MAC Glamourize Me Cream Colour Shadow Palette Review, Photos, Swatches
Glamourize Me
MAC Glamourize Me Cream Colour Shadow Palette ($40.00 for 0.21 oz.) features six Cream Colour Shadows. The formula is supposed to have “medium, buildable colour” that is long-wearing, water-resistant, and non-drying. They felt a lot like the Cream Colour Base formula to me: soft, very emollient, and almost “greasy” in a way. They go on thin and have a slight tackiness, and they are hard to build-up or use more than one or two shades at a time, as they look uneven and patchy with more than that. The wear ranged from a few hours to six hours, but a couple of shades creased soon after applying but did not worsen for a few hours later (think of it as “initial creasing” because they don’t really dry down). I think the formula is most suited used all over the lid as a wash or as a lightly tacky, wet base for powder eyeshadows.
Glamourize Me
LELimited Edition. $40.00.
Glowing
Glowing is a medium gold with warm, orange undertones and a pearly sheen. It had medium coverage, though it wasn’t buildable beyond semi-opaque intensity. The texture was thin, lightly tacky, and never fully dried down on the lid–it looked dewy at all times, which was quite pretty except for the immediate creasing that was apparent. There was some migration and movement within four hours of wear.
Top Dupes
- Viseart Rivoli (PiP, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- Dior Sundeck #2 (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Blunt (DC, $19.00) is brighter (90% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild Rose in the Air #4 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Ciate Vaycay (LE, ) is more shimmery, brighter (90% similar).
- NARS Rendezvous (DC, $25.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Jinxie (LE, $6.00) is brighter (90% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild My Glamour Squad #5 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild VI Purple #4 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- MAC Natural Vigor #1 (LE, $21.00) is lighter (85% similar).
Glowing
LELimited Edition.
Dynamic
Dynamic is a dark, coppery bronze with warm undertones and a pearly sheen. It had semi-opaque, buildable coverage with a dewy, thin, emollient consistency that blended out decently but was best applied with fingertips (brushes seemed to make it appear patchy). This shade had subtle creasing within five hours of wear.
Top Dupes
- Urban Decay Outlandish (LE, $19.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- KKW Beauty Blossom (PiP, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Dior Expose #5 (PiP, ) is cooler (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Violet Argente #3 (Eye Color) (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- ColourPop High Strung (PiP, $4.50) is cooler (95% similar).
- MAC Gravitational (LE, $22.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- Cle de Peau Grounded (Left) (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Smashbox Psyched (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Clarins The Essentials #9 (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- MAC Budding Passion (LE, $17.00) is darker (95% similar).
Dynamic
LELimited Edition.
Enigmatic
Enigmatic is a muted, medium-dark plum with subtle, warm undertones and a soft, pearl sheen. It had semi-sheer, buildable coverage (up to semi-opaque) with a lightly tacky, emollient consistency that was thinner. I found this one harder to use, as it always looked patchy and uneven, as if the deeper pigment in the base did not blend out well. It lasted for six hours before creasing on me.
Top Dupes
- MAC Shop Shop Shop (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- City Color U Jelly? (P, $6.99) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- MAC Serenade (LE, $17.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Too Faced Sprinkles (Holiday 2016) (LE, $16.00) is brighter (90% similar).
- L'Oreal Glistening Garnet (P, $7.99) is more shimmery, more pigmented, better quality (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Cat Fight (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- MAC Stylishly Merry (LE, $20.00) is more shimmery, more pigmented (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Role Model (P, $6.25) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
- Viseart Bijoux Royal #10 (LE, ) is darker (85% similar).
- MAC Abu (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
Enigmatic
LELimited Edition.
Alluring
Alluring is a dark purple with warmer undertones and a satin sheen. The consistency was thin but less tacky than the other shades, so it seemed to sit better on the skin initially, though I still had issues with the underlying pigmentation (the darker purple) looking patchy when blended–even as a sheer wash.
Top Dupes
- Urban Decay Psychedelic Sister (DC, $19.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Tarina Tarantino Poppycock (DC, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- Too Faced Provence (LE, $16.00) is cooler (90% similar).
- Chanel Douceur et Serenite #3 (LE, ) is more muted (90% similar).
- NARS Tropical Express #1 (PiP, $19.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- MAC Frizzyplum (LE, $17.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- City Color G*psy (P, $6.99) is warmer (90% similar).
- Sephora Amethyst (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Selena (LE, $17.00) is brighter (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Groovy Potential (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
Alluring
LELimited Edition.
