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.