We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!
  • Lord & Taylor30% off almost everything + 10% off cosmetics & fragrances with code FRIENDS, ends 12/15.
  • SaksReceive a gift card up to $700 on your purchase of $250+ with code DEC2016, ends 12/09.
  • Tarte30% off with code BESTIES, ends 12/11.

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl: Cremesheen Glasses (Part 1)


MAC Cremesheen + Pearl

Are You Ready for Sheer, Spring-like Colors for Fall?

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl is a new collection now available online (and will hit stores on August 9th) that features eight lipsticks (all with Cremesheen finishes) and seven Cremesheen Glasses. All fifteen lip products are new, but here’s the surprising news: they’re also permanent! This post features these four Cremesheen Glass shades: Double Happiness (frosted light nude), Dynasty at Dusk (frosted neutral pink), Floating Lotus (frosted soft rose), and Imperial Light (frosted light peach).

  • Double Happiness is a pale rose-tinted peach nude with pale champagne shimmer. On lips, it gives a lightening effect with a noticeable milkiness and fine shimmer. It does settle into lip lines somewhat. MAC On the Scene is milkier and has less shimmer. Estee Lauder Star is cooler-toned. MAC Soft Dazzle has larger shimmer. MAC Devilishly Stylish is more opaque and has larger shimmer. MAC You’ve Got It is slightly less milky but fairly similar. MAC Partial to Pink is pinker and has less shimmer.
  • Dynasty at Dusk is a pink-coral with light gold shimmer. This one had semi-sheer color coverage–it added a healthy dosage of color but still looks like a gloss (with a certain level of translucency). MAC So Vain is pinker. MAC Richer, Lusher is pinker, less coral. MAC Strange Potion is a bit pinker with pink shimmer. Chanel Pensee is similar but has less gold shimmer and is sheerer.
  • Floating Lotus is a light-medium pink with soft gold shimmer. It looks just slightly cool against my skin tone, and it’s semi-sheer–some color but not full color. This one looks splotchy on my lips, though. Tom Ford Sugar Pink is just slightly pinker and more opaque. Bobbi Brown Cosmic Pink is sheerer. Chanel Confidence is similar but has pink and white shimmer. Chanel Pink Teaser is brighter.
  • Imperial Light is a peachy brown with peach-gold shimmer. It has semi-sheer color coverage, so it adds noticeable color to the lips without covering them up. MAC Celestial Kiss is a smidgen pinker and doesn’t have gold shimmer. Burberry Cameo is more orange. Revlon Rosegold is rosier and has a ton more shimmer. Bobbi Brown Beach is darker.

I was only able to squeeze in testing of one shade yesterday, but I was able to get up early enough to get in an early morning test of another shade ūüôā I will be testing a few more today, too. So far, though, I’ve been able to wear Dynasty at Dusk for two and a half hours and Rising Sun for two hours. Cremesheen Glasses typically wear between an hour and two hours on me–sometimes a little longer, but usually between one and two hours. It’s a rather short-wearing formula for me, as I usually average three to four hours on gloss.

I’m not someone who likes to reapply often, but I know that it’s not a deal-breaker for a lot. I do want to point out that these contain less product than the average gloss: these only have 0.09 fl. oz. To contrast, MAC Lipglass has 0.17 fl. oz., while it is an improvement over Dazzleglass, which has a mere 0.06 fl. oz. Combined with frequent reapplication, you’re likely to go through a tube far faster if you use it regularly.

Cremesheen Glasses have a creamy, not quite gel-like, but close, texture that’s thin without being too thin. It’s non-sticky, and it’s a nice alternative to those who find Lipglass to be too heavy/sticky. It is vanilla-scented but has no noticeable taste. It’s not drying, but they’re not overly hydrating. ¬†They come with a doe-foot applicator inside a clear plastic tube. ¬†A couple of these shades were on the milky side, which did lead to color settling into lip lines.

MAC Cremesheen Glass Floating Lotus
8.5
Product
9.5
Pigmentation
9
Texture
7
Longevity
4
Application
84%
Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl: Lipsticks (Part 2)


MAC Cremesheen + Pearl

More Easy-to-Wear Lip Color by MAC

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl is a new collection now available online (and will hit stores on August 9th) that features eight lipsticks (all with Cremesheen finishes) and seven Cremesheen Glasses. All fifteen lip products are new, but here’s the surprising news: they’re also permanent! This post features these four lipstick shades: Pure Zen (frosted warm nude), Saigon Summer (frosted bright orange), Shanghai Spice (frosted neutral pink), and Sunny Seoul (frosted light warm pink).

