Makeup Geek Sparklers (Loose Glitter) Review, Photos, Swatches

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Sparklers ($12.00 for 0.14 oz.) is supposed to be an ultra-fine loose “glitter” (“uses reflects to create a glitter effect”) that’s safe for usage on the eyes. It’s been awhile since I’ve been so deeply disappointed in a brand, but I can’t believe these were launched in the existing packaging, at full price, and are being marketed as they are. I watched the brand’s introduction/announcement video, and here are a few key descriptions I pulled:

1:30 – “You can apply them just as you would a pigment, but you could also use … a glitter glue.”

1:50 – “You can even put it on your cheekbones … You don’t need to have to apply it wet, just stick your finger in … just pat it on.”

8:52 – “To apply them, you want to get a glitter glue or you can just use your fingers and literally just dab it on, because they are so super finely milled, they’ll stick on there really well but if you want a really intense shine … use that glitter glue.”

9:14 – “They are messy to work with … We do have sifters we’re working on, they’re not going to be ready for a few months. I’m launching them as is … Just know they’re a little messy to work on, but once you put them on your face, they’re not going to get all over your face as long as you use a stiff brush.”

I highly recommend waiting to purchase these until the brand actually includes the sifters they said these are supposed to have. At present, I don’t see a discount reflected for purchasing incomplete packaged products, and I don’t see any remedy for those to obtain sifters. Without sifters, these are frustrating to use and a waste of money, because there is constant, nonstop loss of product, which means you’re getting a lot less for your money than you think. This isn’t like a pigment, either, as a little doesn’t go a long way–you need a decent amount patted over an adhesive base to get opaque coverage.

Edited @ 9:15AM PST: The following disclaimer was added to the purchase pages for the Sparklers when I looked this morning:

NOTE: Please be aware that the Sparklers are MESSY as they do not currently have a sifter in the jar (we are working on a revision). Please be cautious when opening the jar to minimize the mess. We have temporarily discounted the Sparklers to compensate for the inconvenience [Editor’s Note: the price is now $10, instead of $12.]

I would recommend opening and closing these over a damp towel, which will help lock some of the sparkle in place, as it is fine and is hard to clean-up. This is just the mess that it makes on your tabletop or vanity. There was a ton of product all around the corkscrew of the jar, where the lid screws on, as well as in parts of the lid, so as you open and as you close, you get a ton of product fall out, and if you move the jar around, product loosens from the edges. I opened my jars, cleaned the rims and edges, and closed them. If they ever turned upside down even once, it was the same mess all over again. I just can’t fathom why this product is released when the packaging isn’t functional, and they know it–they’re working on sifters–but have chosen to go ahead and launch anyway, yet there’s no mention of the lack of sifters or that packaging is an issue on the website (point of purchase), only in the video. (Similarly, it was stated in the video that a glitter glue is being worked on, but like the sifters, will not be ready for a couple months.)

There’s no point in reviewing these one by one, because they are not usable on their own. There is no “you could use” a glitter glue; if you want to use these on the face, eyes, or other skin area, you need some sort of adhesive or cream base that will help the Sparklers adhere. That’s all there is to it. They are very much like cosmetic grade glitter in that they are a drier, loose formulation with little binder holding the formula together, so they do not stick to the skin and will move by gently blowing or rubbing it against the skin. Some of the larger particle shades have a larger particle size, and I had trouble just keeping enough product on the swatch for photographing purposes, as the product would just fly away as I moved my arm six inches closer to the camera.

I don’t understand why these aren’t marketed as exactly that: loose glitter that MUST be used with an adhesive if you want to use them on your eye. Β Gently patting the glitter against the eye, with a firm, stiff brush, results in the majority of the glitter falling below the lid and little on the lid at all. You cannot pat them on the cheeks and actually have the product stay where you placed it–unless you have a tacky foundation or cream blush that’s still wet that can help it stay (but upon dry down, these get everywhere, as I have found through three tests). They will 100% get all over your face without a glitter adhesive. If you like loose glitter and would use this in an adhesive base (glitter glue, lipgloss, etc.), they have a lot of sparkle and shine, but I still would wait until you’re actually getting 100% of the packaging you’re paying for, which will, hopefully, keep the majority of your product in the jar and available for use. The jars themselves are very flimsy and thin, and they are easily knocked over (no forgiveness at all), which will spill about half the jar (I speak from experience). Β If you have wax paper in your house, you can scoop glitter into the wax paper, then use the natural crease and pour it back in the jar (I find wax paper is easier than regular paper).

The shades with the least sparkle and strongest base color were the only ones that had something show up to the party applied without an adhesive base, and these included: Dark Matter and Solstice. Shades like Asteroid, Halo, Martian, Milky Way, Nebula, and Satellite have a mix of larger particles and adhere 0% to the skin.

All swatches below are done in the same fashion: left, dry, and right, patted over Violet Voss Violet’s Secret Weapon Glitter Adhesive.

2
Product
2
Pigmentation
6
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
22%
Total
Aurora
2
Product
3.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
31%
Total
2
Product
3.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
31%
Total
4
Product
5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
39%
Total
Halo
2
Product
2
Pigmentation
6.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
23%
Total
2
Product
3.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
31%
Total
Martian
1.5
Product
1.5
Pigmentation
7
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
22%
Total
1.5
Product
1.5
Pigmentation
7
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
22%
Total
Nebula
1.5
Product
1.5
Pigmentation
0
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
7%
Total
2
Product
2
Pigmentation
7.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
26%
Total
2
Product
2.5
Pigmentation
8
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
28%
Total
5
Product
7.5
Pigmentation
9
Texture
2.5
Longevity
0
Application
53%
Total
2.5
Product
2
Pigmentation
6.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
24%
Total
2
Product
2.5
Pigmentation
0
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
10%
Total
Zodiac
1
Product
1
Pigmentation
6.5
Texture
0
Longevity
0
Application
19%
Total
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Sparklers
Makeup Geek Sparklers

Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers
Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers

Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers
Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers

Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers
Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers

Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers
Makeup Geek Asteroid Sparklers

Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers
Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers

Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers
Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers

Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers
Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers

Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers
Makeup Geek Aurora Sparklers

Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers
Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers

Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers
Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers

Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers
Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers

Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers
Makeup Geek Constellation Sparklers

Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers
Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers

Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers
Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers

Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers
Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers

Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers
Makeup Geek Dark Matter Sparklers

Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers
Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers

Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers
Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers

Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers
Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers

Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers
Makeup Geek Halo Sparklers

Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers
Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers

Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers
Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers

Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers
Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers

Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers
Makeup Geek Light Year Sparklers

Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers
Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers

Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers
Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers

Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers
Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers

Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers
Makeup Geek Martian Sparklers

Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers
Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers

Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers
Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers

Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers
Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers

Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers
Makeup Geek Milky Way Sparklers

Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers
Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers

Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers
Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers

Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers
Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers

Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers
Makeup Geek Nebula Sparklers

Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers
Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers

Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers
Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers

Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers
Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers

Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers
Makeup Geek Satellite Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solar Flare Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solstice  Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solstice Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solstice  Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solstice Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solstice  Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solstice Sparklers

Makeup Geek Solstice  Sparklers
Makeup Geek Solstice Sparklers

Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers
Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers

Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers
Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers

Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers
Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers

Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers
Makeup Geek Stargazer Sparklers

Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers
Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers

Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers
Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers

Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers
Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers

Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers
Makeup Geek Supernova Sparklers

Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers
Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers

Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers
Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers

Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers
Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers

Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers
Makeup Geek Zodiac Sparklers

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Product Availability

Makeup Geek Sparklers $12.00/0.14 OZ.
When you purchase through our links above, you help support Temptalia. Thank You!

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!

238 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 just want to say thank you for such an honest review. I refused to buy these as soon as she said she didn’t have sifters in the because c’mon! it’s glitter for goodness sake! The colors are super beautiful and I would love to purchase them, but I’m waiting for those sifters. Especially since they aren’t going to send them to you afterwards.

Yes, I think it’s pretty bad that they’ve gone ahead and released these while knowing the packaging isn’t complete… yet these aren’t discounted – and there is no mention that they lack sifters on the purchase page!

Thank you for an honest review. This is terribly disappointing, I expected better from this brand. I would rather market a product when its 100%. I am curious to know why the decision was made to sell these items when they look like a hot mess.

I know in the video they wanted customers to have them in time for holiday looks (Christmas/New Year), but I think we would have managed to survive without them for a few more months. I mean, if you are buying full jars of glitter, you’re probably wearing it year-round, right? πŸ˜€

Unfortunately, I rushed to buy these in order to review them on my blog, but I’m really disappointed in Marlena. I’ve always been an avid supporter of Makeup Geek, but this is really disappointing. I’m sure a lot of people will be returning these. The mess just isn’t worth it. I can’t imagine ever taking these out of my drawers in fear of causing a mess.

I hope you can find a way to enjoy them, Reema! Maybe putting them in small ziploc bags? Then at least it won’t be quite as messy when you open. They definitely seem like a time commitment to use.

Leesha (xsparkage) was not impressed with the packaging either. πŸ˜•

These are micro glitters with no base for adhesion, you will need a sticky base so I don’t think the claims helped with the rating at all.

I think you’re missing a few shades in the swatches, but have all the reviews here in the posts. I think Solstice is the one missing.

Pretty! I wonder if there’s a way to turn loose pigments into pressed powder. Because lawd knows I cannot deal with all that pigment mess just by looking at it.

I bet you can too! I successfully pressed MAC reflects glitter in blackened red with just rubbing alcohol and glycerin. It isn’t just less messy, it applies better too!

Thank you thank you thank you for posting! I am sick and tired of the excuses that MUG keeps giving for their crappy products. There’s no way in heck that these should have been released this soon, even if people wanted them in time for the holidays. It was a cash grab, plain and simple, and she wasn’t being totally honest in the launch video that these are good as standalone products. Shame on her, and good for you for being straightforward and fearless in your review for these. This is why I keep coming back to your website. Brava.

I could have at least understood it a little more if there was some discount for purchasing without sifters (I do not think sifters as an IOU, even if shipped for free, is a great solution as having to put on a sifter can be tricky, depending on how it goes on), and if this was also pretty readily disclosed at point of sale (it’s not mentioned at all), but I’m equally sure that the majority of the customer base would have understood a delay or longer wait for packaging to be finished.

Yikes, I’ve never ordered from MUG before and these looked so pretty for NYE I ordered 3. Now I am quite worried about the product. The brand is really shooting themselves in the foot for not disclosing that info. I probably won’t purchase from them again.

I think the product itself is fine inasmuch as loose glitter/sparkle goes – use a glitter glue, and you should be fine! They are just marketed poorly (they do NOT work on their own!!) and packaging is awful (so open over paper or a bag so you can either easily clean up or put the product back into the jar).

Like any lose glitter, these need a base. I don’t know what Marlena was talking about when she said they can be used on their own! Even if you are using these over a shadow, you need to use some fort of medium to help these adhere. I used my MAC fix plus and that helped a lot.

If you use a glitter glue (definitely more than a primer, I think, something that is adhesive), they definitely are workable. I just am baffled by the mention of using them dry, not once but at least three times that stood out (quoted above) to me — and specifically that they’re so fine that they don’t need to be apply wet… they will stick on well by themselves? after feeling the texture alone, it’s like, “Hmm, how?” It would have been really cool if they had, though!