Daring
Daring is a blackened navy blue with cool undertones and a satin finish. It had semi-sheer coverage that did not build up beyond that. The consistency was lightly tacky, emollient, and looked dewy on the skin. It was difficult to blend out this shade without the pigment looking patchy on my lid. The color started to crease after five hours of wear.
Top Dupes
- MAC Heavy, Black and Pendulous (LE, $17.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Chanel Apparition (LE, $32.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Cobalt Rush #2 (P, ) (95% similar).
- Jouer Midnight (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Dior Mellow Shade #5 (LE, ) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Sephora Coven (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Divergent Erudite Sapphire (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- Sephora So Demure (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- bareMinerals Nightfall (LE, ) is lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- MAC Panda Riot (LE, $17.00) is darker (90% similar).
Daring
LELimited Edition.
Rebellious
Rebellious is a dark brown with subtle, warm undertones and a satin shimmer. It had semi-sheer coverage that did not build or layer well for me, as the dewier, more emollient texture just seemed to make it slide around even more if I tried adding product. The color did not blend out evenly, and the color looked much like it did on my arm as it did on my eye–lined, a little patchy, and uneven. The eyeshadow creased within three and a half hours of wear.
Top Dupes
- Tarte Sinful (LE, $14.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Warm (Winter 2016) Eyeshadow #4 (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Too Faced Going Nuts (LE, $16.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Guerlain Tonka Imperiale #4 (DC, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- NARS Galapagos (DC, $25.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- The Estee Edit Burn (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- ColourPop Ruca (PiP, $4.50) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Factory (PiP, $19.00) is more shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
- Dior Shimmer Purple (PiP, ) is brighter (90% similar).
- Dior Exuberante #5 (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
This was so promising! MAC cream colour base tend to slide around on my oily face. But I was still willing to bite the bullet coz these shades were gorgeous together! What a bummer!
These feel SO much like CCBs to me!
I might be totally misinformed, but I have always been under the impression that these cream palettes that Mac launches every season in fact are made in the cream colour base formula?
The back of the palette listed these as “Cream Colour Shadow,” which is different from “Cream Colour Base” — as far as I know MAC will use the “Cream Colour Base” notation when that’s what it is, e.g. the Full Face Kits state that they contain “two Cream Colour Bases.” The ingredient lists for this collection’s Full Face Kits “Cream Colour Base” has similar ingredients to the “Cream Colour Shadow” but not in the same order. They definitely feel similar, but MAC has made sure to label them differently.
Thank You Christine for pointing out that distinction! Could it be that the difference in labelling has something to do with that the regular cream colour bases sometimes due to choice of pigment are not recommended to use on the eyes and that they with these palettes want to make it clear these are colours meant for the eyes? I am just guessing here…
I agree with the critique that these palettes don’t work very well for all day use and that the longevity is short lived… Like the CCBases their first trait are their malleability which is great when you are working artistically to create a look. They can however work if you layer them on a strong primer like the stay don’t stray one from Benefit and powder products on top to draw the moisture from the colours or if you can get on with the lived in kind of vibe that allows your look to have some creasing and messiness…
I do agree however that previous versions of these palettes have been more pigmented than these seem… stunning colours though!!
Definitely possible, Scout! I was thinking that perhaps these were tested and only for eyes, though some of the shades seem like they would be totally fine all over (the lighter ones).
It is confusing, though, since the formula feels SO like the CCBs!
oh boy. well you just put $40 in my pocket! I usually love these palettes but this one looks dismal!
Well, there ya go! Silver lining 🙂
Totally agree. I was disappointed in this palette. I had hoped the cream shades would be true creams as well as being opaque. As you said, they are neither. I did find a way they do work though – as a base for metallic/glitter shadows. The shades work well to contrast or compliment other powder or loose shadows. Still, sad face 🙁
Yeah, their only real use is as a base! 🙁
Yikes those swatches! You’d expect to see a better colour payoff with a brand like MAC!
They are supposed to be medium coverage, but they are also supposed to be buildable!
How does this get out of the testing phase? Did it even get tested? The colors looked so pretty in the pan.
It feels very much like a pro/artistry product, since it needs a lot of manipulation and probably won’t have the greatest wear time (so best for shoots and events).
That makes some more sense. The error, then, is probably in claiming it’s a “long-wearing” product, which creates unrealistic expectations for it’s performance.
Definitely – it doesn’t live up to the claims (buildable coverage/long-wearing), but I could see an artist liking this for certain looks.
The only use I can imagine for these is as a base for powder shadows, but I’d still worry that they would crease, at least on my lids!