Yesterday, I tested as many of the products for wear as I could fit into the day, and I will continue to test additional shades today (so you might see some updates or rating changes if anything performs significantly above/below past Cremesheens). ¬†Cremesheen lipsticks typically wear between three and four hours on me, with some of the really dark shades lasting up to six hours (think Hang Up). ¬†The formula is thin, barely creamy, and tends to deliver semi-sheer to semi-opaque color coverage. It’s supposed to be a hydrating formula, but they’re typically not drying or somewhat drying on me. ¬†They are vanilla-scented, like other MAC lipsticks, but have no discernible taste.

Of these four, I was only able to test¬†Shanghai Spice yesterday, which wore for four hours. ¬†I also tested two other shades from the new launch,¬†Coral Bliss and¬†Pink Pearl Pop, which wore three and a half hours and three hours respectively. ¬†My lips were lacking in hydration after I wore these three shades in a row. ¬†All four shades applied evenly, though, so you’ll notice an increase in the pigmentation score.¬†Watch this space for any updates, as I plan to test a couple more shades later today.

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl: Lipsticks (Part 2)

B+
8.5
Product
10
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8
Longevity
4
Application
87%
Total

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl: Lipsticks (Part 1)


MAC Cremesheen + Pearl

Spring and Summer Linger into Fall

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl is a new collection now available online (and will hit stores on August 9th) that features eight lipsticks (all with Cremesheen finishes) and seven Cremesheen Glasses. All fifteen lip products are new, but here’s the surprising news: they’re also permanent! This post features these four lipstick shades: Coral Bliss (frosted light coral), Japanese Maple (frosted light beige), Peach Blossom (frosted cool nude), and Pink Pearl Pop (frosted midtonal pink).

Yesterday, I tested as many of the products for wear as I could fit into the day, and I will continue to test additional shades today (so you might see some updates or rating changes if anything performs significantly above/below past Cremesheens). ¬†Cremesheen lipsticks typically wear between three and four hours on me, with some of the really dark shades lasting up to six hours (think¬†Hang Up). ¬†The formula is thin, barely creamy, and tends to deliver semi-sheer to semi-opaque color coverage. It’s supposed to be a hydrating formula, but they’re typically not drying or somewhat drying on me. ¬†They are vanilla-scented, like other MAC lipsticks, but have no discernible taste.

Coral Bliss wore for three and a half hours, while Pink Pearl Pop wore for three hours.  Though not reviewed in this post, I wore Shanghai Spice as well, which lasted four hours. My lips felt a little dry after wearing these three back-to-back.  Watch this space for any updates, as I plan to test a couple more shades later today.

Here’s some food for thought: why does MAC make all of these new shades permanent? Why not make some popular limited editions permanent? These aren’t even tested on the market, though I think they’re all general enough to work as everyday shades, so I don’t think they’ll do badly. I’m just surprised by what MAC will make permanent sometimes. I can’t be the only one who thinks this way!

MAC Cremesheen + Pearl: Lipsticks (Part 1)

B
8.5
Product
9
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8
Longevity
4
Application
84%
Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 2)

MAC Highly Charged Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Highly Charged Electric Cool Eyeshadow

Breakdown of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow – Part 2

The last six shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.) that we’re going to go through are: Highly Charged (rich purple with pink pearl), Infra-violet (mid-tone pink violet with blue pearl), Love Power (soft shimmering rose), Pure Flash (pale champagne), Superwatt (light shimmering taupe), and Switch to Blue (rich cobalt). Please read my review for how these feel, wear, etc.

