Make Up For Ever Lustrous Shadow Palette Review, Photos, Swatches
Lustrous
Make Up For Ever Lustrous Shadow Palette ($49.00 for 0.60 oz.) contains 12 eyeshadows in a mix of mattes and shimmers (actually, only three shimmers, which is a big deal for the brand’s pre-made palettes!). It’s new and limited edition for the holiday season, and as I noted in my sneak peek post, the brand made several mentions of the formula being new: “newest innovation” and “unique formula” and “formulated with 25 percent more pigment” and “be the first to try this new formula.” Reading through ingredient lists, the ingredient lists for M100 (matte black) and ME512 (gold) differed enough that it did seem like a new formula. I received confirmation via email from Make Up For Ever that the palette does feature a new formula that we will see in the future but no other details were shared at this time.
The colors, generally, lined up with the shades of the same number in the current Artist Shadow range, but there were new shades here and then the brand snuck in two shades that are actually blushes (matte red and plum). The three shimmery shades did not seem to be as silicone-heavy–not as dense, not quite as creamy–but they seemed easier to pickup with a greater number of brushes and a little more foolproof to apply to the lid if one is unfamiliar with the denser, more silicone-heavy textures. The mattes were slightly drier but more substantial, so they worked better on bare skin and tended to be more pigmented in a single pass (without sheering out) compared to the original formula, which I found better at building up color, but both were similarly easy to blend out for me.
The brand claimed that the formula features “intense color payoff, superior blendability, and unprecedented 12-hour wear.” They were quite pigmented, blendable (not sure about “superior” but most shades blended without major issues), and long wearing, though the wear for me ranged between nine and ten hours. I imagine if some found the metallic formula in the original range to be too firm/dense, they’ll prefer the newer shimmer formula. Similarly, if you prefer more buildable, silkier mattes, then you may find this drier, more substantial formula to be a miss. Functionally, I did not feel like it was a struggle by any means to use or to apply the eyeshadows in practice, but based on this sampling, it seemed like they were slightly below the performance of the Artist Shadow range has been in the past.
The packaging will likely be a miss for most; the eyeshadows are held inside a foam insert, which does slide within the tin, so it doesn’t seem as secure, though the brand has used foam inserts in the past, so I’m not surprised to see it again in this year’s holiday release.
Value
Going off of the pricing structure for their current Artist Shadow, which retails for $21.00 and contains 0.08 oz. or costs $262.50/oz. (I would expect any replacement formula to be similar in pricing unless the brand makes adjustments to the size, which they could definitely do, so please consider this a mere estimate of value.) The palette contains $157.50 worth of product.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
Lustrous
LELimited Edition. $49.00.
M100 Black
M100 Black is a deep black with neutral undertones and a matte finish. It had opaque color payoff in a single layer with a slightly firm texture that was smooth to the touch but could have been just a bit more blendable overall. It wore well for nine hours on me before fading noticeably.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- KVD Beauty Black Metal (LE, ) (100% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M100 Black (DC, $21.00) (100% similar).
- NARS Shade VI (LE, $25.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Crave (PiP, $19.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- MAC Lune Noire (LE, $17.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- KVD Beauty Shax (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- MAC Carbon (LE, $17.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- NARS Silver Screen #2 (PiP, $19.00) is darker, warmer (95% similar).
- bareMinerals Black Leather (LE, $14.00) is lighter, cooler (95% similar).
- Tarte Fashionista (LE, ) is more muted (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
M100 Black
PPermanent. $17.00.
M608 Red Brown
M608 Red Brown is a deep brown with subtle, warm red undertones and a matte finish. The pigmentation was nearly opaque, and it was definitely buildable to get to full coverage with less than half a layer on top. The eyeshadow had a soft, smooth texture that was slightly drier than the original formula, but it did not seem to impede the blendability of the eyeshadow in practice. It lasted for nine hours on me before I noticed any fading.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- LORAC Mahogany (Mega Pro 4) (LE, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Clarins Flame #3 (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M608 Red Brown (DC, $21.00) is brighter (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Videotape (LE, $36.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Persona Audacious (PiP, ) is lighter, warmer (95% similar).
