Chanel Trait de Caractere Eyeshadow Palette Review, Photos, Swatches
Trait de Caractere
Chanel Trait de Caractere Eyeshadow Palette ($70.00 for 0.31 oz.) is a smoky, earthy set of shades housed in a black compact. I wanted to like it, as it was a more unusual set of shades for the holiday season, but the formula is just so powdery, prone to sheering out, and short-wearing that it left me incredibly disappointed. More often than not, Chanel’s 5-pan palettes are unimpressive, and it always makes me wonder why they didn’t just make a quad instead, where the formula is stronger.
Trait de Caractere #1
Trait de Caractere #1 is a soft, dirty beige with subtle, warm undertones and a pearly sheen. It had good pigmentation with a soft, blendable texture that was just a smidgen powdery in the pan. It applied evenly and lasted for six and a half hours on me.
Top Dupes
- Tarte Palatial (LE, ) is more shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- LORAC Light Pewter (PiP, $19.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- MAC Fabness (PiP, ) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Smashbox Rock Candy (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Tarte Slate Bells Ring (LE, ) is darker (85% similar).
- MAC French Clay (PiP, $17.00) is lighter, brighter (80% similar).
Trait de Caractere #2
Trait de Caractere #2 is a pale gold with warm, yellow undertones and a soft, pearl finish. It semi-opaque color payoff in a single layer but was moderately dusty and felt quite dry in the pan, so the eyeshadow sheered out too readily on the lid and looked like a sheer wash of shimmer with little color in practice. What little I could see seemed to last for five hours.
Top Dupes
- Lancome Filigree (PiP, $19.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Makeup Geek Bling (P, $6.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Bathwater (LE, $19.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Colour Pop Let Me Explain (P, $4.50) is more shimmery, brighter (95% similar).
- Tarte Party (LE, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Guerlain Ors et Merveilles #3 (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- Colour Pop High Tide (LE, $5.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Colour Pop Peekaboo (LE, $5.00) is cooler (90% similar).
- Laura Mercier Seashell (P, $28.00) is lighter, brighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Too Faced Gingerdoodle (LE, $16.00) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar).
Trait de Caractere #3
Trait de Caractere #3 is a dark, reddish brown with subtle, warm undertones and a semi-matte finish. It had semi-opaque pigmentation that did not build up well but actually seemed to diffuse and sheer out on the lid. The more I applied, the more product I had underneath my eye rather than on it, even when applied over an eye primer. The texture was drier, dusty, and wasn’t the easiest to blend out. It lasted for six hours on me.
Top Dupes
- Pat McGrath Deep Shade (PiP, $25.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Tarte Genie (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Dior Devilish #5 (LE, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Huda Beauty Smokey #8 (PiP, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Coloured Raine Torch (LE, $6.99) is darker (95% similar).
- Melt Cosmetics Moonchild (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Dior Shimmer Purple (PiP, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- bareMinerals Good Spirits (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Estee Lauder Strong Currant (P, $25.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Caravaggio (PiP, $8.00) is cooler (90% similar).
Trait de Caractere #4
Trait de Caractere #4 is a deep olive with subtle, warm undertones and a matte finish. The consistency was so powdery–there was so much product kicked up in the pan–and by the time I patted off the excess on my brush, there was only a sheer wash of color on the lid. It was impossible to keep it at even medium coverage as the product sheered out so much by gentle blending just around the edges. The eyeshadow wore well for six hours on me.
Top Dupes
- Giorgio Armani Incognito #2 (PiP, ) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M618 Espresso (DC, $21.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace General (P, $5.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- LORAC Dark Chocolate (LE, $19.00) is darker, warmer (85% similar).
- NARS Submissive (DC, $25.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Hourglass Obscura #2 (PiP, ) is warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Spoil Yourself (LE, ) is darker (80% similar).
- Sydney Grace Vanguard (P, $5.00) is lighter (80% similar).
Trait de Caractere #5
Trait de Caractere #5 is a deep green with subtle, warm undertones and a satin finish. It had sheer coverage, which did not build up at all and still looked like an atrocity over primer or a tacky base. The texture was loose, dry, and messy to work with as little sticks to the skin but plenty of it drops below the eyelid! What little transferred to the lid lasted for–at best–five hours.
Top Dupes
- Sleek MakeUP Tree of Life (PiP, $9.99) is brighter, more pigmented (90% similar).
