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

Video Review: MAC Semi-Precious

Video Review:  MAC Semi-Precious

This review focuses on the mineralize skinfinishes, blushes, and eyeshadows.  I do briefly speak on the lipsticks and Cremesheen Glasses, but I think those products are familiar enough that less time needed to be spent reviewing them in this particular video.  I also figured that the products viewers would be most interested in would be the mineralize ones! 🙂  I reviewed the brushes in a separate video (which I posted yesterday!).

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

Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow

Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow

Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow

Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow ($17.00 for 0.05 oz.) is described as a “bright gold with gold sparkles.” It’s a yellow gold with a lightness that seems to tone down some of the brightness. It has gold micro-glitter strewn through the golden base color, which does have a tendency to cause fall out when used without a really tacky base. I had trouble getting an opaque, even layer of product, though–the pigmentation is lacking, and the texture is too dry, which seems to be the cause of uneven application.  On the lid, you really have to pack it on just to get decent color payoff.

It’s a disappointment, because El Dorado 24/7 Liner is a gorgeous true yellow gold, but this is a very faded variation of that. Inglot #403 is a much more intense version of what this looks like in the pan, while Make Up For Ever #10 is a little darker. I find that MAC Goldmine is significantly darker and almost looks orange.

Urban Decay Eldorado Eyeshadow

-

Do you have a question idea? Submit yours here.

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

NARS Orgasm Blush

NARS Orgasm Highlighting Blush
NARS Orgasm Blush

NARS Orgasm Blush

NARS Orgasm Blush ($27.00 for 0.16 oz.) is described as a “peachy pink with shimmer.” This is a cult product–and NARS knows it–that has been replicated across their product range (e.g. Orgasm lipgloss, nail polish, etc.) and by other brands. It seems like nearly every brand has a shade that is similar to Orgasm (just check out the dupes for it on The Dupe List.

I’ve always found Orgasm to be more pink than peach. It’s more of a light-medium, strawberry-pink color base with peach-gold shimmer and sheen. It applies softly, as the shade itself is not particularly intense. The color payoff is decent but there seems to be some inherent sheerness in the product itself. It’s interesting, because on NARS’ website, they describe their blush as “provi[ding] a sheer, natural hint of color” but many of NARS’ blushes are well-known for their intensities.

I think the color is what drives this product’s popularity; it’s a warmer pink with that golden sheen that gives a hint of color, warmth, and a subtle glow. It has a soft, smooth texture with only the tiniest bit of powderiness, which I expect is more because some of the shimmer seems to pull away from the color (but the shimmer is rather fine, so it doesn’t look or feel chunky).  I get about eight hours of wear with NARS’ blushes, while a softer color like Orgasm wears seven to eight hours (which is around average).

From products I’ve reviewed, shades like Guerlain Blush G (similarity depends on how much of each of the shades you use), Rock & Republic Call Me (less pink, more orange), Lancome Mandarin Sky (less pink, more orange), Smashbox Paradise (less pink, sheerer), Benefit Sugarbomb (more peach, lighter), MAC Springsheen (more shimmer), Benefit CORALista (less peach), and Le Metier de Beaute Echo (more orange) all show some resemblance to Orgasm. Of all of those possibilities, I find MAC Springsheen to be most similar.

NARS Orgasm Blush

-

MAC Semi-Precious Brushes: 128, 179, 234, 235 Review

MAC Semi-Precious Brushes: 128, 179, 234, 235 Review

Above is a video review and comparison of the upcoming Semi-Precious brushes. I thought that a video would better illustrate size and how they stack up (both in size and shape) to existing brushes.

My overall take on these brushes is that they’re nice but unnecessary. The split effect is unusual but doesn’t seem to be all that useful. I don’t think that these were meant to be gimmicky, but after using them, that’s how the split fibre technique seems.   If you’re expecting one of these brushes to revolutionize your makeup routine, you may be disappointed.  If you’re looking for a particular size/shape and one of these matches that, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.  You won’t enjoy much of the split effect if you tend to use the point or edge of your brush, rather than the side.

They feel well-constructed from me, but I can’t vouch for longevity, given I have only had these for a few days.  The ferrules seem sturdy and tight around the bristles.  I had some bristles splayed around the edges of the 179, but the other three brushes were fine.  I did not experience any bleeding dye or post-wash smells.  All four brushes felt exceptionally soft, and none of them felt scratchy during application.  On the handles, all four have “China” imprinted, compared to Japan or France for many (if not all) of the permanent brushes.

I see the 234 being the most popular of the bunch, just because it shares a lot of similarities with the 217, which is one of the more popular brushes.  The 128 is a good size to add to one’s stash of cheek brushes, but it doesn’t replace anything I already have (and I don’t see myself reaching for it).   I am curious to see if that will cause each side to separate a little over time.  Right now, the split is really seamless.

These seem more like specialty brushes, which mean that they function but for particular purposes.  I see them less as becoming a new staple brush in your collection as something you buy with an exact purpose in mind.  MAC has other brushes with well-defined purposes in their permanent line-up, so I would think of these in a similar way.   One doesn’t need every brush MAC makes, but you might find a certain brush more useful than another based on what your needs are.

  • 128 Split Fibre Cheek Brush is a nice brush for smaller cheeks, though it feels a little too dense to apply blush as well as I like the application from the 116. It is very similar in size to the 109 and even to an extent, the shape, but obviously flattened. It’s a densely-packed brush.
  • 179 Angled Split Fibre Buffer Brush is incredibly soft and moves well across the skin. It also feels huge when I use it. I’m not sure just how much utility there is here, compared to a normal buffing brush. I did notice more-than-expected splaying of bristles around the edges after two washes.
  • 234 Split Fibre Eye Blending Brush seems to be the most useful of the four brushes. I could see using both sides separately but with the same color–say picking up the product with the natural side and then blending with the synthetic side. It is reminiscent of the 217 but not quite as fluffy or as rounded.
  • 235 Split Fibre All Over Eye Brush is like the 214 and 239 had an over-sized baby. Personally, I find the brush too big to be of much use for my eye area. I wouldn’t say I have particularly small eyes (I wouldn’t say I have large ones, either!). It could work well for applying a wash of a single color; perhaps laying down a cream eyeshadow with one side and blending the edges with the other.

To view still photos of these brushes, please see this post.

On Instagram