NARS Charade Duo Eyeshadow Review & Swatches
Charade
NARS Charade Duo Eyeshadow (2018) ($35.00 for 0.08 oz.) consists of a warm mauve and a subtle, warm-toned lavender. It could have been a real workhorse of a duo for the right person’s preferences, but the quality was a miss–they both were drier, dustier eyeshadows that did not sit as well on skin and did not vastly improve over primer.
Look Using this Product
Charade
PPermanent. $35.00.
Charade I
Charade I is a soft, light mauve with strong, warm undertones and a semi-matte finish. It had semi-opaque pigmentation but was drier and dustier, which resulted in a more powdery appearance on my skin–it did not blend as well with other shades either. Unlike a lot of the other shades in the formula that looked seamless and almost “melted” on my skin, this made my lid space look drier. It sheered out to medium coverage without a primer. It lasted for seven hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Smashbox Totally Nude (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (95% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild Silent Treatment #1 (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (95% similar).
- MAC Malt (P, $17.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Becca Cordial (LE, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Becca Ombre Rouge #2 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Laura Mercier Cashmere (PiP, $23.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- LORAC Unconditional (PiP, $19.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Nine Lives (LE, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Teeny Bikini (LE, $4.50) is darker (90% similar).
- LORAC Tan (LE, $19.00) is darker, cooler (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$19.00/0.04 oz. - $475.00 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have "rich, high-impact color" that is "lightweight" and has "increased blendability." Like most larger ranges, there are winners and losers, and some of how they perform can be related to the type of finish. The mattes are soft, slightly dusty in the pans (or not at all) with medium to opaque, often buildable, color coverage. The satin and metallics tend to be smoother, more blendable, and more pigmented with less effort; NARS does the these lower shimmer finishes particularly well, which just looks "melted" on the skin as they lay down so smoothly and have a great shine.
Most shades applied better on my lid than swatched on my arm, which has been something seen across NARS' eyeshadows for years and didn't change with the recent update to their powder eyeshadow formula. On average, they lasted between seven and nine hours on me without primer. They did apply well over primer and stayed on well for 14 hours with minimal fading.
Worth noting: the updated formula and packaging resulted in a product decrease from 0.07 oz. per pan to 0.04 oz. The single eyeshadows received a more noticeable price drop (from $24 to $19) but the duo eyeshadows could be priced better (from $36 to $35).
Browse all of our NARS Eyeshadow (2018) swatches.
Look Using this Product
Charade I
PiPPermanent in Palette. $19.00.
Charade II
Charade II is a medium-dark lavender with subtle, warm undertones and a matte finish. It had semi-sheer color payoff that was buildable to medium coverage over bare skin and semi-opaque coverage over an eyeshadow primer. It blended out decently but had some fallout as the consistency was drier, somewhat powdery, and prone to sheering out on my lid. This shade stayed on well for seven hours before fading noticeably.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Violet Hour (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Laura Mercier Wind (LE, $22.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- ColourPop Fairykin (LE, $4.50) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- MAC Freakshow (LE, $17.00) is lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- Surratt Beauty Glamour Eyes (Cream) (PiP, ) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- KVD Beauty Venom (LE, ) is darker (85% similar).
- NARS Pulp Fiction #3 (PiP, $19.00) is lighter (80% similar).
- MAC Jam Session (LE, $17.00) is more shimmery (80% similar).
- Lancome Rich History (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, cooler (80% similar).
- Viseart Tiramisu (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (80% similar).
Formula Overview
$19.00/0.04 oz. - $475.00 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have "rich, high-impact color" that is "lightweight" and has "increased blendability." Like most larger ranges, there are winners and losers, and some of how they perform can be related to the type of finish. The mattes are soft, slightly dusty in the pans (or not at all) with medium to opaque, often buildable, color coverage. The satin and metallics tend to be smoother, more blendable, and more pigmented with less effort; NARS does the these lower shimmer finishes particularly well, which just looks "melted" on the skin as they lay down so smoothly and have a great shine.
Most shades applied better on my lid than swatched on my arm, which has been something seen across NARS' eyeshadows for years and didn't change with the recent update to their powder eyeshadow formula. On average, they lasted between seven and nine hours on me without primer. They did apply well over primer and stayed on well for 14 hours with minimal fading.
Worth noting: the updated formula and packaging resulted in a product decrease from 0.07 oz. per pan to 0.04 oz. The single eyeshadows received a more noticeable price drop (from $24 to $19) but the duo eyeshadows could be priced better (from $36 to $35).
Browse all of our NARS Eyeshadow (2018) swatches.
What a shame about the grade. The colors are quite pretty. Money saved for a lot of us.
What a shame. These are such perfect shades for me, but they performed so badly. At least I’m not tempted!
Just want to add that despite the disappointing performance of these shadows, you look gorgeous in the photo!
Awww, too bad. I like the colors, and these would have been good crease shades.
I passed on this duo the first time around as I didn’t like the colours or the way it applied. It seems, at least so far, that NARS didn’t really change the formulation of these shadows much and most of the time, that’s a good thing (at least we seem to know where we stand).
An unfortunate cool-toned disappointment. I’m sure there were quite few people hanging some hopes on these.
This is a real miss and unlike yesterday’s duos, which were lovely, you just can’t tell with Nars’s eyeshadows. This is why we all rely on you Christine – you take the guesswork out of the eyeshadow equations. Thank you so much.
The originals, at least in whatever artist palette weren’t any better, and got little use. You have piqued my interest about some of the oldies, though.
Can someone tell me if NARS reformulated their shadows or did they just update the packaging? I haven’t been keeping up too much on this brand!
Both.
I’m surprised at how poorly these performed, because I really love the soft mauve look you did using the duo in it. However, the formula itself sounds pretty bad and not very easy to get to show up well. I would have liked them for transition shades if they had been better.
Sad these didn’t perform very well, as they’re really lovely shades. But, I think I have very similar shades in my Lorac Pro Palette 4, so I’m not too disappointed!
This is unfortunate! These colors are definitely workhorse shades for me, but they are also not undupable.
I do like a few of the other duos you’ve reviewed so far and am glad to see my old favorites score well (no freaking out to buy backups of the old formula!). Waiting for the full roundup to decide which ones I might want add to my collection.
Also – thanks so much for your hard work Christine, this launch is a LOT of shadows! But I’m loving how you’re being both efficient and creative in putting looks together, really love all the ones you’ve shown so far! ♥
My pleasure, Mimi! 🙂
Wow, and every dupe for these is terrible, too. The pigments must be weird.
I started looking and saw the across the board poor scores on the dupes too! Is there just something difficult about these particular mauve and lavender shades? One has to wonder! ?