  • Highly Charged is a subtly red-toned medium-dark purple with a soft shimmer-sheen. It has so-so color payoff and some fading issues when worn. All of these only faded to a point, they didn’t disappear, but they weren’t as vibrant on as they were in the pan. Buxom Schnauzer is more of an eggplant purple. MAC Drawn to Drama is more blue-based. L’Oreal Perpetual Purple is brighter by a small amount. MAC Plush is softer, more red-toned. Make Up For Ever #142 is very similar in color though more matte in finish.
  • Infra-violet is a vibrant fuchsia-magenta with a violet iridescence. It has decent color payoff, and it actually performs better on the lid in terms of pigmentation–it has some very slight fading over time. Make Up For Ever #89 is more magenta. Both Urban Decay Fishnet and MAC Stars ‘n Rockets are less pink, more purple. Bare Escentuals Boudoir is very similar though has less iridescence.
  • Love Power is a pale pink with subtle yellow undertones and a highly metallic finish. This had beautiful color payoff when I swatched it, but I couldn’t get it to apply evenly at all. It was the worst on the lid out of all twelve. MAC Young Venus is paler, icier. Dior Garden Roses is similar but blue-based. MAC Taupeless is similar but frostier. MAC Seedy Pearl is cooler-toned. Inglot #431 is more metallic.
  • Pure Flash is a soft peach with warm undertones and a frost-metallic shimmer-sheen. It’s semi-opaque in color. This would be a great brightening shade on light to medium complexions. Buxom Collie looks exactly the same in color, but it has a more metallic finish (less sparkle, more sheen). NARS Ramatuelle is similar, possibly lighter. Tarina Tarantino Delightful is more metallic.
  • Superwatt is a subtly gray-tinged medium-dark brown with a frosted, metallic finish. It had good color payoff and applied easily to the lid without needing a lot of packing or manipulating. Buxom Mutt is warmer, more golden. Urban Decay Rehab is slightly darker. MAC Street Cool is darker. Urban Decay Midnight Rodeo is a bit warmer, browner. Inglot #402 is very similar, perhaps a touch darker.
  • Switch to Blue is a medium-dark blue with softer blue shimmer and a satiny sheen. It’s mostly opaque but there is some underlying sheerness. Buxom Bulldog looks very similar, perhaps very slightly purple-tinted. Tarina Tarantino Violet Storm is brighter, more cobalt. Inglot #428 is darker, more intense. Make Up For Ever #81 is darker, more navy blue.
MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Infra-violet
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 1)

MAC Blacklit Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Blacklit Electric Cool Eyeshadow

Breakdown of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow – Part 1

The first six shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.) that we’re going to go through are: Blacklit (black with multi-dimensional pearl), Brilliantly Lit (bright acid yellow green), Coil (copper bronze), Dynamo (mid-tone coral), Electroplate (cool gunmetal grey), and Fashion Circuit (bright kelly green). Please read my review for how these feel, wear, etc.

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 1)

B-
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Tests

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow

All That and Then Some on the Matter of Electric Cool Eyeshadows

There are twelve shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.), which is a new formula (though rumor has it is the concept is Big Bounce Eyeshadows reformulated). There’s not a whole lot of information on these; the texture is described as soft and lightweight, it will deliver rich color, there is “sensational blending power,” and has “medium-to-high coverage.” The press release mentioned also wearing it as a wash of color. I think I managed to wear all twelve shades over eight different tests (a mix of with and without primer, different primers).

This post is only the review portion.  There will be two follow-up posts featuring a breakdown of all of the shades along with photos, swatches, possible dupes, and the like.  This post includes 26 photos from the tests I did to see how these applied and wore.

First, I don’t think I’d ever attach Big Bounce to these. From a texture standpoint, they’re nothing alike, and from the way they look and wear, they’re also nothing alike. No more than one eyeshadow to the next, at least. I think it does them a disservice and sets up expectations as being almost leery. When I originally tested out Big Bounce Eyeshadows, the only way I could get them to work was as an eyeshadow base, which meant they had to be set with a powder eyeshadow, and once that happened, they were fine.

The texture of Electric Cool is spongy; it’s more moveable than putty, lighter than sludge. These felt a lot like Buxom Stay-There and Chanel Illusion d’Ombre eyeshadows, both have a spongy, lightweight texture. ¬†Buxom has more spring, as it returns more to its original shape upon pressure, while Electric Cool will just retain whatever shape you mold it into. When I stabbed at one pan with an eyeliner brush, there were all these little burrows where the brush had gone. MAC’s formula is more buildable, overall, compared to Buxom’s (which are supposed to be sheer). There is also a lot of shade overlap between MAC and Buxom’s ranges. Chanel’s formula feels similar but has a slightly wetter feel initially. There is less overlap with Chanel’s color range, but the few that do overlap, Chanel’s seem to have slightly more depth, which is going to be even more negligible once applied. ¬†The texture is completely unlike products like¬†Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense¬†and¬†L’Oreal Infallible, which are very powder-based products. ¬†You might liken the finish to them, as it has a very shimmery, sparkly end result.