It’s funny because the video Marlena just put up a day or two ago of how to use the Sparklers, every swatch and use she used glitter glue before doing the swatch and she used glitter glue on her eyelid for the look. So clearly they need adhesive so they work, which is fine, just say so, because the swatches on the right side look beautiful.

Have you ever purchased pigments or glitter from TKB Trading? You get 6 grams (2.5 for the more expensive ones, but almost all are 6grams) for $1.50 and you can buy (6) 10 gram jars WITH SIFTERS for $3.50. They have some beautiful micas, glitters and oxides (and eye shadow bases) so you can mix your own, if you like. You can also use them on their own without mixing, if you want. I understand people not wanting to actually make their own pressed eyeshadows, but buying loose pigments from MUG (or even MAC) just doesn’t make sense to me. They are so expensive for the amount you get.
I think Marlena’s business sense just isn’t there right now. I don’t know what’s going on, but she involved herself in the Gerard Cosmetics fiasco earlier this year, constantly offers up excuses as to why her products aren’t right (it’s always someone else’s fault) and now she’s lying about her products. She’s lost all my business and I know a lot of people feel the same.

There’s the problem right there. Marlena us a woman who started a business, she’s not a business woman. She needs to hire someone with cosmetic, retail marketing experience and put together a PR team. She’s showing the world that she truly doesn’t know how to run a business, to her own detriment. Makeup Geeks reputation is becoming marred and instead or learning from mistakes, they’re being repeated and accompanied with excuses and blaming the customer, essentially, for using her products wrong. No. On top of that, she needs to step back from social media…. She doesn’t handle it well and simply put, doesn’t know how to speak to people as a business owner. I think worse about everything she touched because of her actions so even if the sparklers were amazing, I’m not about to support a company who’s CEO goes around lecturing people in the Internet.

Wow, I think those pictures are a perfect representation of a “hot mess”! I’m so sorry they caused you such frustration.

I’m more of a shimmer/satin over straight up glitter person, so these were always going to be a non-starter for me, but it’s still awful to think that they’ll be such a mess for anyone looking forward to using the product! I remember watching that MUG video last week & thinking that there was already a bunch of glitter floating in the air as they filmed, but it is clearly so much worse than that!

It’s a shame that they would rush the packaging on something that clearly needs a lot of maintenance to be properly utilized. ?

My lawd! Such a shame too because they are so pretty over the glitter glue! The packaging issue would drive me crazy though.

So basically ordinary cosmetic glitter you can buy for cheap from several companies, only more expensive and with crappy, albeit very pretty, packaging. Are you kidding me?! You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig, regardless of whether it’s wearing Wet n Wild or Tom Ford! I’m so saddened by this release.

Based on what they said, I don’t think it’s actually glitter but something finer (they call it reflects), and at least it is eye-safe, but given that $12, it is their top-end for pricing and yet incomplete re: packaging… it is a serious misstep.

After watching her video that’s what I thought, too. I was hoping for like a hybrid pigment-glitter product, but after seeing how they perform it’s just glitter by a different name. It’s sad because I was really hoping for something that had a pigment performance but the shine of a glitter, almost like a reflex pigment from OCC but more, but no such luck. Luckily the majority of the rest of the permanent line is great otherwise I would steer clear from the brand. I know it’s supposed to be different from typical cosmetic glitter but none of them seem like it, but that’s just me.

They’re more like loose glitter than pigment, and while about half or so are finer than your typical loose glitter, they still have some of that “grit” you’d feel with glitter (like fine sand). A lot of the marketing behind the product would make sense if it was a genuinely pigment/sparkle hybrid, where there was significant pigmentation from the base (like a pigment) with the addition of sparkle (plus a denser base might hold/bind with the fine sparkle better) and thus would be more innovative and more likely to adhere to the skin without an adhesive (at least, to some degree).

Thank you for giving us the straightforward, no b.s., totally honest 411 on these, Christine. I feel that MUG putting these up for sale without the sifters, and without better quality packaging was incredibly unprofessional. I cannot imagine what she was thinking! The only way I could even justify purchasing one would be if I intended to go through the trouble of pressing it into a pan to turn it into a regular glittery eyeshadow. But we already have ColourPop, GAETK, and L’Oreal Infallible for that!

Thanks for the thorough honesty as always, Christine! I saw the announcement/launch video and clicked over to the MUG site for swatches (I noticed the lack of them right away since the recent duochrome launch, for example, included swatches). Immediately I noticed the lack of explanation on the site re: sifters included in the video as you mentioned. Then I saw the price. No discount for an incomplete product that she admits was extremely messy to work with (and no swatches+laying the paper down to even discuss each new shade+the terrifying videos of the color blowing everywhere already showed this) isn’t cool. Of course, the brand insists that they were just sooo excited to launch and knew fans would reaaaally want sparkles for New Years so they just HAD to in order to please customers. Or no one wanted to deal with losses for delaying the product further and wanted in on some of that holiday cash without regard to the lack of customer appreciation and care this shows. It’s not very professional for any brand, let alone one this size now.

Plus, putting in sifters can be more work than maybe some customers realize. If the sifters that one day do come are even the tiniest bit off your pot will crack. Sifters can be tough little guys. Especially with a messy product that will shed large amounts from merely looking at it. Really a bad move. I was thinking of picking up some of the duochomes since I only have three or four MUG products and they seemed nice but this move re: Sparklers and some other past issues made me rethink.

Yes, absolutely, Celia! Well-said. I’m also curious — were the swatches used with an adhesive base? I don’t think that’s inherently wrong (swatching over a primer or with an adhesive base), but I do think it needs to be disclosed as well!

I agree; putting on a sifter (or even removing one that is already on) isn’t always foolproof. It can be a messy process, and it can also break your pot, as you mentioned. These jars are quite thin–each box was so light, I thought it was missing the jar! and had to double check the weight of these as well–so it would make me a little nervous about getting the sifter on as well.