- Sephora Burnt Umber (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop Who (LE, $4.50) is cooler (95% similar).
- Blackbird Cosmetics Ruca (DC, $8.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- MAC Swiss Chocolate (P, $17.00) is more muted (95% similar).
- Smashbox Miss Chili (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
M608 Red Brown
PPermanent. $17.00.
ME512 Golden Beige
ME512 Golden Beige is a light-medium gold with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. The eyeshadow was richly pigmented and had a smooth, slightly dense texture that wasn’t quite as cream-like as the original version I have but still yielded great pigmentation and blendability. I had no trouble applying or using this shade on the lid. It started to crease on me after ten hours of wear.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Chalet Lust #2 (LE, ) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- Estee Lauder Blonde Gold (LE, $45.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Gucci Beauty Tuscan Storm #1 (DC, ) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- LORAC Sand (LE, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop High Tide (LE, $6.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Chanel Éclat Énigmatique #1 (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Famous (LE, $6.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild Dragon Scales #2 (LE, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Chanel Tisse Gabrielle #2 (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- MAC Champagne (LE, $21.00) is more muted (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
ME512 Golden Beige
PPermanent. $17.00.
M322 Khaki
M322 Khaki is a muted, medium green with warm, olive undertones and a matte finish. The consistency was soft, slightly powdery, and as a result, prone to sheering out a bit in practice. It had good color payoff, which was buildable when used over a primer (less buildable over bare skin). The color stayed on well for eight and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- NARS Submissive (DC, $25.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Burberry Khaki (08) (DC, $29.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Rustic (PiP, $6.25) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Fenty Beauty Phatigue (PiP, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- Melt Cosmetics Agua Ardiente (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Huda Beauty Emerald #7 (LE, ) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- NARS Thrill Seeker (LE, $19.00) is cooler (90% similar).
- Anastasia Destiny (DC, $12.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M322 Khaki (DC, $21.00) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Troop (250CP) (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
M322 Khaki
PPermanent. $17.00.
M536 Milk Tea
M536 Milk Tea is a soft brown with warm, yellow undertones and a matte finish. It had good pigmentation in a single layer, which was buildable to full coverage with a second layer. The texture was soft, smooth, and a smidgen on the drier side, but it seemed to be more substantial and sat better on bare skin as a result (didn’t sheer out immediately as some drier mattes do). It wore well for eight and a half hours on me before fading slightly.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Give Me Glow Sandcastle (P, $7.00) is lighter, cooler (95% similar).
- Becca Ombre Rouge #1 (PiP, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Too Faced Jingle All the Way Eyeshadow #11 (LE, $16.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- KVD Beauty Noble (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop Send Noodles (PiP, $4.50) is lighter (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Levitation (LE, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- LORAC Oat (LE, $19.00) is cooler (90% similar).
- Guerlain Gold Palette #2 (LE, ) is cooler (90% similar).
- Smashbox Dope (PiP, ) is lighter, brighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Inglot J333 Sheer Gold (LE, $10.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
M536 Milk Tea
PPermanent. $17.00.
ME728 Copper Red
ME728 Copper Red is a medium-dark copper with warm, reddish undertones and a frosted sheen. The color payoff was opaque, though the shade was noticeably less shimmery and metallic compared to the original version in the Artist Shadow range–as a result, it appeared darker and more subdued. The consistency was slightly drier and stiffer in the pan, but once on the lid, I didn’t have trouble diffusing or blending out the edges. I would recommend using a flat, synthetic brush to pickup product, though. On me, it lasted for nine and a half hours.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- KVD Beauty Dog Roses (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Starfire (LE, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Zoeva Sense of Movement (LE, ) is less shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- ColourPop Wild One (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, cooler (95% similar).
- Stila Rose Gold (LE, $18.00) is more shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop Crackle (P, $4.50) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- NARS L'Amour, Toujours L'Amour #6 (DC, $25.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- LORAC Nude #5 (LE, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty The Starlet #4 (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty The Siren #3 (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
ME728 Copper Red
PPermanent. $17.00.
