Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Eyeshadow Quad Review, Photos, Swatches
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad ($61.00 for 0.04 oz.) is a new palette that was released with the spring collection. It wasn’t originally available when I purchased pieces to review from the launch, but I saw it a couple of weeks ago when they released Les Sautoirs de Coco. It’s a fairly brighter, more colorful set of hues for Chanel, and if you tend to like your colors really bold and rich, I would look elsewhere. I have had better luck with the newer Chanel quads, but this was a miss for me, and it seemed to wear and crease faster than usual, too, which was unexpected.
Tisse Beverly Hills #1 is a light-medium, pinky lavender with subtle, cool undertones and a pearly sheen. It had semi-sheer color payoff with a lightly dusty consistency that didn’t do so well on bare skin. This one needs a really good, more opaque/light-toned base to pop. On me, it creased after six hours. MAC Ghost Story (LE, $17.00) is lighter (95% similar). KVD Beauty Astrological (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar). MAC Triple Impact (LE, $20.00) is less shimmery (95% similar). MAC Crystal (DC, $17.00) is lighter, more muted, cooler (90% similar). ColourPop Steele (LE, $6.00) is lighter (90% similar). Stila Frosted Lavender (LE, $18.00) is darker, more muted (90% similar). Fyrinnae Unicorn (P, $7.00) is lighter (90% similar). KVD Beauty Amethyst (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar). NARS Pulp Fiction #4 (PiP, $19.00) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar). Make Up For Ever 5 Frozen Purple (P, $21.00) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar). Inglot #440 (P, $7.00) is darker (90% similar). Sephora Magnolia Garden (341) (P, $9.00) is warmer (90% similar). ColourPop Eye Candy (P, $6.00) is warmer (90% similar). Coloured Raine Chameleon (DC, $6.99) is lighter (90% similar). Make Up For Ever D914 Crystalline Mauve (DC, $21.00) is lighter (85% similar). LORAC Smoothie (LE, $19.00) is darker, warmer (85% similar). Tarina Tarantino Diamond Dusk #1 (DC, ) is cooler (85% similar). Buxom La-La-Lavish (P, $12.00) is darker (85% similar). Urban Decay Aura #2 (LE, $19.00) is lighter (85% similar). See comparison swatches / view dupes side-by-side.
Tisse Beverly Hills #2 is a muted, light beige with neutral-to-cool undertones and a soft, frosted finish. The eyeshadow had good color payoff, but it was rather powdery and prone to falling out during application. The color wore well for seven hours before fading. NARS Give In Take I (LE, $29.00) is lighter (90% similar). LORAC Sugar (LE, $19.00) is lighter (90% similar). bareMinerals Air (PiP, ) is warmer (85% similar). Charlotte Tilbury The Rock Chick #1 (PiP, ) is darker, warmer (85% similar). Chanel Poesie #2 (LE, ) is lighter (85% similar). Inglot #395 (P, $7.00) is more shimmery, lighter (85% similar). NARS Abyssinia (DC, $25.00) is lighter (85% similar). Smashbox Flirt (PiP, ) is warmer (85% similar). Buxom Satin Seduction (P, $12.00) is lighter (80% similar). MAC Fashion Beat (LE, $17.00) is darker, warmer (80% similar). See comparison swatches / view dupes side-by-side.
Tisse Beverly Hills #3 is a slightly muted, medium-dark blue with lightly cool undertones paired with a satin sheen. It is a “warmer” blue, but it isn’t so warm that it becomes teal. It had semi-opaque coverage with a lightly dusty texture. This shade seemed to fade almost instantly after applying it; I could never mimic the rich blue color for long, as it would fade to a duller, bluish-green on me. It started to fade after six hours. KVD Beauty Bukowski (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar). Natasha Denona Petroleum Blue (92M) (PiP, $29.00) is more shimmery (90% similar). MAC Denim Genes (PiP, ) is less shimmery, brighter, cooler (90% similar). MAC Blue Mesa (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar). Makeup Geek Poolside (DC, $6.00) is lighter, brighter (85% similar). Urban Decay Peace (DC, $19.00) is lighter, brighter (85% similar). Tom Ford Beauty TFX8 (LE, $36.00) is more shimmery, cooler (85% similar). ColourPop Coconut (LE, $6.00) is darker, warmer (80% similar). See comparison swatches / view dupes side-by-side.