I clicked the link straight from the description box on the launch video that included an arm full of swatches. These were DEFINITELY swatched on a tacky base on the site. And fully agreed, that is a problem as it is indeed not disclosed in that link. It makes it look as though one can expect extremely sparkle and color-payoff merely from regular use straight from the jar. They were misleading. Very much mishandled. I actually took a screenshot out of surprise ha.

What a shame. I don’t even imagine these will press well since you noted they have much binding to them. I think your brilliant coverage will help a lot of consider their purchases carefully or save money. With so many amazing high-shimmer and glitter options out there for the holidays it just isn’t worth dealing with the mess.

Yeah, very much. And the video itself was very off-putting. And of course on my last post I meant “they DON’T* have much binding in them” hehe. Really sorry you had to deal with the mess of these! Can’t imagine all that dry glitter everywhere.

I wish I had seen your review before I bought 3 of these. They just arrived today, and when I opened them, I said out loud to myself, these are insanely messy. Glitter went EVERYWHERE with each one, and, just like you said, there was a ton of product around the edge of the lid. I haven’t seen the video you mentioned where she says that sifters are coming, but I completely agree with you – these are just way too messy to use without a sifter. I’m hoping I’ll be able to apply them how I’d envisioned them by pressing them into a glitter glue with my finger, but we shall see. Thank you for the detailed and honest review!

I think once you get working with them, they’ll look/perform how you want to, but it’s the whole mess of them that will be annoying now πŸ™ It’s pretty intense how much comes out every time you open/close, haha. My photo table took 45 minutes JUST to clean up.

I had a feeling this would be the case πŸ™ I was a little surprised when I saw MUG release a product like this-I really didn’t know what to think. I supposed it would be totally innovative or completely useless (for me). I’m a little relieved to be honest, now I don’t have to spend money I don’t have! I already have tons of loose glitters I don’t use enough.

Thanks Christine for the honest review.

Yes absolutely lol. I am getting PRK surgery for my eyes on Monday so I am trying to load my eye area with as much glitter as possible until I’ll have to avoid it for weeks!

This is such poor marketing, they tried to make it so trendy and useful for anything and “1:50 – β€œYou can even put it on your cheekbones … You don’t need to have to apply it wet, just stick your finger in … just pat it on.” ” really???
Imagine having just full on GLITTER as a highlight? Even in the dry photos chunks of glitter are visible. Maybe its just not my cup of tea to use glitter as a highlight on my cheeks, maybe there are people who do that for daily wear or nights out. But its very misleading, usually, cheek highlights should be very soft and very fine milled so it doesnt look like your face is a disco ball?
I wanted to make a MUG order like a week ago for all the new products but Im very disappointed in how hard they wanted to push this, and it isnt even fully finished!

There are plenty of glitters/sparkle-based products on the market – they could have repromoted some of their pigments (which are quite shimmery!) if they wanted to push something for the holiday, but I know I would not have expired on the spot had these taken another two months to come out!

The particles used in these is smaller than average glitter, so I could see some of them working as a highlight (though it would certainly be more intense!), it just won’t stick on its own. It could be mixed in with something like MAC Cream Colour Base or even very lightly patted on over cream blush.

Wow. I can’t believe these don’t have a sifter! I’m so glad you reviewed these for us! I had them on my list for after Christmas. So, I was going to be looking at them soon. Thanks Christine!

The colors might be pretty, but sorry I find this launch outrageous. I was already skeptical when I saw the introduction video… I thought “well, no safety so there’s no way I buy it anyway” because I already own some pigments (old jars) and it’s such a mess I don’t use them as often as I would like it. But then I realized there wouldn’t be any swatches done… what odd for an introduction video. Naive I headed on the website. Nothing either.

Now I understand why there were no swatches to see anywhere… Well. that’s quite a disappointment. We shall see in a few months. But considering that non americans have to pay a higher price tag to acquire those products… it might push me to spend my money somewhere else in the futur.

Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks a lot for your pre-review and advice. As always we can count on you :).
I wish you happy holidays. May you enjoy every moments with your loved ones!

For the story. I’m reading this blog since I started make-up but I never created an account before few days ago… “What?! You don’t have an account?! But you follow Christine since so long!” -Yes my partner even know your name haha!

I hope they will work diligently on adding sifters to these eventually. I believe they put up swatches about an hour or two after the video launched – I know there is a link in the video’s description box to swatches now, though!

Thank you so much, Marie-Estelle! πŸ™‚

Same problem here with pigments in the old jars. I have one without sifter and there’s pigment all over the drawer if I don’t take care of it. I can’t imagine the mess this glitters if they are more volatile.

MUG products are super hyped up on youtube, but I’ve never wanted to buy them, which is weird because I usually want to buy almost every eyeshadow under the sun lol. Their last matte eyeshadow collection was pretty terrible, according to Christine’s swatches anyway, but all beauty vloggers were gushing over it and I couldn’t believe they were saying the truth. I suspect their products do live up to the claim of being dupes for MAC eyeshadows… but I don’t like MAC eyeshadows, so… ?

They look very pretty over the glitter glue primer. However, knowingly put out a badly packaged product, and not adequately warning people buying it, is unacceptable. They should be discounting the sifter-less product or offer to ship sifters for free when they come out. It seems MUG had a lot of packaging issues with their loose pigments, and this is more of the same.

They do! I think if they were marketed as loose sparkle/glitter that should be used with adhesive or mixed in with another product (e.g. lipgloss or hair gel), then at least performance wouldn’t be an issue – packaging, yes, but the product would be as expected!

