MAC Perfect Topping (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish ($30.00 for 0.32 oz.) is described as a “pale pearlized pink.” The one I just purchased from this collection is a peach muted by beige with a frosted finish. The one I have from when it launched in 2009 is distinctly pink, almost cool-toned really. The colors of the veins did not even appear that similar in the pans, as it seems to be more than an issue of a different distribution of the types of colored veins. The texture was soft but powdery, and it will most likely be a highlighter on all but the very fairest of skin tones. It wore well for six hours before it turned patchy and slightly faded along the edges, which is the norm for me when wearing MAC’s Mineralize cheek products. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. MAC Amber Glow (LE, $25.00) is less frosted. Le Metier de Beaute Whisper (P, $30.00) is similar. See comparison swatches.

Stereo Rose (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish ($30.00 for 0.32 oz.) is described as a “copper bronze.” It’s a light-medium, warm-toned peach with a frosted, somewhat metallic, sheen. Oh, the difference between this Stereo Rose (again, just purchased from MAC’s website on Thursday AM!) and the one I have from the end of 2012 are like night and day. I used a paper towel to rub off several layers of product from the new version to see if it would get better but no luck. Still a very light peach compared to the deeper pinky-coral of previous years. The texture is soft but on the dry side, so it can be powdery, and it wore well for six hours before showing some fading. It is a couple of shades darker than Perfect Topping #2. bareMinerals The Many Splendors #2 (LE) is lighter. MAC Amber Glow (LE, $25.00) is less shimmery. Le Metier de Beaute Whisper (P, $30.00) is a touch lighter. See comparison swatches.

Mineralize Skinfinishes can differ from pan to pan, as it is a mix of different shades and veins, so sometimes there is variance, but I think these go beyond variance. The pans of Perfect Topping don’t look alike at all; we have a mix of lilac, pink, and peachy-beige compared to beige, peach, and a murky lavender. Swatched, the original is definitely pink and on the cooler side. The differences between the two Stereo Roses in the pan seems less obvious–the newly released version appears lighter and less pinky-red, and the most obvious missing component is the coppery veining. However, when swatched, it is such a huge, huge difference.

It’s extremely frustrating that MAC re-releases sought after products, and they’re different. (As an aside, Lily White pigment is also very different from the previously released Lily White.) It is inexcusable to see Stereo Rose so drastically different from when it was released a mere year ago. If MAC can’t keep the color same, they should name it something different – that’s all there is to it. They put out an endless stream of new shades and products with minor differences from something they’ve previously released, but they have new names, so at least no one’s buying it off of older swatches or from previous hype.

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping (2009) vs. Perfect Topping (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Perfect Topping (2009) vs. Perfect Topping (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose (2012) vs. Stereo Rose (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish

MAC Stereo Rose (2012) vs. Stereo Rose (2014) Mineralize Skinfinish