Makeup Geek Giddy, Candid, Witty Iconic Lipsticks Reviews, Photos, Swatches

Giddy

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick ($15.00 for 0.07 oz.) is a bright, medium coral with warm, orange undertones and a glossy, cream finish. The Iconic Lipstick formula is supposed to be “highly pigmented” and that seems to be the end of the claims made. Giddy had good pigmentation, nearly opaque but the amount of slip in the formula made some areas more translucent (particularly around the edges). A little bit of color pulled into my lip lines after an hour of wear, though the creamier formula made it easier to smooth out the color while worn.

The formula was comfortable to wear, a touch hydrating but mostly non-drying, and lasted for four hours on me. There appeared to be no added scent, but there was a faint smell of waxiness and something else at times (wasn’t consistent across all shades) but no taste.

Ingredients

Castor (Ricinus Communis) Seed Oil Diisostearyl Malate Euphorbia Cerifera (Candelilla) Wax Trioctyldodecyl citrate Castor Isostearate Succinate Caprylic Caprice Triglyceride Octyldodecanol Ozokerite Wax Bis-diglyceryl polyacyladipate-2 Flavor Polyethylene Microcrystalline Wax Tribehenin Phenoxyethanol Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate Tocopheryl Acetate Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax Ethylhexylglycerin. May Contain: Mica (CI 77019) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) Iron Oxides (CI 77491,CI 77492, CI 77499) Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891) FD&C Red 7 Calcium Lake (CI 15850:1) D&C Red 27 Aluminum Lake (CI 45410:2) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) FD&C Blue No 1 Aluminum Lake (CI 42090) FD&C Yellow No 5 Aluminum Lake (CI 19140:1)

Giddy
8.5
Product
9.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8
Longevity
5
Application
88%
Total
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

The brand’s owner recently addressed the price point of the brand via video (also features the announcement of their lip products), for those curious. Per the video, they are not trying to compete with “drugstore prices” but fill the space between that and high-end. These lipsticks have a higher price particularly because of the packaging, which the brand customized, and one of the “features” of the lipstick packaging is the “color indicator” on the cap. I mention this because I felt that several really were not well-indicated by the color on the top, so it left me wishing they hadn’t made that move and offered a more compelling price point on the formula. They also opted for a slim-style lipstick tube, which almost always results in a reduction in quantity (across all brands), and the same is true here–there is 0.07 oz. in each, and the average lipstick is closer to 0.10 oz. to 0.12 oz.

Mid-end is a tier of brands that is hard to define as often mid-end and lower high-end are muddled together–many will put MAC, Urban Decay, and Dior all in the same tier, even though there is a fair difference between price points between those three. In general, MAC used to define the space between drugstore and high-end well, but some of their products have increased enough in price that they started to compete with brands like Urban Decay and NARS (which were more firmly in the high-end realm). The $15 price point of the Iconic lipstick formula is definitely what I would consider mid-end. Here’s how the pricing per ounce compares to some mid-end to (lower) high-end, popular lipstick formulas:

  • Makeup Geek Iconic Lipstick: $214.29/oz. ($15 each)
  • Kat Von D Studded Kiss Lipstick: $210.00/oz. ($21 each)
  • Smashbox Be Legendary Lipstick: $210.00/oz. ($21 each)
  • Make Up For Ever Artist Rouge Lipstick: $183.33/oz. ($22 each)
  • MAC Liptensity Lipstick: $175.00/oz. ($21 each)
  • Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick: $173.33/oz. ($26 each)
  • MAC Lipstick: $170.00/oz. ($17 each)
  • Urban Decay Vice Lipstick: $154.55/oz. ($17 each)

There aren’t that many slim-style permanent formulas by the mid-end/lower high-end tier; you have to start going into true high-end (NARS, Shiseido, Givenchy, and so forth) to really find them, and then you’re looking at closer to ~$30 each, so the Makeup Geek Iconic Lipsticks are much cheaper by the ounce compared to those brands. I appreciate they’ve clarified that they’re not trying to compete with drugstore prices, given some of their recent releases and price points. I would like to see them adopt some of the perks of some of the mid-end brands they’re competing against, like returns and free shipping. I know that I had always thought of Makeup Geek as a brand that was trying to offer a more affordable price point (higher than drugstore but not mid-end) with emphasis on product vs. packaging, so I’ll be adjusting my perspective and comparing their pricing to mid-end brands going forward!