OMG, I don’t think I’ve seen a review where every product got an F. These sound like a complete disaster. What is going on with Makeup Geek??? In my eyes, they’ve lost credibility by releasing products with obviously defective/incomplete packaging while making over-inflated or even false claims on performance. And they had issues too with the packaging on the duo chrome pigments. This is highly disappointing. So glad you reviewed these, as they don’t take returns either. Based on this, I’m never buying anything from them without reviews first. Thanks for your honesty, Christine

I don’t normally rate loose glitters, since there aren’t the same performance metrics as they are tied to some other product (glitter glue, hair spray, polish, gloss, etc.), but since they DID say (not just once, but multiple times!) that you could just dab ’em on! well rate away.

Wow thanks for the honest review!!! I have been extremely disappointed with mug products lately. In fact I posted a review on their site on the new mattes. It was a polite review on how the old formula was better. They contacted me and sent me some brushes which was nice, but they never posted my review which I think is shady and deceptive of them. So buyer beware. I think I will stick with mac glitter reflects, lit, and violet voss. Thanks for the truth christine, you are awesome!!!!

No way! I tried to submit a negative review of a couple eye shadows I bought and the review never went up, even though there was no crude/vulgar language and it was just about as polite as a negative review can get. I’m not surprised this has happened to another person though (although, they didn’t offer me anything… lol)

This is very disappointing as I remember that in her last video Marlena insisted that even criticisms where welcome to improve products in the near future… :/

I also submitted reviews.. The positive reviews were posted but not the mediocre reviews.. I even asked for help on how to apply the mercury eye-shadow.. And my review is no where to be found. I use UDPP but I cannot get the damn fallout off.. I’ve used a brush and wet wipes. I finally gave up.

They have to step up their game if they want their brand to go beyond the YouTube bubble. They have to accept criticism for a failed product. They should not charge for the sifters that should have been there in the first place.

Thank you for a fair and honest review! I trust your opinions Christine!

I can’t tell you how upsetting it is to hear from multiple readers that not all reviews are getting published. I’m not surprised when I hear of Sephora doing it, but it is a problem, so when it is a smaller brand that seems to pride themselves on feedback, it is just heartbreaking.

I cannot believe they launched these like this. Especially after all the pigments being cracked by the sifters! I understand they want to get their product out, and I’m quite a loyal fan to Makeup Geek, but this is too much. πŸ™

Thank you for the review. What a mess!

I don’t particularly like glittery eye shadows like this because they can damage your eyes and secondly, it is oh so easy to end up in a mess. I would give these products a big miss, especially as there are better ones around. Not including the sifters is a major oversight by MUG.
What a lot of trouble you went to in order to review this product Christine. Thank you so much.

I think this misstep will make people a lot angrier than an explanation like, “I’m sorry that our new glitter product won’t launch in time for the holidays. I just don’t feel right about putting out a product unless the quality and packaging are up to snuff.”

That’s exactly how I feel, Lisa! There are plenty of sparkly, glittery, festive shades to choose from — even with Makeup Geek’s own line — but I do think it damages a brand’s credibility and reputation if they release problematic products (pigments had a lot of packaging issues as well). It is worse when they KNOW they are doing so.

Absolutely. I’d much rather a brand be honest and wait for quality. At least when Bite launched their first limited edition monthly lip shade in January, they took note of the widespread disappointment and worked to fix their mistake. Maybe MUG will find a way.

Ouch!
The colours are pretty, though.
Still I don’t think I’ll get any of them, even with a sifter. I’ve had products like this, messy, getting everywhere except where you want them to be, but it was years and years ago, I didn’t think they made anything as bad as that these days.

Lit’s packaging is pretty excellent in general. Its the only glitter I trust to put in my kit and not get all over everything. I’m still careful with how I pack it. I even have one shade I pulled the sifter off of because the texture of the glitter was hard to get out through the holes and still no mess…

What a MESSY product! That photo, with all the spilled/fallout stuff all over your table pretty much tells the tale, doesn’t it? Some of these look stunning used with the glitter glue but pretty dismal otherwise so, yeah, why even make it sound optional to use them dry? Marlena started her line with such absolutely winning products, from all I’ve read and seen. It’s a shame to start compromising now because it’s hard to rebuild a great reputation when you let it drop with less than good products.

It doubled after I closed all the jars, too, LOL! They should have been marketed just like a loose glitter, and it would have made more sense to launch these alongside their adhesive (that they said they’re working on).

WOW πŸ™ Some of these are so pretty with an adhesive base! What a shame. Thank you as always for your honest reviews. Once again, you’ve saved me some money!

Plenty of people are able to use loose pigments and glitters without sifters and they don’t make a huge mess. I don’t see how it’s a real problem. I’d call that nitpicking.

I’d like to think I’m at least capable of opening and closing a jar without causing an undue mess, which is really all I did with these. I tapped the jar against my tabletop prior to opening, in an effort to try and get any loose product off of the lid and into the jar, and then I opened. I’ve opened many loose products, and I’ve never had as many issues as I have with these — but they already acknowledged that these will and would have had sifters… only that they aren’t ready but they’re going to release the product anyway, so you have the luxury of paying full price without the full packaging.

I’m fine with sifter-free pots that are intentionally made to work that way (like Sugarpill, for example). Often the shape and fill of the pots/caps on sifter-free products are designed to work fine that way. But these were not and are being released despite their intended use to be with a sifter. Because of this and a lack of some higher level of binding it leads to a much messier situation where powder leaks into ridges and gets everywhere. To be fair, the packaging wasn’t the sole issue. And Christine must judge a product based on its marketing, directions for use, etc. Here the product did not deliver on promises. There are multiple issues at hand to earn the rating, IMO.

Given the experience that Christine has with all manner of cosmetic products, I’d say if she can’t make it work, no one would be able to. And it’s hardly “nitpicking” when she’s developed this terrific informational site that people turn to for honest reviews. That “nitpicking” is what makes Temptalia the first rate site it is. It’s called “standards”.

