Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

Is This Packaging Worth an Extra $41?

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder ($65.00 for 0.51 oz.) is described as a “pinky beige with silver shimmer.” It’s a mix of soft pink and silver shimmer, though when applied to my cheek as a highlight, it read more like a delicate silver shimmer. It’s similar to products like Chanel Reverie. Lots of loose sparkle and shimmer, so depending on your threshold for sparkle, you may love or loathe this product. MAC recommends building it up gradually, and also notes that it is a multi-tasking product that can be worked into foundation, moisturizer, and so on.

Oh, and if you don’t care about the packaging? You can purchase it in a plastic jar any time of the year for a mere $24 (you get 0.42 oz., which is a little less).  The exterior of the bottom portion of the “jar” is made out of cardboard, while the lid is covered in faux shagreen and has a plastic metallic rose bow.  It also contains a soft, fluffy pouf, which is great if you plan to dust it onto your body, but for smaller areas, it’s not practical.  When MAC originally launched their couture collections, I was In. Love. Couture was back in ’06 I believe, and it culminated in me purchasing my first MAC brush (see it here).

There are always cheaper products that perform as well or better than products marked up five, ten, twenty times.  I absolutely will and have paid this price or more for a beauty product.  Like any brand name, I know that part of what I pay is for the name–especially with higher-end/luxury brands.  MAC has already told me that it’s powder is worth $24, so for this packaging upgrade, they’re adding $41 (and giving you an extra 0.09 oz. of product).  One of Guerlain’s bigger complaints in regards to their Meteorites was the use of cardboard (and a couple of years ago, they changed it to metal), though even Meteorites cost less and contain more (currently $58/1.05 oz.).  I like Silver Dusk as a loose, iridescent powder.  It’s a nice highlighter (though I like it better on cooler complexions), and it doesn’t emphasize pores.   It’s worth checking out at $24.

You don’t even have the ability to attempt to rationalize that the product is worth paying extra; you know, that the effect of it is just that much better and worth the steeper price tag compared to other iridescent powders, because you know you can get the exact same product for far less. Not a dupe, not close enough–exactly the same.  If MAC wants to show us that they can do couture, they need to do it, because this is not it.

The Glossover


Silver Dusk

If you're interested in this product, I highly recommend checking it out in its normal, permanent packaging for $24--rather than shelling out over double just for packaging, when it's cheap packaging at that.











Loading ... Loading ...
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder
MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder

Product & Review FAQ

Where can I purchase it? How much is it?

MAC, $65.

Is it limited edition?


Any dupes?

MAC Silver Dusk in regular packaging.

What makeup are you wearing?

On eyes: Lancome Petit Tresor Eyeshadow, Edward Bess Dusk Eyeshadow, Lancome Lumieres de Paris Les Paillettes, Burberry Trench Eyeshadow, bareMinerals 5AM Eyeliner, and bareMinerals Midnight Eyeliner. On cheeks: (your left) MAC Silver Dush Iridescent Powder, Kevyn Aucoin Natura, (your right) Chantecaille Rose Petals Highlighter Powder, Kevyn Aucoin Natura. On lips: MAC 3N Lipstick.

Discussion and debate are highly encouraged, and we expect community members to participate respectfully. When asking a question, please check the FAQ section (above) for information about purchasing, price, dupes, and the like. If you have general feedback or need technical support, please contact us.

Comments that include advertisements, self-promotion, insults, etc. may be in violation of our comment policy and subject to deletion. Please see our comment policy for more information.

35 thoughts on “MAC Silver Dusk Iridescent Powder Review, Photos, Swatches (Making Pretty)

  1. D

    Can we at least B2M this? ROFL

  2. Barbie

    no. just no

  3. blueraccoon

    The packaging is pretty enough. But if I’m going to spend $65 on a finishing powder I’ll spend it on Guerlain’s Meteorites. I don’t understand the reasoning here – the product’s available year-round for $24, so…some cheap packaging and it’s suddenly worth $65? Did anyone actually think that over before they decided to market it?

  4. Oooh this is pretty! But again, I think I will pass. I just don’t think I’d use it enough to pay that much for just pretty packaging. I WILL however, check out the regular $24 version. That is, if they have a warmer beige shade. Do you know if they do, Christine??

  5. Stacey

    Oh My!!!!! Something from MAC made in the USA…. pretty but will stick with the cheaper version.

  6. Veronica

    I really love the look of this highlighter, so I’m glad to know the product is permanent without the overpriced packaging! I’m kind of curious if you think it’s comparable to Guerlain’s Meteorites. For somebody who already owned a set of those, would you consider this an extraneous purchase?