[Please note: all comparisons are made against U.S. pricing. Pricing in other countries can vary a lot due to markups, where a drugstore lipstick can be under $10 in the U.S. and closer to $20 in Australia.]


Candid

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick ($15.00 for 0.07 oz.) is a subdued, medium brown with a hint of plum paired with a creamy, glossy finish. It had good color payoff–though not quite opaque–with a creamy, light-medium weight texture that was easy to apply and comfortable on the lips while worn. This shade had a tendency to pull into lip lines after two to three hours of wear, but the color could be smoothed back out. It lasted for four and a half hours and was lightly hydrating.

Ingredients

Castor (Ricinus Communis) Seed Oil Diisostearyl Malate Euphorbia Cerifera (Candelilla) Wax Trioctyldodecyl citrate Castor Isostearate Succinate Caprylic Caprice Triglyceride Octyldodecanol Ozokerite Wax Bis-diglyceryl polyacyladipate-2 Flavor Polyethylene Microcrystalline Wax Tribehenin Phenoxyethanol Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate Tocopheryl Acetate Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax Ethylhexylglycerin. May Contain: Mica (CI 77019) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) Iron Oxides (CI 77491,CI 77492, CI 77499) Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891) FD&C Red 7 Calcium Lake (CI 15850:1) D&C Red 27 Aluminum Lake (CI 45410:2) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) FD&C Blue No 1 Aluminum Lake (CI 42090) FD&C Yellow No 5 Aluminum Lake (CI 19140:1)

Candid
8.5
Product
9
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
5
Application
88%
Total
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Witty

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick ($15.00 for 0.07 oz.) is a deep red-brown with warm undertones and a glossy, cream finish. It had rich, opaque color coverage with a soft, melt-on-your-lips consistency that glided on easily and was comfortable to wear. While it had a definite sheen, it didn’t seem overly slippery, so I didn’t have any issues with the color moving on the lips or feathering over time. This shade lasted for six hours, left a stain behind, and was slightly hydrating overall.

Ingredients

Castor (Ricinus Communis) Seed Oil Diisostearyl Malate Euphorbia Cerifera (Candelilla) Wax Trioctyldodecyl citrate Castor Isostearate Succinate Caprylic Caprice Triglyceride Octyldodecanol Ozokerite Wax Bis-diglyceryl polyacyladipate-2 Flavor Polyethylene Microcrystalline Wax Tribehenin Phenoxyethanol Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate Tocopheryl Acetate Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax Ethylhexylglycerin. May Contain: Mica (CI 77019) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) Iron Oxides (CI 77491,CI 77492, CI 77499) Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891) FD&C Red 7 Calcium Lake (CI 15850:1) D&C Red 27 Aluminum Lake (CI 45410:2) D&C Red No 6 (CI 15850) FD&C Blue No 1 Aluminum Lake (CI 42090) FD&C Yellow No 5 Aluminum Lake (CI 19140:1)

Witty
9
Product
9.5
Pigmentation
9
Texture
10
Longevity
5
Application
94%
Total
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Giddy Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Candid Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Makeup Geek Witty Iconic Lipstick

Where to Buy

Current Sales & Deals

  • Beauty BayFree tracked shipping on $50+ orders / free express shipping on $100+ orders, ends 12/31.
  • Makeup Geek10% off with code TEMPTALIA, ends 12/31.
When you purchase through our links above, you help support Temptalia. Thank You!
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Makeup Look