These aren’t pigments. Pigments have a binding agent that allows it to stick to your brush and lid. These look like the glitter particles will go everywhere when a fly farts. I have over a 100 of Fyrinnae shadow.s, which are tiny jars, filled to the brim. Product gets into the corkscrew of the lid all the time, but never makes a huge mess thanks to a binding agent. This is a different product

Exactly, Nichole. These are dry glitters, not pigments despite MUG’s claims that Sparklers are a hybrid product. They lack the binding and usability of pigments. I love pigments and intentionally-made sifter-free products designed mindfully to be used sans sifter. My Sugarpill, Fyrinnae, etc collections that take up two full drawers of my storage space speak to this. Those products bind properly so the mess and fallout produced are minimal. They require tacky bases to show a full foil, but are able to be applied over regular primer or even lightly on bare skin because of their binding. They don’t leak into ridges and clog caps or spill everywhere due to regular use and movement. This product is not comparable to those intentionally made to be used sans sifter. And places like Sugarpill and Fyrinnae let you know that you will see different effects via different primers and don’t encourage you to pat them directly onto the face straight from the jar.

And importantly, they were released without sifters intentionally. MUG is going to charge for their sifters that customers will have to put in themselves (tricky process! Especially with extremely loose and dry glitter). These are on the highest end of pricing MUG-wise and are being sold incomplete and with misleading and false claims. I’m grateful Christine continues to “nitpick” as that’s how we get thorough and honest reviews that are on the side of us, the consumer.

Thank you for the honest review! I was planning on buying several of these but now I’m just disappointed. Guess, I’ll wait awhile and see if things get better.

I would definitely wait until they put sifters in, because then you’ll save yourself some hassle and waste less product! πŸ™‚

The lack of sifters for the first launch of the pigments was what kept me from purchasing those. MUG released the new packaging with sifters at a later date so when I saw this launch video I couldn’t understand why they would release yet another glitter/pigment product sans sifter, knowing the issues it would cause. The first time with the pigments, you can say you didn’t know. Now you know MUG.

I’m wondering if it is because the sifters in the new pigment jars ended up cracking and stressing the jars, so that was a big issue for them — but saying that, I don’t know why they wouldn’t just wait to have everything solidified and ready to go from product to packaging.

Dang man….I have been disappointing in the last few releases from MUG I usually LOVE all her stuff. I am starting to think that she is trying to do too much too fast. She is coming out with so many new products that it seems to be affecting the quality. Packaging has always been an issue with her loose pigments and now glitters. I really wish that she would get those sifters in place. Sigh….sad panda.

I remember people really excited that the pigments finally got sifters, and then that went sideways for a lot, lol, but I think they’re even more essential with this particular product due to how fine/light it is (it… catches air? easily in a way!).

I was thinking the same. It’s been a big year for her and the company – she did the foils, then the mattes, got married, now the sparklers, and I hear rumor of a flagship store in Sacramento. Too much, too fast and I think if quality issues aren’t addressed with the product(s) and packaging, her reputation in the make up community as well as MUG’s customer base will decline. She’s always seemed genuine and a business owner with integrity to me, so hopefully she has just gotten caught up in all this frenzy and will stop and regroup and get MUG back on track. Better to release few high quality products systematically than to take the shotgun approach and blast the market in an effort to stay on trend, grab holiday cash, etc.

Pigments can drive me wildly apesh*t (I love some I have, but I hate dealing with them).. these would send me over the top in short order. Based on the disappointing performance of the recent MUG matte shadows (I literally haven’t used them since the first week I got them), I chose not to dive on these. Glad I didn’t. I think if I wanted to go glitter, I would just go to LIT. Thanks for the heads up!!

While these do look quite pretty, I can’t believe how deceptive and unprofessional this launch was. I feel like the more popular they get, the less they care about their customers or the quality of their products. It seems like they’re purposely being shady and trying to deceive people not only with false claims but by not disclosing all the information. It’s definitely making me think twice about ever purchasing from them.

I did find it strange that they did not mention the lack of sifters on the product’s page when it was noted in the intro video (obviously a point they felt was important/worth mentioning).

Tell us how you really feel! πŸ™‚

I have to admit that I’ve never been super impressed by Makeup Geek, and this is another nail in the coffin for me. This is the type of product that is only going to appeal to serious makeup lovers, and it’s really lousy of the brand to not do right by such a devoted customer base. Does she think we won’t notice?

It’s a shame they flubbed the launch on these, since this is my first time seeing an eye-safe approximation of glitter. Are there any dupes for these, or something with a similar formulation?

Lit Cosmetics is my personal favorite, as far as I’m aware, it is safe for eyes and is marketed for eyes. They have a ton of shades and a few sizes. Their glitter adhesive base is really nice, too, and one thing I like about it in particular is how it is very thin (water-like) but holds well.

I love makeup geek products and I just recently purchased one of these sparklers. I actually HATE makeup geek sifters, I think they’re very VERY annoying to use. There’s just a giant hole in the top and when you pour it into the cap you can’t put any of the overflow BACK.. Defeating the whole purpose. I’m sad to hear these don’t perform well, I guess I might not purchase more. Disappointing to say the least! They should take a page out of Sugarpill’s book since they have a very successful loose pigment line…

I’m not a huge fan of the sifter they went with either (I didn’t like it on Ardency Inn’s eyeshadows, that was my first experience with that type), but these are dying for a sifter. Preferably one that has a well that dips into the jar and enables you to let any excess just sit on top of the sifter vs. the lid.

They look lovely with the glitter glue but what a MESS! the fact she released them without a sifter is so unprofessional. People would’ve understood if they released them later if that meant fixing the issue. Shame.

Thank you for being straight forward and honest with your reviews!