M500 Ivory
M500 Ivory is a soft beige with warm undertones and a matte finish. It had opaque pigmentation with a soft, smooth consistency that wasn’t too thin or too powdery, so it blended out with ease but did not sheer out too readily. This shade wore well for nine hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Anastasia Vanilla (P, $12.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- KVD Beauty Amen (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- LORAC Porcelain (LE, $19.00) is darker, warmer (95% similar).
- Viseart Grande Pro (Vol. 1) #1 (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- LORAC Blanc (PiP, $19.00) is brighter (95% similar).
- Inglot #353 (P, $6.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild The Night's Quad #2 (LE, ) is brighter (95% similar).
- Too Faced Pot du Crème (LE, $16.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- Dior Undress #2 (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Makeup Atelier Red Ochre #1 (P, ) is lighter (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
M500 Ivory
PPermanent. $17.00.
ME840 Pink Chrome
ME840 Pink Chrome is a muted, medium-dark plum with warmer undertones and a soft, pearly sheen. It had semi-opaque color coverage–it was the least pigmented in the palette–and a drier consistency that did not apply as well on its own compared to other shades. If I used a dampened brush, it applied with better coverage and blended out more readily; it did not really improve much over primer. This shade stayed on well for eight and a half hours.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Cufflinks (PiP, $4.50) is cooler (95% similar).
- ColourPop Empress (LE, $4.50) is darker (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Girl Crush (LE, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Cat Fight (LE, ) is darker, cooler (95% similar).
- BH Cosmetics Foil Eyes 2 #12 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Ciate Orchid (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (95% similar).
- Dior Ruby #3 (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Ciate Morello Cherry (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Too Faced Sprinkles (Holiday 2016) (LE, $16.00) is darker, brighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop The Scorpio (P, $4.50) is darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$17.00/0.08 oz. - $212.50 Per Ounce
The original Artist Shadow formula had a creamier, slightly softer, and thicker feel for finishes like Metallic, Iridescent, and Satin, while I felt the original Diamond finish was denser/thicker (heavier almost) and the Matte finish was more powdery but similar in softness and pigmentation (I did not find the original Mattes to be ultra pigmented across the board--semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, which you can see in my original swatches here). By and large, I found the formula to be easy to work with and did not have to spend a lot of time blending or fussing with the shades on the lid.
The new Matte formula has a smoother consistency that has more slip to the touch with less powderiness in the pan, but the pigmentation did seem slightly weaker on average compared to the original formula. The pigmentation of the new Matte formula was still semi-opaque to opaque and buildable but I felt like there were just more shades that were closer to semi-opaque than to opaque.
However, shades like M402 Mimosa showed improvement, as it used to be a Satin (see here) and not as easy to work with due to the denser texture. A lot of the shades were similar in color between the formulas, but there were a few that were not (M546 Dark Purple Taupe was a shade with more significant changes; the new version is warmer and lighter).
Overall, I did not have any issues applying most of the matte shades to the lid, blending them out, or building up coverage. They lasted between nine and ten hours on me, which was actually a bit longer (on average) compared to the original formula, where the mattes tended to wear between seven and eight hours on me (without primer).
The new Satin formula was the most different; it had weaker pigmentation, felt denser and drier with less give and creaminess. In practice, I did not feel like application was harder or noticeably different other than feeling like more of the shades required two layers for more opaque coverage, though some of the more neutral shades were fairly pigmented in a single layer. I also noticed that this particular finish seemed to be the most culled; there weren't that many shades in it, and I wonder if they did not sell well or something about the finish is harder to produce.
There were significant differences in color (and/or undertone) between shades in the new formula and old formula (with the same names) within this finish, too, where most were different rather than only a handful being different. The pigmentation of the new Satin formula was typically semi-opaque and buildable, while they applied evenly, blended out without much effort, and lasted between eight and ten hours (without primer).
