MAC Lightness of Being Mineralize Glass Reviews, Photos, Swatches
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Lightness of Being Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz. each) includes five new, limited edition shades. MAC released this formula (as part of the permanent range) earlier this year, and there wasn’t a whole lot of information on them regarding color coverage then (Nordstrom lists a description of “delivers luscious color” now), but they consistently ran semi-sheer to semi-opaque with noticeable color and coverage. These are all quite sheer, and with the exception of On Cue, they look nearly the same applied aside from shimmer level. They’re inconsistent with the permanent formula and its 12-shade range. All five shades disappeared within two hours of wear and had a lightly tacky, neither drying nor hydrating formula that was vanilla-scented but had no discernible taste. Sheer gloss may not be everyone’s cup of tea (which is why I think it’s important brands distinguish sheer vs. medium vs. opaque shades and formulas well), but it is surprising to see five shades at this level of sheerness.
Update: As of March 2016, MAC’s website lists these as a “sheer” gloss. Ratings have been updated to reflect that change — keep in mind that sheer doesn’t mean colorless/clear, and a few of these were nearly colorless.
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz.) is described as a “pale mint with pearl.” It’s a cool-toned, ultra-sheer milky white with pearl. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz.) is described as a “violet pink.” It is a very, very lightly pink-tinted clear gloss with a subtle milky quality to it. It looks like clear gloss on, so any clear gloss would easily replicate the look. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz.) is described as a “peachy orange.” It is a very light, milky peach with sheer color coverage that goes on a bit unevenly and settles slightly into lip lines. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz.) is described as a “gold pearl.” It’s a gold-shimmered, mostly clear gloss. The shimmer has a slight grit to it after an hour of wear. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass ($22.00 for 0.20 fl. oz.) is described as a “pale champagne pink with pearl.” It’s a really light, white-peach with soft pearl. It had sheer color coverage–more so than other shades here–and settled into lip lines. See comparison swatches / view dupes.
Beautiful Moves
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
Boundless Energy
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
Loose & Lively
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
On Cue
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
Poetic
LELimited Edition. $22.00.
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Beautiful Moves Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Boundless Energy Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC Loose & Lively Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC On Cue Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
MAC Poetic Mineralize Glass
What a bummer. They look so pretty in the tubes.
Yes, they do! And it’s so weird, because MAC has light shades in the permanent range with way, way more color.
Holy moly, where in the hell is the pigment??! I might as well be putting petroleum jelly on my lips. And $22 for this??? I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I think MAC needs to focus more on quality rather than quantity of products.
I don’t know why these are soooo much sheerer than the original set that came out this year!
I think this post just saved me a trip to the mall, thank you Christine!!
No prob, Taylor!
Sigh. I knew not to get my hopes up for these at all, but some little part of me harbored a tiny wish that Beautiful Moves would show up at least a hint. But no, it’s just a clear gloss with white pearl. Not even turquoise pearl. which would whiten teeth and add some blue/violet shift to the base. Just nothing. A creamy, non-colorless version of this shade with alternating turquoise/silver/violet shimmer would be amazing. Or just a creamy mint gloss. And how fun would it be to mess with as eye gloss (for the willing guinea pigs like me) if it had any pigment? Shame.
I tried using it over red lipstick, but even then, it didn’t alter at all!
I doubt even a white base on the lips would be able to help 🙁
Disappointing!! These could have been great, especially the mint one. Thanks for reviewing…saves me some $$!
My pleasure, Kristi!
What a waste of money. There’s no point in paying a high price if thats all you get, a clear gloss! Lipsmackers even makes glosses like that.
I have no idea why these are so much less pigmented compare to the regular range!
Paaaaaasss!
Totally understand!
oh wow. these are terrible.
I wish they were like the original formula!
I first got on the home page and my first reaction was, “These look so pretty in the tube! I’m excited to see this review!” Then I saw the Ds and I was, like, “…..oh.”
But yeah, this sheerness makes the color not worth it…the most useful one (in terms of usage, not looking pretty on the vanity) would probably be the gold, since it looks like it would give a nice gold tint when layering!
That was the only one that really did more than act like clear gloss (which has its time and place, though totally inconsistent with this formula!).
I was really looking forward to buying Beautiful Moves. I’m so disappointed!
Me too! I thought it would be better applied over lipstick, but it just makes it glossy, lol!
I hate when companies do stuff like this lol. I think it’s silly to release 5 clear glosses in a collection. I wish it was a little more variation between them
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to launch five that are all the same on at once!
Huh. Is it weird that I kind of want to see all five swatches side by side just to compare how similar (read: clear) they all appear? I can tell almost no discernible difference in the lip swatches. Bummer! That mint green had potential.
http://www.temptalia.com/swatch-gallery/?sg=184801,184800,184799,184798,184797
Oh goodness, these all look the same! D:
Ridiculous similar!
My goodness – collections like this one make it very easy for me to continue boycotting MAC.
If they’d brought back “Snowscene” lip glass or “Pleasure Principle” Dazzleglass, I might have been *slightly* tempted, but even those can be duped.
Ho-hum …
Face Stockholm has all of their lipsticks at 20% off – that’s much more likely to draw me! 🙂
If only 🙁
Thank you for mentioning that Face Stockholm had a lipstick sale. They don’t even list the discount on the front page of their website! I just went to their site and picked up a lipstick I’d been eyeing.
Wow, these are super disappointing. If only that mint gloss had a little more mint to it, I’d be tempted.
I wasn’t interested in any of these but still.. how underwhelming!
I can barely see the difference between one and another from your face pictures. If I was given a quiz and get asked about which is which, I would fail for sure.
That just reminds me of those old days when the manufacture techniques wasn’t advanced enough that most of the shimmer products remained thin and not pigmented.
Why?????? What were they thinking???????
🙁
The lip glasses looks amazing in tubes.. especially Beautiful moves.. prettiest minty green lip gloss but the ratings .. grr!!!
Lovely lip swatches though… <3 <3
I was expecting them to be sheer, but not colorless. A pale pastel wash might have been pretty. I was especially hoping the mint color would be nice. Very disappointing.
I knew these were gonna be bad when I saw the preview images, sad that I was right 🙁
…Why does everyone like MAC so much again?
They have some really awesome products, but they have their share of misses, too!
I’m usually a sucker for blue-tinted glosses for layering (I’m always hoping Comet Blue Dazzleglass might pop up again some day), but all of these are a definite pass. I have clear glosses with shimmer that pack a bigger punch!
I figured the blue wasn’t going to be BLUE! but it doesn’t even change-up lip color underneath it since it is so sheer!
I really hope that MAC makse this resolution for 2015 NOT to put out 200 collections a year with many misses but just one or two MAJORLY awesome ones !! So weird that they would think its ok to put out a whole collection of lipglasses that look pretty much the same once on because theyre all so sheer.
Let’s hope 2015 is better for MAC!
It’s a shame that these don’t turn out as nice as they appear in the tube. At least I didn’t buy any because I was waiting for your review so once again you save me some money. This is way off the subject but your complexion and face makeup is absolutely gorgeous. So I’m going to try some of the guerlain gold foundation that you use. Our complexion is very similar so I was wondering if you mind telling me what color you use. Because the only way I will be able to buy this is online. I am usually a Mac NC40 in the powder studio fix but I did not get any sun this summer so Im about NC 30 now. thanks for your help and happy holidays!
These are… slightly pointless.
Thanks for saving me $44! I always trust your opinion. :-). Sheer shimmery or sparkly glosses are my jam-my everyday go-to. These are pointless.