Ugh!! A little honesty would have gone so far here. I use messy MAC glitter and pigment samples and I know what I’m dealing with ahead of time with sample jars with no sifter. Just discount the packaging. Also, she could just say, hey this is a glitter, you need a glitter base like the ELF one and you’re golden. Problem solved? Most hard core makeup “geeks” know how to add glitters to bases.

I definitely think they should have discounted the product if they were meant to have sifters and didn’t (which is what the video mentions, but the area where you purchase the product is silent altogether).

I think the people who would be most likely to enjoy these as loose glitter would have zero issues with the brand saying “These are designed to be used with a glitter adhesive. There are several on the market that will work with our Sparklers, and we are also working on our own and hope to have it out soon!”

I have never been impressed by MUG (partially because I don’t like MAC shadows, partially because I can’t go into a store and swatch them). This is definitely not endearing me to the brand.

You know there’s a problem when both you AND Leesha said the same thing, within hours of each other( she said it on fb and instagram) about the exact same product.

I was messaging Leesha earlier today after I started writing everything up, because I was curious if she was having similar issues. We were sending each other pictures of our messes to confirm, LOL.

So first off, I’m totally not a loose pigment person so I don’t have much heart invested in these. That being said, I think this “review” is suuuuuper biased and lent more towards ranty than anything else. I’ve been reading your site for a better part of a year and have NEVER seen you tear a product launch video to pieces the way you did in the beginning of this post. I get that not having a sifter is annoying in addition to the ‘mis-marketing’ of using these as pigments instead of glitter. Does that make them “F” worthy? I have a hard time believing that rating is more than you just being pissed, especially when I’ve seen products with poor packaging or needing glitter glue receiving more fair ratings. I’ve noticed some pretty strong bias throughout your Holiday reviews and this confirms my suspicions that this site may not be where I look to for product reviews any longer… πŸ™

The rating is a reflection of these not being usable dry, as suggested multiple times in the announcement/introduction to the Sparklers video linked above as well as quoted above. The packaging is actually not factored into the rating as a strong or specific metric – if packaging is particularly bad, it gets absorbed into the general product quality score (the first). They don’t work as described, because there is something lacking in the texture to enable one to actually apply them to the skin, so they are difficult to apply (hence low points under application), have little to no pigmentation (hence low pigmentation scores, you can see swatches that show how little is even visible, and what little is there will dust away if you attempted to blend or manipulate it at all), and they don’t stick so they just fall out or travel so there is next to no wear time to speak of (hence no points). I rate as much as I can from what brands market the product as.

If this was marketed as loose glitter, there wouldn’t have been ratings at all, because performance is 100% dependent on some outside product (like glitter glue) and things like pigmentation, longevity, etc. wouldn’t make sense as metrics so our system doesn’t fit loose glitter. Unfortunately, the brand made claims that it could be applied dry (specifically stated that you didn’t even need to use them damp, as they were so finely-milled that they would stick well without water), and it was absolutely impossible for me to do so. There was no adhesion at all; the product would dust off with a whisper. I have given many Fs to poorly made glitter eyeshadows from big and small brands — notably I remember poor reviews for Sugarpill’s Elektrocutes, but they were significantly better than these and still received Cs/Ds.

I appreciate your honesty and critiques of this product. It shows me that you’re not swayed by free products and will give honest feedback to your subscribers. You’re only as good as your reputation and, as far as I’m concerned, you have a reputation for telling it like it is – good AND bad. Thank you.
I think people who don’t understand that may see you as being harsh, but you didn’t make anything up and went straight off the company owner & ceo’s words – they came straight from her and she’s the one being deceptive and unscrupulous. You don’t seem like someone who would get “pissed” over makeup products that don’t perform like you want them to perform. You’re a professional and have been doing this for years and I’ve only seen professionalism from you.
Again…thank you.

I am a firm believer in always writing the review for the benefit of my readers (and not the brand), and as much as possible, I like to try to list pros and cons!

Thank you for your support, Michelle! It means a lot πŸ™‚

Personally, I appreciated the references to the video because I wouldn’t have known otherwise. I watched a minute or so earlier in the week, ran out of time, and wouldn’t have gone back to it. (I stumbled upon it as a suggested video while browsing YouTube, but I don’t follow the brand.) From what I’ve seen here and elsewhere tonight, a lot of people are upset because of the blatant mis-marketing and/or packaging issues, and many of them are hardly respectful or articulate about it. The ratings are harsh, but I’ve seen the same for NARS, MAC, and others here; many other Makeup Geek products have A-level reviews. I don’t think it’s bias against the brand (if that’s the type of bias you’re referring to).

Just my interpretation of this mess. πŸ™‚

Thank you so much for this review! I had a negative experience with the last go round of duochrome pigments! The jar was cracked & pieces of the plastic had broken off into the pot. In my opinion, this could possibly be unsafe to use on the eye area, being as there was broken plastic in the pot. It turned out it was a widespread problem & the sifter was the issue at the time, so the sifter/packaging issue is not something new. Their solution was to either credit me $1 or send me an empty jar (no sifter) to put the remaining product in. I chose the latter, but i was highly disappointed! I am even more disappointed to hear that sifter/packaging continues to be an issue, yet they still chose to release this product. Very disappointed by the MUG brand.

I’m so sorry you had cracked/broken jars, Christina πŸ™ It was definitely a large issue, and I’m not sure that the solutions they offered were really the right ones.

OMG, yikes! Little things like no sifters on a finely milled powder product (especially one that’s glittery) make my opinions of brands just drop – a container of glittery powder releasing clouds of sparkles everywhere doesn’t make me very happy, to say the least! I prefer the packaging of the Rouge Bunny Rouge glitter pigments (the container looks like a lip gloss tube, and the “wand” is a pointed sponge applicator, with lots of protective plastic to prevent shimmer bombs), but even those pigments contain enough adhesive material that you don’t need a glitter adhesive to use them. Constellation is pretty over an adhesive…but I already have a pretty RBR teal glitter pigment πŸ˜€

It’s interesting, because while loose product can be messy in general, I’ve never had SO much excess come from a jar. Must be something to do with the particle size/weight/binders.