Tisse Beverly Hills #4 is a blackened purple with a fine dusting of silver micro-shimmer over a mostly matte base. It was incredibly powdery and dry, which made it prone to sheering out and difficult to build-up in color. The texture made it messy to use, and it looked patchy on my skin when I tried to blend and diffuse it into the crease. On me, it had noticeably gathered into the crease after six hours of wear. Too Faced Huckleberry (LE, $16.00) is more shimmery, warmer (95% similar). MAC Video Emotions (LE, $17.00) is lighter (95% similar). Tarte Play Nice (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar). Chanel Oiseaux de Nuit #3 (LE, ) is warmer (95% similar). LORAC Boots (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, darker (95% similar). Dior Eclectic #5 (LE, ) is lighter, warmer (90% similar). Too Faced Jungle Love (LE, $16.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar). bareMinerals Center Stage (PiP, ) is lighter (90% similar). MAC Shadowy Lady (LE, $17.00) is brighter (90% similar). Tarte Glamorous (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar). ColourPop Chopper (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar). MAC Pinkluxe #5 (PiP, ) is more shimmery (90% similar). Dior Tutu #5 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar). Pat McGrath Xtreme Aubergine (PiP, $25.00) is less shimmery, warmer (85% similar). ColourPop Straight Trippin' (LE, $6.00) is warmer (85% similar). MAC It's Vintage (P, $20.00) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar). Tom Ford Beauty Violet Satine #4 (LE, ) is lighter, warmer (80% similar). ColourPop Hard to Crack (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (80% similar). NARS Arabian Nights #1 (DC, $25.00) is more shimmery (90% similar). See comparison swatches / view dupes side-by-side.
Tisse Beverly Hills (262)
PPermanent. $70.00.
Tisse Beverly Hills #1
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Tisse Beverly Hills #2
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Tisse Beverly Hills #3
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Tisse Beverly Hills #4
PiPPermanent in Palette.
See more photos & swatches!
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #1 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #1 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #2 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #2 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #3 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #3 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #4 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills #4 Eyeshadow
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Tisse Beverly Hills (262) Les 4 Ombres Eyeshadow Quad
I swatched this in store -was NOT impressed. Even the SA looked a little embarrassed. The Sautoirs de Coco quad was even worse, 4 of the pastel shades were so sheer they would all look the same on my light/light medium skin. I think Dior and Chanel are competing to see who can do the sheerest shadows for spring. I was SO disappointed, as I have Chanel Tisse Smokey and D’Automnes, and I know Chanel can do better than this
They were doing so well, but the last two releases have been duds 🙁
I love the colors and the fact that they lean cooler but I swore off Chanel years ago after one too many expensive disappointments.
The original release of the new(er) quads was pretty good – like Tisse Rivoli – but the seasonal LE/additions have been more hit or miss.
$61 for an eye shadow quad that has low end, drugstore quality AND the name Chanel attached to it? Disgraceful!
It’s a total pass from me!
I live in LA. This is not reminiscent of Beverly Hills at all. :p Surprised how poorly it performs though.
LOL! What four colors would you have chosen instead, Rachael?
Could channel the glitz and glam of Rodeo drive and do glittery golds and bronzes, or take inspiration from the palm trees – glittery gold, dark taupe, mint green and forest green. I think they make more sense. You live in LA, you know what I’m talking about! 🙂
I had high hopes for this as I want a good 80s-style palette. I was at Von Maur when I swatched it, and it was very chalky and the blue was HORRID. Urban Decay has better blues than that one!
