Make Up For Ever Olives & Neutrals Artist Color Shadows Reviews, Photos, Swatches
D552 Crystalline Gray Beige
Make Up For Ever D552 Crystalline Gray Beige Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a light, golden pewter with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. It had good pigmentation that was buildable to opaque coverage with a moderately dense, smooth consistency that didn’t kick up any excess product in the pan but still was easy to pickup with my brushes. It was darker and warmer compared to the shade in the previous formula (see side-by-side comparison), while the consistency yielded better in the new formula and wasn’t as thick, but I found they blended equally well and applied similarly to the lid–I didn’t notice much of a difference in practice. On me, it lasted for 10 and a half hours before creasing faintly.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Chanel Blurry Grey #4 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (95% similar).
- bareMinerals Air (PiP, ) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Sidewalks (LE, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Auric Ego (Powder) (PiP, ) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- L'Oreal Iced Latte (P, $7.99) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- NARS Galice (P, $28.00) is lighter (85% similar).
- ColourPop Fringed (PiP, $4.50) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Chanel Penombre (327) (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- LORAC Tea Time (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, darker, more muted (85% similar).
- LORAC Prosecco (LE, $19.00) is lighter, cooler (85% 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
D552 Crystalline Gray Beige
PPermanent. $17.00.
I328 Bronze
Make Up For Ever I328 Bronze Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a medium, olive green with warm, golden undertones and a pearly sheen. It had opaque pigmentation in a single layer with a smooth, moderately dense and slightly firm texture. There was no excess product that kicked up in the pan, but I felt like it needed a slightly heavier hand to pickup product well onto my brush (but I didn’t feel I needed to change my brush or overall technique for application). The color is significantly different in the new formula than the old one, as the new formula is much, much lighter and yellower (see side-by-side comparison). The eyeshadow applied nicely to bare skin and blended out with ease. It wore well for 10 hours on me before fading slightly.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Smashbox Hundo (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Clinique Whopping Willow (P, $17.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Isamaya Motor (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty The Free Spirit No. 8 (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Makeup by Mario Master Metallics #6 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (95% similar).
- Charlotte Tilbury Dream Glow (Smoke) (LE, ) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Smoked Opaline (LE, $36.00) is darker, cooler (95% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty The Only (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Inglot #433 (P, $7.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Noble (264M) (LE, $29.00) is more shimmery, cooler (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
I328 Bronze
PPermanent. $17.00.
ME614 Graphite Brown
Make Up For Ever ME614 Graphite Brown Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a deep, chocolaty brown with subtle, warm red undertones and a frosted sheen. It was intensely pigmented and had a smooth, lightly creamy texture that was dense but not too thick or heavy on the lid, so it did not emphasize my lid’s texture. The new version is slightly darker but find I can only tell the difference through photos (based on how the light bounced off the shimmer) and not at all in person, while the texture wasn’t as dense or as thick as the previous formulation (see side-by-side comparison). The eyeshadow applied evenly and smoothly to bare skin, blended out nicely, and stayed on well for almost 11 hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Make Up For Ever ME614 Graphite Brown (DC, $21.00) is lighter, cooler (95% similar).
- Too Faced Hot Fudge (PiP, $16.00) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Chanel Blurry Grey #3 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Makeup Geek Steampunk (DC, $6.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Winter is Here (LE, $19.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Clarins The Essentials #10 (LE, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Pretty Baby #4 (PiP, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Thunderbird (DC, $19.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- LORAC Granite (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Chanel Topkapi #1 (LE, ) is warmer (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
ME614 Graphite Brown
PPermanent. $17.00.
M322 Khaki
Make Up For Ever M322 Khaki Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a medium-dark, mossy green with subtle, warm olive undertones and a matte finish. The pigmentation was very nearly opaque in a single layer and easily built up to opaque coverage using a heavier hand or applying a pat of additional product on top. The consistency was smooth and velvety to the touch and felt like it had a little more slip than the previous formula, which had run a little drier and slightly powdery at times. In terms of color, the new formula is deeper and slightly warmer in tone (see side-by-side comparison). The new formula was easy to apply and blend out on the lid. On me, the color wore well for 10 hours.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- NARS Submissive (DC, $25.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Sydney Grace Rustic (PiP, $6.25) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Burberry Khaki (08) (DC, $29.00) is darker (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).
- Make Up For Ever M322 Khaki (DC, $21.00) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Troop (250CP) (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Anastasia Destiny (DC, $12.00) 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.