    • Oh, no, they’re a completely different texture and look than Meteorites. This is like loose shimmer/sparkle and has a more metallic finish/look. Guerlain Meteorites are more finishing powder than overt highlighter, and the shimmer in a Meteorite is very, very fine.

      • Veronica

        Excellent, that’s kind of exactly what I wanted to hear. 😀 I’ve been looking for a powder-based silver highlighter for awhile, so I might have to grab the non-LE version of this when I get a chance. (So many MAC products I never knew would exist without your blog!)

        BTW, you look very lovely in these pictures! The gold eyeshadow just really makes your eyes pop.

  7. Kesha Cooper

    is ít as shimmer as MAC shimmer foundation/powder ? how long does it last? do u know where to buy plastic jar 24$

    • I don’t think I’m familiar with MAC Shimmer Foundation/Powder! You can purchase it at maccosmetics.com. I can’t magnifier finishing it, since there is so much of it and you’d use so little!

  8. CatherineM

    I really like the product itself, but THIS packaging is not worth what they charge extra for it. For $65 I would at least expect a metal tin, not cardboard. I might still check out the brushes from this collection, but all in all, if I want extravagant packaging I think I will stick with Guerlain and Burberry, who really know how to do it.

  9. Zainab

    I’m going to check out the regular version, because I dread to think how expensive the special edition version will be in Australia… I can understand a markup for the packaging, but this just seems crazy.

  10. good lawd that’s some sticker shock right there

  11. Mirian

    So disappointed about the cardboard

  12. That is one goooorgeous packaging. But no thanks on the price for a MAC product.

  13. Yellowlantern

    I really like the way this looks. I’m loving that this isn’t too gold toned. Would you say that this is more sparkly than Meteorites? It looks like it is in the swatch, but it can be hard to tell in photos especially with highlighters. Could this be used as setting powder, or do you think it’s too sparkly for that?

  14. cute if you are 13..ick.

  15. Anne

    I actually find the packaging terrible. It’s waaaay too sickly sweet for my taste. But it’s the price difference that is the most mind-boggling. How COULD they justify it? Mac is such a mystery to me.

  16. Doll

    The packaging is pretty! But I don’t need this in my life right now. I have this loose powder in Golden Bronze, and it is way too messy for me…

  17. See your photo’s before reading I could tell the lovely metallic finish on the jar is paper from the rim. >__< For $41 more it better be a metal packaging!

  18. I love this collection’s packaging so much. So. So. Much. It’s girly heaven and it would sit on my dresser forever.

    But if I want pretty, but flimsy packaging to make my dresser pretty, I’ll just go to any store with a home section… though they’d probably make less flimsy things!

    As for the product… I bet this will sell anyway, but I can’t imagine why I’d want to pay for this when I could get the normal packaging and dresser candy for way less!

  19. Jessica

    Way to expensive for cardboard!!! I’ll stick with the original packaging.

  20. Isabelle

    A special collection, regardless of the price, should be unique. I have never understood why some companies offer the same product with just a prettier “jar”. By the way, I don’t think this “jar” is worth $41, doesn’t seem too luxury for me.

  21. Monica!

    I wasn’t aware of this release, I got silver dusk about a month ago. Not that I would buy this version mind you, for me it just not worth the price increase. I just recently splurged in the dragon meteorites by guerlain, worth every penny!! and how cute and classy THAT packaging is??

  22. Kafka

    I’m utterly gobsmacked at the price differential for this packaging!!! I simply have no further words at all.

  23. Neta

    I love this packaging so much!! it would make me feel like I’m on Mad Men every time I’d put on my makeup lol this is one collection I wouldn’t mind splurging a little bit more for, the style is just up my alley- so retro!

  24. Mariana Azambuja

    I don’t know if it is worth an extra $41, maybe a little less, but it is SO cute!! Definitely something to keep in a place where I would look at everyday 😀

  25. Carolina

    Oh, snap! I love it when you go all editorial in your reviews. We just know that something must be wrong to tick you off. (also really great writing!)

  26. kendo

    The packaging for this collection is insulting. I can see where they were trying to go, all sixties mod… but it’s like they wanted to go to China, and they ended up in the cheap Chinese takeout place down the street. If they wanted to do high-end, they should have used proper metal instead of cardboard and plastic! Eww, eww, eww. Horrifying.

  27. Not very impressed by this MAC collection. I wish they can give me at least 1 reason other than just cheap and cute packaging to pay this crazy extra $ for this.

  28. Rae

    Cardboard? I am outraged. I was expecting a heavy metal. Now all I can think of when I removed the top is having to hold the bottom piece down because it’s too light. Looks like a pretty powder though.