On face:
  • Dior Star Foundation
  • Laura Mercier Loose Setting Powder
  • Chanel Coco Code Harmonie de Blush
  • Chanel Elegance Joues Contraste Blush
On eyes:
  • Chanel Codes Subtils Eyeshadow Quad
  • Chanel Noir Petrole Eyeliner

About the Reviewer

Reviewer

Christine has normal-to-dry skin with areas of dryness (cheeks, nose, and under the eyes). She has a light-medium skintone with subtle, warmer yellow undertones. Her best foundation matches include: Tarte Rainforest of the Sea in Light-Medium Neutral (best match), Estee Lauder Double Wear Stay-in-Place Makeup in Desert Beige 2N1, Giorgio Armani Maestro Glow in 4.0, Hourglass Warm Ivory Vanish Seamless Finish, Laura Mercier Candleglow Soft Luminous in Dusk, MAC NC20/NC25, Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Liquid in Y305 (140). For more matches, please read our full Foundation FAQ. For more information on our review process, please read our Review FAQ.

Compare Any Two Swatches

Curious how two shades compare to each other? Type in the shades below to get instant side-by-side swatches!

41 Comments

Comments that do not adhere to our comment policy may be removed. Discussion and debate are highly encouraged but we expect community members to participate respectfully. Please keep discussion on-topic, and if you have general feedback, a product review request, an off-topic question, or need technical support, please contact us!

Please help us streamline the comments' section and be more efficient: double-check the post above for more basic information like pricing, availability, and so on to make sure your question wasn't answered already. Comments alerting us to typos or small errors in the post are appreciated (!) but will typically be removed after errors are fixed (unless a response is needed).

We appreciate enthusiasm for new releases but ask readers to please hold questions regarding if/when a review will be posted as we can't commit to or guarantee product reviews. We don't want to set expectations and then disappoint readers as even products that are swatched don't always end up being reviewed due to time constraints and changes in priorities! Thank you for understanding!

Comments on this post are closed.

I appreciate the thoroughness of your reviews as always Christine. I too was glad that Marlena addressed the pricing of these, though I thought it was funny she was so excited about the color indicator when my $5 Milani lipsticks have indicators too! Maybe the Iconic lipsticks are special because it’s a slim-style, idk.
But I am interested in the plush mattes so I look forward to your review πŸ™‚

Yeah, it’s not new “tech” at all to have something that indicates the color πŸ™ Some brands use colored labels instead (on the bottom, which might be more useful since you can see the name + color). I’d say having it on the top is probably less common – I want to say my Sephora glosses have it on the top!

I’m definitely glad she talked about the price, though!

I don’t work in a clean room, so there is for sure dust and whatever normal particles there are in a house, but there are fibers embedded in a couple of these that definitely seemed to be there when I got them. In general, I only open products when I’m about to photograph, so they aren’t sitting out that long before getting their “close-up.” I have seen it before in other brands.

I see I see.. Sorry I didn’t mean to look like I’m judging your cleanliness or anything.. First of all it is not my business. I love your thorough and honest reviews. My makeup table is such a mess, I’m not the one to talk about it. I was just curious about why they all have the same type of “dust” particles.
Thank you and Merry Christmas. πŸ™‚

I don’t think the fibers are from me – you can kind of see how they’re weaved in/around the cream on the edges – I’ve just seen it before. I’m not sure why.

If there were some specks of dust or even a piece of lint, that might be from me (hard to say – I don’t leave them open for days to collect dust, but I do wear clothes and sweaters!).

No problem, AB! I figured it was a good place to address it (since the video was about these very lipsticks and why they are priced as they are!).

I wish she’d just stick to eyeshadows. I liked it when that and blushes and eyeliner pots were all she did.

