MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo Review, Photos, Swatches
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo ($22.00 for 0.06 oz.) is described as a “shimmery lavender.” Here’s the last duo in the collection that I have, and it is one of the least impressive due to the second shade being a really sparkly, sheer, fall-out prone mess to apply to the lid. I would highly recommend using a slightly tacky, white base to improve the consistency, wear, and payoff.
Leap #1 is a pinky mauve with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. It had sheer pigmentation applied dry, which was more opaque when applied with a dampened brush. The texture was fairly smooth, and the color lasted well for seven and a half hours before fading. NARS Dolomites (Left) (LE, $24.00) is warmer, darker. Sleek MakeUP Eve’s Kiss (P, $9.99) is darker. MAC A Party of Pastels #4 (P, $21.00) is darker. MAC Neo Nebula (LE, $21.00) is darker. MAC Daylight (LE, $21.00) is darker. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
Leap #2 is a glittery purple over a blackened burgundy base, but it is primarily made up of glitter. It had a rougher, sparkly consistency that felt dry and was difficult to apply to the skin, as so little of it wanted to adhere. What little I managed to get onto the eyelid, didn’t stick around for longer than six hours. Ardency Inn Disco (P, $21.00) is darker. MAC Plumluxe #3 (P) is cooler-toned, brighter. NARS Jardin Perdu (Right) (LE, $24.00) is brighter. MAC Fathoms Deep (LE, $19.50) is darker. MAC Pearled Earth (P, $15.00) is less sparkly. Too Faced Candied Violet (P, $16.00) is less sparkly. Urban Decay Rapture (LE, $18.00) is similar. MAC Winterized (LE, $21.00) is less sparkly. See comparison swatches/ view dupes.
Leap
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
Leap #1
LELimited Edition. $21.00.
leap #2
LELimited Edition. $21.00.
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Leap Mineralize Eyeshadow Duo
MAC Natural Vigor #2 (inner lid), MAC Force of Nature #1 (middle of lid),
MAC Leap #2 (outer lid), MAC Force of Nature #2 (crease), MAC Slate Eye Pencil
MAC Natural Vigor #2 (inner lid), MAC Force of Nature #1 (middle of lid),
MAC Leap #2 (outer lid), MAC Force of Nature #2 (crease), MAC Slate Eye Pencil
F??? Oh my, MAC what are you doing? Mind you, both swatches look sort of “F-ish” – neither one looks to be very pigmented or “integrated” (glitter and base shade). Nice, in a way, to be seeing a whole lot of items that I am not instantly craving like crazy! Or at all!
I’ll never quite understand how they can do a really nice MES and then totally botch it the next time. It makes me think that the “botching” is intentional – as in it was supposed to look and feel that way, but I don’t know WHY that is a good or desired outcome!
It seems to me that the “look” for Spring is going to be sheer, “watercolor” eyes, and shiny, bright lips & cheeks, so I can see this as being intentional.
I think the botching might be intentional. These make me think of the never-ending argument over Bobbi Brown eye shadows — plenty of people hate the texture/colour payoff, others buy the eyeshadows specifically because of the way they apply and feel. I can definitely see people buying this duo because of how sheer it is.
I don’t mean the sheerness – I actually mean the dryness, lol. Mineralize Eyeshadows are a more buildable/sheer product dry, more intense damp, so that’s not what I’m confused on!
MAC just wants to get you to buy Fix+, LOL!
Thank you as always for your reviews. I’ve always known that Mineralize shadows weren’t the best, but the prettiness of the pans was making me at least want to swatch when they hit the stores. Not so much now. I’ll wait for other pretty Spring things that perform better for the money!
They are some of the prettiest eyeshadows (especially the singles when all swirled!).
Carrie, a few of the MES have been really good. MAC used to have a duo called “Illusionary/Burning Ambition” and it was really good. Same for a few others, including Golden Gaze. But I always approach them with trepidation and wait to read reviews here from Christine.
The 1st shade is pretty, but the 2nd shade looks sad. At this price point, there are much better shadows, and even cheaper shadows (hello Colorpop, Makeup Geek) that perform much better. I wish MAC would edit their collections and weed out the poor performers so they don’t go into production.
Agreed! They can do better.
Wow, I was hoping to get at least one of the eyeshadows from this collection just for the beautiful sweater design but your photos and reviews shows these to be so sheer and shimmery. Thanks for your honesty, it really helps.
No problem, Toya! 🙂
I think if you wanted to get something for the design, the blush/highlighters would be better.
This would have been right up my alley if the second shade had turned out. Too bad.
Boooo!
Not for me, too sheer.
Sad.
That second is bad, even for just a wash of color. I was shocked to see the grades for these. They look so pretty in the pan.
Good lord, MAC, why do you keep doing this to yourself? I can’t stand it when eyeshadows are way too sheer and sparkly at the same time =/
It’s a shame this is so sheer and doesn’t perform better. The colors are so pretty. I don’t know what it is with MAC and limited edition shadows. It’s like they can never get it right
I was most interested in this one since I love mauves and purples but it seems to perform so poorly. Might swatch this one in store to see if it’s worth it still…
This could have been my favorite from the collection but the formula is pathetic and it will barely show up on lids.. 🙁