The wear of Electric Cool was hit-and-miss. Some shades performed better than others, as not all shades were as dry or as wet as the next one. These actually don’t crease easily; for the most part, they didn’t crease over time–if there was any creasing, it seemed to happen shortly after application. What I did have problems with was fading–I routinely went back to pack on more product during application. I’d apply one shade to one eye, then apply the same shade to the other eye, and when I went to apply another shade, the original eye already seemed to have faded somewhat. This was particularly true with some of the brighter shades like Dynamo, Fashion Circuit, Highly Charged, and Switch to Blue. I did not experience fall out with the shades when I used them on the lid*; when I tried using Fashion Circuit on the lower lash line, it did have a tendency to migrate downwards.

These have a beautiful finish; it’s very sparkly and shimmery in an interesting way. It’s not frost, not metallic, but a complex combination thereof. I think the neutral shades are exceptionally lovely as a wash of color (and honestly, the best results with this product were when these eyeshadows was worn that way). Some of them play well with others; some really did not want to be in the company of others.

Applying them evenly, smoothly, and opaquely, was more of a challenge. I tried an assortment of brushes and tools, mostly firmer, flat bristled brushes, along with fingertips and sponge-tipped applicators. I liked MAC’s 242 the best, because it is just slightly fluffy at the edge, so it worked well to pat the color into place (and you must pat, don’t sweep, or else it will be a mess) and then using the edge to lightly blend the color into the next one or diffuse it for a wash.

Blending was also an area I found seemed to hurt these rather than help these. When you blend it out, you get left with mostly shimmer and not much; the color seems to bunch up a little, which creates a slightly patchy result. I do want to note that it was hard to see it with my eyes (and even more so from a distance), but it’s obvious in the photos. To blend two colors together, it’s a very gentle process, and you really have to use a light hand to do so.

I liked them best of bare lids, and second to that, over a creamy, opaque primer like MAC Painterly Paint Pot. I tried these over NARS Smudgeproof Primer (awful over this base–made applying the color difficult to get even!), Too Faced Shadow Insurance (better than NARS for these), and MAC Painterly (best results for over a primer). I think the color adheres better over bare lids, but you can get more even color application when used over an opaque base (again, Painterly is what I tested these with). With or without a base, the wear didn’t seem affected.

The biggest problem I had with these had to with packaging. ¬†Six of the twelve shades had loose pans, which meant that the actual metal pan that houses the eyeshadow would fall out of the container if turned upside down–which meant a lot of product was caught on the lid and lip of the product. ¬†Second, despite overnighting these, several had moved significantly during shipment. ¬†They were delivered before noon, and here, it’s only been getting to 80 degrees in the mid-afternoon–it’s not¬†that hot. ¬†The formula isn’t that moveable. ¬†I set several of these on their sides for 48 hours, and they didn’t seem to move away from the edges.

They absolutely can be pushed back into place, but for some of them, it seemed like shrinkage or drying occurred because it didn’t fill the pan when pushed back into place, which leads me to my next point: these are tiny. ¬†For this product category, we have two competitor formulas that are¬†very similar: ¬†Buxom contains 0.12 oz. ($17.00 and comes in a glass jar) and Chanel contains 0.14 oz. ($36.00 and comes in a glass jar). ¬†These come in shiny black screw-top jars with a clear plastic window on top. ¬†I thought it was worth pointing out that MAC has about half as much product as two similar formulas on the market and comes in cheaper packaging. ¬†MAC Paint Pots, for example, contain 0.17 oz. and come in glass jars. ¬†Even MAC Big Bounce was 0.17 oz. and also came in a glass jar (and also $2 cheaper just a year ago).

Overall, I can see some people¬†loving the sparkling, shimmering finish of these eyeshadows. They really can look splendid as the light catches and plays with the dimension of the colors. ¬†They take some work, some practice, and aren’t flawless. I feel like they’re a quirky, finicky product that can work but it has to be worth the effort to the individual who uses them. ¬†If you intended to use them together, they’re hardest to use that way; if you just wanted to use them as a wash of color and don’t need 100% opaque color, they’re a lot easier. ¬†For example, if you wanted a beautiful wash of color, Pure Flash is magic. ¬†No creasing, some fading with the bolder/darker colors, not-so-blendable, and the colors can apply patchy at times (Love Power was the worst; it clung to itself like you wouldn’t believe and made my lid look so crepe-y).

* Any fall out you see in photos of single shades being tested was actually sparkle that didn’t get 100% removed when I removed the multi-shade tests (I would do one test for eight hours, and then I’d remove that and do a second test for eight hours).

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Tests

B-
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

Subscribe

Join our newsletter and never miss a post!