I feel like her pricing is starting to creep up and (to me), can you just come out and say it? “I don’t want to be known as a budget brand anymore, I want to make more money.” None of this “we are trying to fill the void between drugstore and high end” to make it more palatable or sympathetic that she is starting to charge more. I think that void is already filled via L’Oreal, and a few others. We don’t need a/n (inaccurate) color indicator and to use that as an excuse for what I’m sure is testing the waters/setting a precedent for future price increases, it’s insulting. NYX and Milani do it for $6. L’Oreal and other drugstore brands have been using stickers (not very accurate) and no one gets a lipstick based solely on the color sticker, and if they are not happy with a lipstick, they don’t cite the innacurate color sticker, nor do they correlate said lipstick’s price point and a color sticker or indicator.

I think she was really in need (of a community, of approval) when she started this (youtube, her videos, the company), she was a people pleaser. I think it’s hard to be that and grow a company; before, when it was “you guys, I’m here for you and I’m not like ‘that’ and I need you to know I would never blah blah blah” and now “I’m charging more because color indicators/new technology!!! We’re trying to fill the void between $6 and $10??!!” Just own it for Godsakes, you started out small and were the place to go for duping, you had your own colors as well, you had very affordable powder products (shadows and blushes), but you wanted to grow the company and wanted more (money, influence, power, to be taken seriously as a real makeup artist and/or brand, as an innovator, etc.). In order to do that, as a small business, you are going to have to charge more money and that is not going to sit well with some of your customer base. Growing pains, sure, but just say that – “I’m going to start charging more for things so I/my company can be “more”. Don’t justify it by “ooohhh new color indicating technology”. Pfffft. And don’t give out less product.

To be fair, I’m one of those people that don’t like change, especially just for change sake. Innovation and/or update is often code for cutting corners and expansion and growth usually mean reformulations (that are cheaper to make and quality suffers); to me, if something is changing, it typically means a profit margin is the motivator. Nothing wrong with that as long as you make it worth my while as a customer (i.e. sleeker packaging, more product, keep the same quality or improve it, but don’t reformulate a.k.a. cut corners and try to say it’s “new and improved” when it’s shite) but it is rarely a win-win. She should study and follow Anastasia of Beverly Hill’s example – quietly but elegantly expanding their brand, always enough product, adequate release time, classy packaging, quality product, excellent customer service, product releases are steady – a total class act and a pleasure to watch the company grow.

I think if Makeup Geek had a better past track record without so many misfires (and the way they were handled), I’d find this new product launch more exciting.

$.02/Rant over.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Pearl! It is very hard to move your price point up – that is why even a new brand will choose their pricing strategy in the beginning. You can always move down, but even downward movement is a signal to customers of change – but the opposite direction, something is wrong. MAC changed their eyeshadow pans from $10 or 12 (I can’t recall exactly what it had gone up to) to $6 – that was a massive drop, and what was the immediate reaction? MAC must be hurting/going downhill/discontinuing the entire formula. We have seen more of the subtle price movements over the last couple of years, with things like NARS Audacious Lipsticks (a significant upcharge from NARS’ regular lip products) or with MAC’s newer formulas, as most of their lipsticks/glosses have been $20+ rather than the $17 of their standard lipsticks. We’ve also seen Urban Decay revamp their lipstick formula and come out with guns blazing with their $17 price tag (a drop from the prior formula) and they even contained a little bit more.

In the examples I give of NARS/MAC, you can still opt out while still enjoying the brand, though. NARS certainly proved the Audacious formula was “worth it” to many, as it is a pretty popular formula despite the higher price point.

I do think if they want to be a mid-end/high-end brand, they need to consider adding some of the perks that most competing brands offer – like free shipping (doesn’t have to be on all orders, most brands have a threshold – something like $30 or $50), loyalty/reward program, returns (they only accept damaged/broken products from what I read in their FAQ), and so forth.