D326 Black Bronze
Make Up For Ever D326 Black Bronze Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a blackened brown with soft, warmer undertones and a sparkling sheen. It had excellent color coverage in a single layer that adhered evenly and smoothly to bare skin. The color was more intense and warmer but similar in finish compared to the shade in the previous formula (see side-by-side comparison), while the performance was unchanged–both applied beautifully to the skin, blended out with ease, and lasted for awhile (11 hours with the new formula).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Giorgio Armani #24 (DC, $33.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- LORAC Dark Roast (LE, $19.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- NARS Gabon (LE, $25.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Jouer Midnight Swim (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- MAC Gilt by Association (P, $21.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Dior Pied de Poule #5 (PiP, ) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever ME624 Black Gold (DC, $21.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- LORAC Seaside (LE, $19.00) is lighter (85% similar).
- Stila La Douce (P, $24.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Make Up For Ever I328 Bronze (DC, $21.00) is lighter (85% 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
D326 Black Bronze
DCDiscontinued. $17.00.
M518 Nude
Make Up For Ever M518 Nude Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a medium beige with subtle, warm undertones and a matte finish. The color appeared more neutral, almost cool-toned in the pan, but it went on lighter and warmer on me (I triple checked in person!). The texture was smooth and velvety to the touch without any powderiness or dryness. The previous formula’s shade was slightly cooler-toned and darker (more true-to-pan in color) (see side-by-side comparison). This shade wore well for nine and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- LORAC Buff (PiP, $19.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- NARS Madrague #1 (DC, $25.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- Disney by Sephora Ali Ababwa (LE, ) is cooler (95% similar).
- Chanel Clair-Obscur #3 (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Too Faced Banana Cream Pie (LE, $16.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Makeup Atelier Natural Chestnut #3 (P, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Nudie (PiP, $19.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Laura Mercier Bone (PiP, $23.00) is more muted (95% similar).
- ColourPop No Worries (PiP, $4.50) is lighter (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M518 Nude (DC, $21.00) is darker, cooler (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
M518 Nude
PPermanent. $17.00.
M510 Vanilla
Make Up For Ever M510 Vanilla Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a soft yellow with warm undertones and a matte finish. It had good color coverage in a single layer, though it needed two layers for opaque coverage. The consistency was soft and smooth to the touch with just a touch of powderiness if I really pushed at the surface, but it was less powdery and had more slip than the original formula. The new shade is slightly less orange-based than the shade in the previous formula (see side-by-side comparison). It stayed on well for nine hours o me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tarte Mixed Media (LE, ) is lighter, warmer (95% similar).
- Melt Cosmetics Classic (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Smashbox Cashew Outside (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever M510 Vanilla (DC, $21.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Rarity (PiP, $8.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- KVD Beauty Moulder (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Full Expose (PiP, $4.50) is lighter (90% similar).
- MAC Real Fantasy (LE, $17.00) is darker (90% similar).
- KVD Beauty Entomology (DC, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- Inglot J335 Pearl (LE, $10.00) is more shimmery, warmer (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
M510 Vanilla
PPermanent. $17.00.
I514 Pink Ivory
Make Up For Ever I514 Pink Ivory Artist Color Shadow ($17.00 for 0.08 oz.) is a soft, golden beige with a subtle, pink shimmer-sheen finish. It had semi-opaque, buildable pigmentation with a denser texture that was thin but not stiff or difficult to blend out on the skin. I found it felt and looked quite different than the shade in the previous formula, as the new version is deeper, yellower, and more metallic than pearly with a firmer, thinner consistency (see side-by-side comparison). This shade wore well for 10 hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Unbothered (LE, $4.50) is brighter, warmer (95% similar).
- YSL Indie Jasper #2 (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Tarte Wander (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- MAC Just Gleaming (PiP, $20.00) is more shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- Pat McGrath Skinshow Nude (PiP, $25.00) is darker, warmer (95% similar).
- Morphe Enlight (LE, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever D416 Crystalline Yellow (DC, $21.00) is brighter (95% similar).
- Sephora No Place Like Home (257) (P, $9.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- YSL Avant Garde #2 (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop Supermodel (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, warmer (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
These eyeshadow look pretty good, although it was a shame to change the shade of the Bronze/khaki one to a more yellowy undertone.
A beautiful eye look Christine – these shades look heavenly on you.
Thank you, Genevieve!
The Sephora near me still has the “old” eyeshadows and so I picked up D320 today, while it was still available. I’m glad to see that the new ones reviewed above have scored well seeing as how many of us found them to look inferior to or different from the “oldies”. I don’t think the new Bronze (I328) looks much like its predecessor (and I don’t think the original one is even listed in the dupes but I might have missed it).
Some of the shades are different enough that they are not dupes, so there was no entry on the Dupe List (even though they have the same name).
That’s what I find so odd – that they would change the some of the colours so much but keep the same names and numbers. It is surprising that some of their own old shades are dupes for completely different shades of the new release (“old” Reptile for “new” Bronze, for example, while the old Bronze isn’t a dupe for the new one).