The new Iridescent formula was the second most different and more comparable to the Satin finish in terms of overall feel and performance, just with larger shimmer/micro-sparkle. The new formula has a denser consistency (almost "drier" and with less slip) and didn't feel as cream-like, but the powder seemed to pickup better with most brushes and was more consistent in the actual finish--pearly with sparkle--whereas the original formula varied more heavily between pearly and metallic, sparkle and finer shimmer.
There were, however, more substantial color and undertone differences between old and new within this formula, like I saw with the Satin formula. Overall, I did not experience any significant issues applying most of the shades to the lid--they were semi-opaque to opaque, fairly buildable, blendable, and long-wearing (eight to ten hours).
The new Metallic formula was the most consistent between old and new for overall feel, performance, and color. There were, of course, a few shades that seemed lighter/darker, cooler/warmer compared to the previous versions, and all those notes will be made within the respective shade's review. I think the new Metallic finish has a more flattering look on the lid, as the consistency wasn't quite as thick, which should make it apply and appear smoother on the lid for more people.
There were several shades that seemed slightly deeper or less reflective, while others were as reflective as past versions. The majority of the shades of this finish were very pigmented with a moderately dense, lightly creamy texture that blended out well on the lid and wore between nine and ten hours on me.
The new Diamond finish was noticeably less dense/thick, particularly on the lid, which did make it easier to spread across a larger area and easier to pickup with more types of brushes. I was worried that there would be more fallout, but I haven't noticeable much fallout with the new Diamond shades over the eight to ten hours they last for.
Most of them had good pigmentation, though there were a few that were weaker (medium to semi-opaque coverage); a shade like D410 Gold Nugget was a weaker shade before and still is while D326 Lagoon Blue is significantly less pigmented in the new formula.
As I typically do with new eyeshadow formulas, I tested a few shades from each finish over various primers, as I like to see how new formulas interact with different types of primers and if there are any unexpected consequences of using primers (I felt that some of the more silicone-heavy Artist Shadows from before actually applied better without primer).
I didn't notice any ill effects of using primers like Smashbox 24-Hour, Marc Jacobs Coconut Eye Primer, Too Faced Shadow Insurance, or Urban Decay Primer Potion. They all seemed to just help with wear, and with some of the shades that felt drier or had weaker pigmentation, the use of primer seemed to improve initial coverage levels, too.
Browse all of our Make Up For Ever Artist Color Shadow swatches.
Ingredients
I ordered this, so I’m hoping I like the new formula. The Artist Shadow formula is the best I’ve ever used, so I’m very nervous about them changing it.
Keep us posted! I’m curious how people will like it.
I sure will! Thanks, as always, for getting your review up so quickly and for being so thorough.
Thought this was a dead cert, but now not so sure. Depot easily and good to go, maybe not so much. WL colors: chrome pink. Weak. Morello Cherry: this red is adequate, though will compare. Will also compare the old to the new for existing shades, like eggplant, etc. curiosity is piqued about the formula. Less silicone is always good for me in a face product, esp primer. Based on this review, not so sure that it is better in an e/s. Also shocked by how many are duped in the Zoeva big matte palette.
It was strange how close Morello Cherry and the red in this palette were!
kjh, I’m stumped – what is a WL colour?
Because I either have some of these in other MUFE palettes or have the listed dupes for almost every other shade, I will take a hard pass. In all honesty, it does seem to be a pretty decent one, problem is that now so many of us have these red/pink/plum/neutral theme palettes or singles.
Glad you have plenty of dupes/even some of the same ones!
I so wish companies would stop putting black eyeshadows in just about EVERY palette. Maybe I’m way off base but I’m guessing most women (and men) have more black eyeshadow (in all its iterations – matte, satin, shimmery, duo-chrome and glitter) than they really need. I rarely use black shadows and have way more than my needs. Do others feel this way? Am I out in left field, black-eyeshadow-wise?
A lot of people actually prefer a black eyeshadow in their palette – it is one of the biggest complaints of larger palettes – when they are missing a black eyeshadow!
Ha – so it’s just me. I must have about 25 black eyeshadows in palettes (not counting the few I’ve purchase on my own as singles) and rarely touch most of them.