I do think that starting out with more frills-free packaging has made it much harder for a part of their base to go along; hearing that the price increase is for something like the tube being custom made for the brand, to put a colored dot on the top, etc. are nice but unnecessary, so if you’re there for function and quality, then it’s tough to swallow. I know that when Cle de Peau makes it painfully obvious that crystal-embellished compact is going to run me an extra $45, I see my way out and put my $55 pan of product into a Z Palette – because I don’t care about packaging enough to pay $45 for it.

So, it will be interesting to see what else they do and how their customer base transforms!

“I do think if they want to be a mid-end/high-end brand, they need to consider adding some of the perks that most competing brands offer – like free shipping (doesn’t have to be on all orders, most brands have a threshold – something like $30 or $50), loyalty/reward program, returns (they only accept damaged/broken products from what I read in their FAQ), and so forth.”

YES, YES, YES!! I think that’s why I’m annoyed – if you want to start moving in that direction, make the transition eaiser for your customer base. If it’s a new product soon to be launched, give a sample of it in an order before it’s released (like ColourPop with their lipglosses, Urban Decay with their minis or deluxe samples of their newly re-vamped lipsticks) so that a customer can sample and see if it’s worth the hype. For me, it would make the price hike much more palatable, and maybe not even noticeable or needing to be justified if I really like the new product/formula. I wouldn’t even care about the color dot indicator technology crap – she wouldn’t even need to use that as a justification, she could just say “oh and we put this thinger on the bottom to help you identify the colors if you store them a certain way!”, no mention of “this is why we are charging x amount”. It seems like they are bracing for a landslide of criticism by putting it out there first, but justifying it rather than as a mere mention of “oh, by the way . . .” Justifying or explaining the price keeps the focus on that, not the intro of the new product.

I also agree about the shipping threshhold. To be fair, $1.99 shipping on most orders is very reasonable but 2 weeks is a long time to wait to receive my order. Honestly, if free shipping at $30 were offered, that would be an easy sell for me.

The returns thing is a catch 22 – I can see why they don’t offer returns except for only damanged products (small business, some people buy-to-try) BUT, like you said, if they are looking at moving into higher end territory, they need to consider that. I have a few products (eyeshadows) that didn’t work out (texture or pigmentation issues), and because the only way to “sample” or see if it will work out it is to buy it (even if it is very inexpensive), it’s a dissapointment when there is no way to recoup your loss.

That is true, Pearl. It’s like the Cle de Peau compact/refill – KNOWING the compact is $45 (or whatever it is) alone is too stark of a reminder of the $$$ that goes into packaging! But like you said, trying to justify the price keeps the focus there, and saying that it IS the packaging that increased the price is harder to hear, I think, if you are mostly interested in quality. (And I think if you were buying MUG, you were primarily there for quality/range, not packaging.)

Exactly Christine!!! Long time fans of MUG are there for affordable quality alternatives to higher priced brands. Nobody is a MUG fan for packaging obviously we just want the product inside. If I want to show off fancy packaging, I’m going to buy Chanel, Dior, Tom Ford, etc – NOT MUG! I think Marlena is really making a mistake and alienating her customer base here by trying to fancy up MUG. She should’ve kept MUG the way it es and started a second brand with a higher price point and fancier packaging if that’s the direction she wanted to go. For example, I still haven’t bought one of the new highlighters bc I’m kinda ticked off that I cannot buy just the pans at a discounted price from the $20 compacts. Can I just say I also cannot stand how she never offers site-wide discounts and customers can never make their own discounted bundles. It’s annoying.

I 110% agree with you Pearl!! On every point!!! I’m very annoyed with the direction Marlena is taking her brand and I haven’t bought any of the new price-hiked “fancy” packaged new stuff (highlighters, blushes in compacts, or new lipsticks) I liked at least that her blushes were released separately in pans, but it sucks that she didn’t do that with her highlighters. It’s like, you built this brand to be affordable and now youre slapping your customer base in the face with this nonsense about color coded packaging. Ridiculous. I hope she gets the message loud and clear that her customers aren’t thrilled.