- MAC Palm Leaves (LE, $17.00) is more pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
- Zoeva MT140 (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Trailhead (PiP, $5.00) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Kat Von D Moss (LE, ) is darker, more pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
- Too Faced Punk (PiP, $16.00) is darker, more pigmented, warmer (80% similar).
Well, I had skipped this in favor of the upcoming spring palette, but this review doesn’t give me hope that the spring formulation will be any better. 😕
Hi Cheyenne, russiabeautynews on IG has a swatch of some shades of Chanel’s SS18 palette. Look for a post with the palette and scroll right for the swatch.
Thank you! Those swatches definitely look more pigmented than this palette, so fingers crossed!
I love the colors, but an F!!! I like strong pigmentation, this is a definitely no-go for me.
This would have been the perfect palette for me. Just what I am looking for to fill in a few holes. But that will be a hard pass.
There’s bad, and then there’s atrociously BAD. This is no doubt the later. What the h3ll they do to that green???? 😱
I dunno, at this point at lot of the traditional HE labels just end up pissing me off most of the time.
Super disappointing! I honestly don’t know how these palettes get past the quality control stage. I’m also fine with a nontraditional palette. I’ll be picking up the red lipsticks and blush and the Signe de Lion highlighter in a wine compact when released.
I really want the SS18 multi-pan palette (early glimpses look more promising), so fingers crossed the qc is better.
Even before I looked down to your rating, Christine, I could tell this would be a stinker. And that green – what a badly executed shade! The whole thing made me think of Entre Lacs (last year or the year before) in the same sort of compact and also poorly rated (though I think it was better than this). $70 for this???? I wonder how Chanel can even have the nerve to release something like this.
I just don’t understand why they use such a powdery formula… like with these deeper shades, it’s hard for me to see it working that well since sheer, dark shades often look patchy/uneven 🙁
How on EARTH does this even happen?? I feel like I say that every time a high end or luxury brand puts out a complete dud. It’s almost like someone dared them to create something blindfolded and put it out to market without testing. And for $70? Wet and Wild does a better job than this for under $5.
Wow, that is terrible! Doesn’t Chanel do some sort of testing before they release new products? I feel bad for people who buy this palette.
Common Chanel, it’s beyond disappointing… I’m hoping that the upcoming SS18 Neapolis Collection will do better. I love Chanel with all my heart, it will remain my favorite fashion and beauty brand, but I’ve been wondering for some time if Lucia Pica, as GCD, is the right choice for them. Personally, I feel a disconnect between her vision and the brand. I’m all for shaking up the things and she is a very talented MUA, no question about it, but she’s not moving the things into the right direction. Tbh, it’s like you have Lancôme products in Chanel packaging (no disrespect towards Lancôme though). I know it’s not always easy to keep on with the tradition while innovating at the same time, but they did it in the past (I’m thinking of Coromandels de Chanel palette/collection from 2005; quality products, stunning packaging, bold colours, cohesive vision).
*Come on* and not Common the hip hop artist. Autocorrect disabled.
With all the experience Chanel has in making eyeshadows, and some good ones at that, this is extremely poor for their reputation, loyal customers and fans.
The shades would have been very pretty for autumn, but it is an easy pass.
Thank you for the review Christine, it has saved us all money.
Do these ever score well? If this had been a baked quad with the two greens, brown, and taupe, I woulda been in major trouble.
Yep, agree their 5 pan formulas are weak!
Ouch! Not good!!!
I love this! Another overpriced Chanel bites the dust!
Thank you do much for your honest review. I was going to buy it for the green, but I have never met a chanel 5 pan that I liked enough for the price. It is do disappointing that such a major player will put out such a dud.
Sigh… I love the colors in this palette, I think it could create a cool eye look. But, it reviewed poorly, going to go look at the dupes and see what I have in my collection.
This is a really pretty color palette, and I am very upset with my beloved Chanel letting me down like this. 🙁
I’m always so taken aback when I see F marks! Also, Trait de Caractere #4 is the ugliest shade I think I have ever seen. :-/
Good for you Christine for your honest review. When I saw this palette at the Chanel counter, I thought, what a boring and poor quality group of shadows. And I agree, Chanel seems to drop the ball when it comes to their 5 shadow palettes. The last time I purchased this configuration I ended up giving it away. Thanks again Christine and keep up the good work. Your honest reviews save us gals time and money.
Ugh, no. I wouldn’t even pay $7 for that let alone $70! What were they thinking?
The colors look so pretty in the pan! I’m disappointed they’re so bad, especially considering the price.