They still might even with powder if you are oilier 🙁
I thought it curious when I realized these were CCB formula, since even by MAC’s categorization CCB is primarily a cheek product. I don’t see the average, non-MUA person liking CCB for eyes. They won’t set, they will crease. That kind of slap-dash, worn in makeup look isn’t so much the style these days; most people want products that last 12+ hours looking pristine. It could be fun to play with, though, since the formula stays so malleable.
Ack, I forgot to update the title – they’re actually just “Cream Colour Shadow.” I thought they were CCBs initially until I went and read the back of the palette again.
They seem like CCB though! Pigmentation is still puzzling.
I have a couple MAC Cream Colour Bases, I can’t use on my oily lids, but I like to use them as a base on my cheeks, to make powder blushes last longer. I was really hoping there would be blush dupes for the 2 purple cream bases, but nope, as I can’t use the other 4 colors. Maybe if this kit was drastically marked down on sale, I will consider it, and based on poor reviews, that might happen
They feel a lot like CCBs to me, though they aren’t labeled as such here!
Geesh!!! This is super BAAAD. Two thumbs down on this one, MAC. ?
I wanted it to be better!
So glad I skipped this. I had a feeling the formula was not going to transfer to successful eye use at all. Pretty much what I was expecting but still such a bummer. Wish they just did more Eye Paints instead with this collection too 😛
More Eye Paints would have been fun! I’m guessing you are enjoying those then? 😉
Hehehe yes! 😉 The blue especially is serious business. I love that the deep blue kajal and eye paints are so well-done.
Well this is disappointing. ?
Thanks for saving me money.
No problem, Brenda!
Thank you for the review Christine! Money saved for me. MAC should focus more on quality instead of releasing two collections per month. Also, MUA like the ones that collaborated for this collection should think twice before putting their names next to such disappointing products.
I was surprised this wasn’t just marketed more as a pro product – maybe explaining how it’s functional or useful in an artist’s kit (since they collaborated with artists) vs. making them seem like regular cream eyeshadows (long-wearing, for example).
What were they thinking? It looks like a really dismal cream shadow formula… Too bad because the colors were very pretty.
It’s just sooo emollient 🙁
Another epic MAC fail! Why do they bother?
The formula doesn’t have any of the hallmarks of a long-wearing formula, so I was surprised by that claim!
Wow! I saw those marks and my eyes went wide! Such potential, too.
I agree!
I thought this looked unique and promising, and was planning to pick this up – thank you for your honesty!
No problem, Adele!
I really like the colours in this palette but the swatches and performance are so disappointing! Luckily I have dupes for nearly all of them.
I wish it performed better and was easier to use!
This was like an arrow to my heart MAC! I love Casual Colors and am just dipping my stipple (that sounds so dirty lol) brush in the CCB’s. When I saw the photo of the vibrant jewel shades and rich earth tones I got so excited!! Then came the review and the dismaying swatches. Some of these wouldn’t even be good bases they’re so sheer and patchy. Wouldn’t that make your powders on top look uneven? They need to step it up because I bought one of the new Revlon Colorstay Cream shadows on a whim and it was really good. I NEVER thought I’d see the day Revlon would outperform MAC! 1990’s college Bonnie would smack the crap out of anyone who uttered such blasphemy against MAC. It’s like the world is upside down. ? ?
Aww, darn! 🙁
The wetness of the eyeshadow lets you pack on a lot of powder, so your powders can be quite pigmented and smooth, actually! 🙂
I didn’t think of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for giving me a very good reason to revisit my decision to pass. It’s so pretty!
So far, this whole collection has been dissapointing, save for the lipsticks, and this is no exception – and MAC is my HG brand. Money saved for Tom Ford, I guess.
I have a review for the Kajals going up today, and those are good!
Too bad, I would have loved for them to be more opaque. Well, at least they are great if you are just easing your way into bold colors.
Me too! I wish they were more buildable.
Noooooooo whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy…
Aw!
I would use Glowing for just as you said, a base for color, but wow, how disappointing it scored so low. I’m usually pretty weary of cream eye shadows because they are so hard to use. But hey, at least they look pretty in the pan, lol!
I love cream eyeshadows… when they’re done right – e.g. pretty pigmented and long-wearing. I think sheer works for colors that are more similar to one’s skin tone (so golds/beiges/coppers for me), but darker colors like a deep blue can be unforgiving when sheer (patchy, uneven).
I have a question. Why is L’Oreal Glistening Garnet described as “lower quality” as a dupe for Enigmatic? It got an A in your review of it.
That’s weird, it shouldn’t be. I’ll have to look into that. I’m sure it’s something I did stupidly.
This was the product I was most looking forward to out of the collections and im left quite disappointed.
Oh no! 🙁
I saw the palette and thought it looked nice! Too bad the quality wasn’t there.