Candid is beautiful. MUG’s price point in general seems to be creeping up higher into mid-range. These lipsticks look really nice, but the fibers bother me. It makes me wonder about cleanliness and care at the production level.

I went into reading this thinking that Candid would be my favorite, but I have MAC Spirit. Slap a little gloss or Royally Riotous over it and Voila! I wound up liking how Witty looked instead.

I would like to thank you so much for the clarification on MUG’s reasoning behind their price increase. So she’s basically going mid-end now, I suppose. As long as she can produce equal quality as UD & MAC, and changes some of her policies to reflect what mid-end brands offer. Free shipping and returns would certainly boost her line!

I definitely think that given the brand has very little accessibility (can’t see/play with it in stores) and without a more generous return policy, it’s easy to opt for a brand that you can grab from Ulta or Sephora. I am, though, usually boggled by any brand (makeup or otherwise) that doesn’t offer free shipping at some threshold!

It is quite odd that they consider color indicators to be a tech advancement- even more so if the indicators aren’t completely accurate! That being said, I do like the shade Witty.

Yeah, I arranged them based on the colors shown on the tops, and I had to rearrange them later on because they weren’t really in a good order (I usually do light-to-dark and by color family). I also had trouble trying to put caps back on (I put them in order, but a few knocked over and looked out of order), because a lot of them didn’t match *any* color well enough to be like, “Oh, duh!”

I know I’m in the minority here, but personally I like that Marlena made the move to improve the packaging. It makes it easier for gift shopping, because you can buy someone a fancy looking lipstick/powder for way less than what you’d be paying at Sephora. And the fact she offers the powders in pan form as well to skip the extra costs is really great too. That being said, she seemed so commited to having this slim lipsticks have coloured ends so I really don’t understand why they don’t really match??

I agree, the lack of free shipping is strange (but something I am very used to as a Canadian), but I order all of my makeup geek from beauty bay which does have a very low free shipping threshold and their prices are almost the same as the MG website, so I’m not too bothered. I personally don’t think Marlena is trying to be shady, I just think that she’s trying to build her makeup brand and I think she’s looking to fill that hole that MAC left in the middle-tier market (which is great, since her shadows and highlighters are so much better).

I liked how they did the blushes – pan only for those who want no-frills but sturdy, useful compacts for those who prefer compacts. Unfortunately, the highlighters are only available in compacts πŸ™ My guess is they aren’t suitable for pan-only (too fragile? perhaps), but it was still a bummer.

I’d feel better about their packaging choices if they had awesome packaging, but their Sparklers packaging left a lot to be desired (last I heard, they don’t even attach the sifters for you, so there are still problems upon arrival and I remember the pigments having cracking issues!). The packaging seemed fine to me with the lipsticks/liquid lipsticks (the one thing I noticed was that the lipsticks could have had more weight to them in the base) but wouldn’t call it fancy myself – though something like fancy is definitely in the eye of the beholder πŸ™‚ (I don’t think Chanel, Tom Ford, Dior, etc. are fancy either.)

I agree about the packaging, but that being said, I was looking on beauty bay for christmas gifts and it was extremely clear to me that the MG packaging was a lot more luxe than the Milani and the L.A. girl products.

Yeah the sparklers were a bit of a disaster, if I remember correctly that was the first time that she was trying out the new gunmetal packaging and there wasn’t a sifter because they had wanted to release them before christmas. But I also remember her she made a video addressing the issues and I thought that was very well done.

I do wish she would address why the highlighters don’t come in singles, but I have heard from others that she’s replied in comments that fragility is the issue (not surprising since the foiled shadows break pretty easily).

I wish I felt that the situation with the Sparklers was handled well, but I don’t (that is obviously just my perspective, I totally understand that others, like you, are happy with the resolution). I do, however, appreciate that they did acknowledge the criticism/issues quickly – many brands would not. I believe the new pigments they had released just prior had the gunmetal lids, but the component was larger and wider – those had issues with the edges/sides breaking, though.

