown with warm, yellow undertones and a golden frosted sheen. It had good color payoff but had a powdery, drier texture. It didn’t look, powdery on the skin, thankfully, and it was blendable and easy to apply overall. I don’t understand why this product looks different in every palette I have. I just reviewed it in the Showstopper palette where it’s a darker, lightly warm-toned brown with a satin finish, and here we have this one that has several times the amount of warmth and shimmer. See comparison swatches / compare dupes side-by-side.