That gray beige is the kind of color I really like, and the shiny finish is so pretty. I’m going to have to get over to Sephora and have a look at it in person. That’s the kind of color I wear a lot. 🙂
Let me know how that goes, Kelly!
I’m really glad that ME614 scored well and is pretty true to the original color…it’s my favorite dark brown and I use it often. Christine, thank you so much for your excellent reviews and such a great site. You are appreciated.
My pleasure, Shari!
Do you think the old formula will go on sale at all?
They removed it from purchasing online. The formula has been on sale at boutiques since early December, though 🙂
They look so nice! Emotions everywhere though because I spent over 200 on the original one and I have a weird thing with wanting the same kind of shadows… guess I need to replace them all with the new square formula!
If they’re shades you’d use up, sure, but maybe hold off until you’ve worked through one and then replace?
I’m really glad to see these score well. It kind of bothers me they changed some of the shades, even though I didn’t own any of these in the old formula.
I have to stay the new Khaki is my favorite shade from the Lustrous Palette.
Happy to hear you’re enjoying Khaki from the palette!
Well, not exactly a redemption…they aren’t bad, but fail to reach HG like the ‘oldies.’ At 69, calling a 2 y.o.e/s formula old seems quite inane. Thanks so much for old vs. new. Just what we wanted, the easy way! It seems many in this bunch took a slight turn for the warmer. What I find most humorous is the Pink Ivory. It’s 95% for Crystalline Yellow and NOT a dupe for its old self! I do think i’ll get the holiday palette with the extra 20% plus sale discount, just to see. But, yeah, it still pisses me off. I wonder, had the singles not been so huge (15 fit in an extra large Z) and round, would mufe still have done this? Cue the Elvis: Suspicious Minds…. I really think that it was a cost control measure. The old ones did not yield as good a profit margin, with more expensive ingredients/formula. None of my rant is based on any reality. Just m/u paranoia. You look wonderful and fresh as always. What happened to Olive Gray, that was neither? Somehow thought it might be in this group.
dies laughing.. girls Christmas party ended up with the late night stragglers doing Elvis impersonations this year. Suspicious Minds was running through my head for days afterwards.
Do you all think these shades, especially the olive ones, would work with my hazel eyes? They are grey/blue/green! I actually talk about this problem on my YouTube vlog, and I haven’t really been able to find good quality & colour eyeshadows that will compliment my WEIRD EYE-COLOR! The only thing that works is browns/oranges/reds, but it isn’t fall anymore lol!
I’m the wrong person to ask – my belief is that you can work any color you want, just a matter for preference + what else you wear it with! I just never think about eye color when I do my makeup!
I always get stuck doing the same colours and when I venture anywhere else I feel I look awful! How do you pick colours to go together with an eye look?
I have hazel/green eyes with shades of blue, gray, green, and yellow. Olives look amazing with hazel eyes. All of these shades would look good. I do agree with Christine that anyone can wear anything they want, though.
Your eye look is terrific! I’m amazed you can wear ‘hazel’ tones so close to your own and still have them enhance your eyes. These shades, other than black bronze, would do nothing for mine. Granted, my version of hazel is tonally different from yours; no brown, just army green with gold flecks and a deep charcoal grey outer ring.. but not so so different if you know what I mean. I wear colours like these and look positively drab.
Good to see the neutrals here scored well! I’m still confused that for some of the shadows, they kept the same name but changed the colors, but I do like some of the new colors.
D552 Crystalline Gray Beige: “darker and WARMER compared to the shade in the previous formula”
I328 Bronze: “the new formula is much, much lighter and YELLOWER”
M322 Khaki: “the new formula is deeper and slightly WARMER in tone”
D326 Black Bronze: “more intense and WARMER”
M518 Nude: “The previous formula’s shade was slightly cooler-toned” (i.e.,: SLIGHTLY WARMER)
I514 Pink Ivory: “the new version is deeper, YELLOWER,”
This is not a promising trend for those of us who want to see more cool-toned colors. But, what’s new? I’ve been commenting about this for quite some time. But, fewer cooler shades = more money saved!!! I’m not the least bit tempted to buy “warmer”, “yellower” eyeshadow!
D552 Crystalline Gray Beige is one of those shades I would recommend to anyone with the previous version but I’m not upset about the slight shade shift in this new version I would sometimes lighten it up with a lighter pearl shade u=in the inner corner as well.
I514 Pink Ivory yeah this one is different from the original I own but I’d say it more usable with other shades with the less pink tone with this new one.
I’m very happy with the B-A rating because I know how some of the mattes were not as nice as the other formula.