Perhaps one of the worst examples of handling a similar type situation is Marc Jacobs Beauty with the faulty packaging on their eyeliners (caps did not close tightly enough, so they dried out very quickly) and never sent word to customers, did not replace any of the faulty ones, and then quietly put up a “oops, sorry, we fixed it” as a “review” on Sephora. One of the best examples is Bite Beauty – lots of poor reviews for one of their first limited edition shades, and they tried to reformulate and resent to people. I know that not everyone got a redo, but I know that I did and never asked for one, never reached out to Bite, and did not return the one I purchased.

Christine I’m also very bummed that the highlighters aren’t offered pan-only at a lower price point. I haven’t bought any because of it. (And I own over 50 MUG shadows – I haven’t counted in ages – and a handful of blushes) but the no-pans-only-compacts thing bugs me. Btw what do you consider fancy? ClΓ© de peau? Guerlain? I think Chanel and Dior and Tom Ford are fancy, but in an understated and classic way.

For me, Chanel/Dior have a lot of just solid plastic for compacts – I guess fancy to me is something more interesting/unique and less plastic used. I think Tom Ford’s Soleil packaging (all the white) is fancier than his standard bronzy/brown compacts. Chanel’s lipstick tubes have more metal to them, and so they have a good weight and the way they pop and click to open makes them stand out so I’d consider the Rouge Allure ranges to be fancier.

Of the high-end brands, Guerlain tends to have the fanciest packaging, but they seem to have reduced some of it. Something like Guerlain’s Rouge G Lipstick is what I’d consider “fancy.” Guerlain’s 6-pan eyeshadow palettes have a mirror that angles out separate from the interior lid, and then the lid has a filigree pattern on it – more intricate, unique, and more metal to it as well (they are very heavy, though). Givenchy uses leather to encase part of their lipstick ranges (Le Rouge and Le Rouge-a-Porter). I think magnetic closures are also higher-end and fancier to me (Giorgio Armani lip products come to mind).

Nice colors, dupable, though. Despite probably having a dog hair or two on lip products, at least it’s my dog. Most tube shots are vey pure, sharp. These are slightly grubby, with diffuse looking edges. I know/presume you do the product shot prior to applying it. These two look like newish testers that were exposed to the environment a bit. A while ago I did an immediate return/turnaround, when they duplicated 5 items in my order. Never did get any form of acknowledgement. I think I knew the policy, but they were unopened and the fault was theirs. I know they are too busy to reply, caveat emptor. It it was their error. If I hade kept them, at least I could have given them away. Suspect I’m done with them, bec they leave a disreputable taste in my mouth. If I had return receipted it, I could complain, but I returned the five with the original packing slip and a note, and a f/u email to nick/tech. I let it go, but it reeks of bad practice to me.

I definitely prefer to take photos prior to using, lol! I usually leave everything in the box and handle every product with white gloves (no joke!) until I’ve finished the photos. When I wanted to redo my MAC lipstick swatches, I ended up buying 80% all over again, because I really did not like photographing them used πŸ™

I’m sad to hear about your experience, KJH, as I remember that problem you had. It is very disheartening that you could not even get a response back about it! Were you actually charged for the five duplicates? If so, that adds up and is terrible.

I like all 3 of these shade surprisingly!

I’m not shocked by the price point for the new not common on the market packaging as well and paying to get a custom one eats at the price as well (The NARS Audacious is VERY custom are part of the reason they cost so much more not the formula). MUG is still cheaper than Melt with their flimsy lipstick tubes by comparison. That said maybe going with a traditional bullet might have helped with the price point.

We try to approve comments within 24 hours (and reply to them within 72 hours) but can sometimes get behind and appreciate your patience! πŸ™‚ If you have general feedback, product review requests, off-topic questions, or need technical support, please contact us directly. Thank you for your patience!