I think the idea is that for many they would rather a black be in a palette than have to locate one 🙂 (For the same reason many want a palette to be cohesive.)
Not just you. Count me in too.
I’m not a fan of black in every palette, either. I hear so many people say if they don’t have a black for smoked out looks, it’s a deal-breaker. So I guess it’s down to personal preference. I just see it as a waste: I cold have had one more bright. lol
I’d rather have a bright too! I prefer to smoke out and darken out my eye looks with a dark brown/plum brown type of color. I find black harsh..
I use a black shadow to darken my outer corner, so I prefer one in my palette. 🙂
Actually I’m liking it as I’m learning how to layer colors. As far as using the black alone as an eyeshadow I would say no. I do use as an eyeliner tho alone.
Pretty much,. Though it can be blended in to darken, by itself it can be pretty harsh. Personally, i’d Prefer a mid to dark charcoal, just to take the edge off.
Well, I agree with you 100% Mariella. It’s a fad/trend though, so we’re stuck with it for a while. I feel like it’s a wasted space in a palette and know people that use black eyeliner but very few that want or use black eyeshadow.
I’m glad I’m not entirely alone, Susan. I do know a lot of people use the black shadows in place of liners and it can give a softer, smokier look than a liquid liner, for example. Personally, I’m always wary about applying black shadow heavily enough to work as liner because of the potential for fallout, so if I want “black”, I will use a black pencil and smudge it with a smudger brush.
LOL meanwhile I am annoyed when most *don’t* have a matte black! Not that I don’t need a million pans, but I feel like I can’t take just one complete palette when I travel if it’s not in there.
It’s a cute little palette, full of fashionable shades. The quality was pretty good and the inclusion of a khaki shade made this palette a little different. These are not my shades, but I think it’s better quality than a lot around in the marketplace at the moment.
A beautiful eye look Christine.
Thank you, Genevieve!
The score seems a little harsh on this once. I know you rate against a brand’s claims, but a 7.5 on longevity for eyeshadows that last 8-9 hours seems uninformatively low.
Thank you as always for your thoroughness and transparency.
If the brand claims 12 hours, and it lasts 9 hours, then 9/12 = 75%. I’m not sure why there’s an issue with the ratings I gave – it’s how the math worked out.
I think the root of my complaint is against MUFE for claiming unrealistic wear-times.
It’s like the 24-hour claims from L’Oreal about their infallible shadows: despite the products being super long-lasting, they still can’t live up to the marketing.
Thanks for the response <3
My hope is that by holding brands accountable in my part of the world it might encourage them to make more reasonable claims. 12 isn’t THAT out there, but 24 absolutely is!
I’m really impressed with the mattes. When I think of holiday releases and mattes, I automatically think chalky and patchy. These are beautiful. I think Khaki is one of those shades that you don’t look at and think “Wow gorgeous” but it will be a star in practice.
I’m not going to get this because I have most of these shades multiple times over but those mattes sure make it tempting!
For You
* I did it Christine! I posted! Thank you so much for your kindness. I got my first email notification again today so I’m back to getting them. I’m so happy, I really didn’t want to bug your tech person with another email. Now I don’t have too YAY! I’m just scoring all over the place ? I’m sending you so much goodness, good vibes, good karma…whatever …I’m sending the good feelings your way! I wish everyone who had any kind of internet presence had to pass some kind of vetting that made sure they are at least half as kind, dedicated, and kickass of a human as you ?
Welcome back, Bonnie!! 🙂
This might be one of the prettiest palettes I’ve ever seen.
Happy to hear it 🙂
I’m trying so hard to love this one. The colors are perfectly me. The packaging is awful soI depotted my nine favs into a small Z-palette and had hoped to be able to travel with it, but so far I’m not getting anywhere near the wear time that you did out of the mattes.
Currently I am using ME840 Pink Chrome and loved with it.
I wish pink chrome was better!