Glad I’m not alone!!
This could have been such a pretty quad.
heartbreaking! such a beautiful quad, but poor quality!
I agree! 🙁
I can’t believe Chanel let’s sort of quality out! They can do so much better!
Right? We KNOW they can!!
Oh dear, that purple is very poor. Wake up, Chanel and Dior! People pay good money for quality, not this powdery rubbish!
I agree! Too hefty of a price for such problems.
On top of everything else, this just looks like a really strange colour combination. I sort of wonder if they’re trying to make a subtle statement about Beverly Hills in general!
I think if the purple shade ran a little cooler, it might be easier to put together – the purple is almost so dark that it can act as a black eyeshadow in a way, but with the varying degrees of payoff, I don’t think they end up working well together!
Yikes, such a disappointment, considering the stellar releases with this formula in the last year. Would you be able to get some use out of it by using them wet? (Not that you should have to at this price!)
Damp brush would help for sure, but the application issues of the blue/purple shade aren’t fully resolved (they can still be harder to blend)!
Damn!!!!!!!!! I wanted this and now I don’t!
lol! Like when I swatched it, I went from “Oooh” to “Nooo!”
That’s exactly what I was thinking. I feel like I just dodged a bullet. How could they stand to put something so underwhelming out like it was really worth the money when they knew better? Like wow Chanel.
To be honest, when I first saw this online, I thought it looked cheap and nasty. The colour combinations were weird – that bright blue with dark brown and pink? OK in a large palette, but in a quad, where the colours are meant to co-ordinate with each other – what was Chanel thinking? And somehow the colours did not come across as being pigmented either…
So I am not surprised at all with your review Christine – but I am with Chanel. Tisse D’Automnes was much better than this.
Tisse d’Automnes is definitely one of their better quads! Certainly far better than this one!
Ahhh – Tisse d’Automne is divinely wonderful and proof (as are several of the other revamped “Tisse” quads) that Chanel really can do so much better than this.
Oh hey look it’s a cool-toned palette that performs poorly! (Sigh :/). Well, at least it seems like cooler colors are starting to make a comeback, so progress, I guess?
lol, aww, Julie! 🙁 I’m laughing, but it’s mostly one of those half-laughs, half-sobs. It’s pretty miraculous that not a single mainstream brand has really done a cool-toned palette justice.
Surely they can do far better than this. It’s just rude.
I agree! Or don’t bother 🙁
I was expecting more at this price point. 🙁
I would, too! I think this would be hard to justify unless you had a very specific desire for the faded quality of the end result + used primer.
The colors are pretty and I would have bought it but it has so many bad reviews. I’m so happy to see these light, bright colors for spring- smokey is lovely for fall/winter but it’s overkill when it’s hot & humid out. Your eye look is beautiful Christine- perfect with your eye color!
It’s good to know I’m not alone! I was kind of excited for a burst of color, but it was such a let-down.
I really liked the colors in this palette. Too bad the performance was horrid! 🙁
It was SO frustrating to work with! 🙁
Yeowch!!! D+ tells me that this quad is outright terrible! Thank goodness for having similar enough shades that IF I wanted to wear purple with bright aqua blue, I could. Typically, I’ve done something a bit similar: purples with a mint or sage-y green. But this combo looks good with your eye color, probably blue or brown eyes, too. What a shame, this could have been a nifty quad.
The idea of this palette and the looks I immediately dreamed up was nice. Pity it didn’t live up to expectations. A big step back to what I think chanel eyeshadows used to be. (Not good.)
That blue looked so promising… this is a disaster, basically. What a shame.
I passed on this one, too. And I had such high hopes for it, as the colours are so pretty (especially that blue *swoon*). Kudos to you though, Christine; you managed to do a gorgeous look with this one. WOWZA 😉
Awww, that’s very underwhelming… Bummer, because the shades looked so fun.
Bummer! The colors are pretty — too bad it underperforms so miserably!