Man does the new formula quip my interest…. But I don’t need all the repeating shades from the other palettes they put out either. lol
I’m also buckling down on these value set this year I’m spending money on before the Sephora sale for full price items. lol
As it stands I’m still debating on getting the Jeffree Star or MAC lipstick vaults for close to the same price of this palette…. O___o
I really just want the plummy shades. Maybe I will just add those to my collection
Damn, I loved the old formula in all its silicone-heavy dense glory – it’s pretty much all I’ve been using.
Well, at least I’m glad I splurged on some of the shades I wanted most this past year – hope to pick up a few more before the formula change comes to the UK.
Uh, oh. I hope they’re not phasing out their Artist shadows for this new formula.
Christine, do you know if the blush shades are considered “eye safe” or not? If not, it’s odd that they’d be included in something called “Lustrous SHADOW Palette”. When I’ve seen the shades on the Sephora site shown as “blush”, I’ve always sort of assumed they’re labelled that way because they’re not safe for use around the eyes. Has MUFE given you any information on this?
If they are listed as blush, it is almost entirely likely they are not safe for eyes per ingredients used in them under the FDA.
Weird, then (not to mention risky, perhaps) to label this as an eyeshadow palette rather than “eye and cheek” palette. I’m guessing there are quite a few people who’d use the blush shades on their eyes (since the red-toned shadows in this palette aren’t all that different from the blushes) and perhaps end up having problems since it looks like while they are labelled “blush”, it’s not made clear that they really aren’t eye safe (I think MAC’s loose glitters do specifically say they’re not to be used on the eyes so at least users have that info and if they choose to ignore it, it’s their own choice).
It is, unfortunately, fairly standard for brands to do this.
I have six of the 12 colours in this palette along with some of MUFE shadows and palettes. This is an easy pass for me. However I am wondering if I should pick up other colours in the current collection that I have on my wishlist especially if the formula is going to change. I love the creaminess of MUFE shadows and I didn’t think they needed to change anything.
Thanks Christine for reviewing… they drive me nuts w their holiday packaging. It’s like they insist on undermining their own shadows. I’ve been buying their singles and they r superb albeit initially pricey.
Mine arrived about an hour ago. I’m wondering if MUFE saw reviews and did a packaging change? I’d read reviews saying that “tin” was actually plastic, but my packaging looks and feels to actually be metal. It’s not thick metal, but I couldn’t bend it with my bare hands unless I want to apply some real force (which I didn’t ).
The sponge insert fits really tightly. I held the palette upside down over a towel, and the foam insert rattled and moved forward only slightly. The shadow pans were held tightly in place and did not come out of the insert even a little. I then pulled out the foam insert. It was easy to remove, but again, none of the shadow pans moved at all.
Christine, I was having awful trouble with the site today. I logged in a few times, and it kept switching back to not logged in. It took me four tries to post this. It would not let me respond to my original post. I had to make this it’s own post. It’s not a big deal, but I wanted to let you know. My browser is Google Chrome Version 61.0.3163.100 (Official Build) (64-bit). I cleared cookies and ran a virus scan before going to bed last night, so I don’t know if the problem is on my end.
Hi Rachel,
Unfortunately, there were some server issues earlier, but they should be mostly resolved now.
No worries. It’s working fine today. Thank you!
A manufacturer would not have time to pull the product, reproduce it, and then have it selling to customers within a week, so it just sounds like your foam insert fits better or it could be that for you, slight movement isn’t a big deal and for someone else, it’s much more concerning 🙂
Of course you’re right. lol I just read other reviews saying such horrible things about the packaging (including that it was plastic), that I was thrown off. It’s not my favorite packaging, to be sure, but I think it’s perfectly fine.
This new formulation makes me really nervous. I’ve bought A LOT of these shadows over the past year and half, and I’m going to be really upset if they’re reformulating all of their artist shadows. This is what kind of makes me want to skip mufe products. They seem to be discontinuing and reformulating products a lot.
Why do I keep thinking I’ve seen these colours before, like it’s a Franken-palette or something?
My speculations for the “formula change” is it’s for the holiday collection and not the permanent one.
And as for the 2 new additions, the purple one kinda looks like the old holy grail #92 but better.
Per their PR team, that wasn’t what they said.