I’m kind of speechless. First they reformulate their eyeshadows and there’s a major decline in the performance of those… then this. It’s almost as if they are going to go out of business and they are cutting corners in an attempt to make as much money as quickly as possible before closing the doors. I hope I’m wrong. I hope they get it together and turn this whole thing around.

And to think, I had a list of eyeshadows I was getting ready to purchase until I saw the swatches of their “new” formula. I was so disappointed. Those ABH singles I bought soon after did soften the blow. However, because I had invested a good amount of time researching the MUG shades, it’s left me more than a little annoyed with the company. But just think how I would have felt if not for YOU, Christine! This Cat would have been seeing red… and it wouldn’t have been in the form of an eyeshadow! >^’..’^<

Hopefully their next launch is better! I did quite like the duochrome eyeshadows/pigments (though the pigments had packaging issues as well).

Thank you! πŸ™‚

I think if the formula was just marketed as a more typical loose glitter/loose sparkle product (e.g. it must be combined with glitter glue), the product itself would be OK, but they definitely need a sifter!

I really appreciate your honesty, Christine. I’m dissapointed but I can’t say that I am surprised after watching the video that was posted on Youtube. Something just seemed off. After reading this review I guess the ‘something’ was really everything. Too bad.

Definitely disappointed! Was expecting a little more pigmentation/glitter hybrid, but they ended up feeling/performing like fine glitter.

Thank you for such an honest, and complete review. I watched the introduction video, and I wondered why swatches weren’t included as they were in the past. Now I know why! I really wish MUG had been more honest and upfront about the product being sold.

No problem, Jenn! I know they’ve since put up swatches (I think it was only a couple of hours after the video went up) on the site.

Oh no! I had no idea these didn’t have sifters. They look so gorgeous but I’m definitely waiting until MUG gets some sifters on them to consider buying.

Yes they are messy but I still love them. I got halo in the mail yesterday & I loved it so much that I ordered two more. I do wish they had sifters though.

They are really pretty as a loose glitter kind of product! They just need some really special handling, lol, and then of course, glitter glue πŸ™‚ I just wish they had marketed them like a glitter.

You know what really ticks me off about this? She only pushed these out early to earn more money off the holiday shoppers; they’re not ready for distribution, plain and simple. This entire brand has been based off word-of-mouth, why on earth would you jeopardize that with a garbage product?

I wish they had waited until everything was in order! I understand it sucks to have the product itself ready, but the missing element of the packaging here was a critical component. It wasn’t like the label wasn’t the right color or the font was crooked.

Ouch. I was excited when I first heard of these, thinking they might be something like a couple of the MAC Reflects that I own. I can make those work against cream shadows for a few hours, anyway. But seeing these without any base (and even some with)…yikes. It’s a shame, because surely I’m not the only one who had to scroll back up to gaze at Constellation for another second. And that holo in Milky Way. Disappointed about the packaging as well, as even if you don’t mind the extra work, you’re not getting what you pay for.

They definitely have similarity to some of the MAC Reflects! I would say they’re more like that than a pigment for sure. With glitter glue, they can be pretty, but I’d wait til sifters. They’re just too fine/airy in a way that makes it hard to deal with otherwise (and too much product loss).

I know this isn’t an ideal situation, but if the outside of the jars are clean and you have some printer paper around, try this: Fold a piece of regular printer paper (8×11) lengthwise then flatten, open the jar over the middle of the paper and use as needed. When done, fold the paper back in half and pour the spilled but clean glitter back into the jar. Should help with not wasting product.

Hey Anie!

Great tip! I actually use wax paper, as I find the slight waxiness makes even the finer glitter slip down back into the jar a bit better. You’ll still get some excess fall when you close the lid, so definitely close it over the paper or over a damp towel (damp towel helps to absorb the glitter rather than let it fly everywhere).

It was a dead giveaway that she “forgot” to include swatches in her release video. “Oops”… yeah right. Clearly she knew the fallout of the product was INSANE without sifters and she wanted to make it seem like it wasn’t so bad. When your packaging is so incomplete that you lose more product than you use each time you open it, it’s NOT READY for release! And by ‘forgetting’ to swatch them on camera, she’s admitted she KNOWS it’s not acceptable.

OMG didn’t know they were that bad. Thank you for your honest review. I had such high expectations for them before, but now I don’t think I would buy glitter/loose pigment that wouldn’t perform, despite their beautiful colors. I was eyeing Constellation and Halo, but now I’d rather buy their dupes – Colour Pop Ibiza for less than half the price and even MAC Taupeless – knowing they worth it.

No problem, Eva πŸ™‚

I think if you use them with a glitter glue, they can be quite pretty, but I would definitely at least wait until the sifter issue is resolved so you don’t lose the product you paid for!

Thanks for such a straight forward review. It’s hard to find this level of honesty now a days. This makes me sad that MUG is compromising on their brand and quality of product. That’s not a great way to grow something that will last. I hope they see your review and that it influences them to make the needed changes. Keep up the great work!

Wow! Thank you Christine for your honesty! I love makeup geek! I own a bunch of their eyeshadow and pigments. I have yet to try their newest matte and duo chrome shades, which I was excited about, but the release of these I was not excited about or even cared to view the video about this launch. I feel kind of let down by them for doing something like this… But your review just made me feel good about trusting your opinions. I always come to you first before I think about purchasing something. Thank you so much!!

Wasn’t there issues before with the pigments being sold without sifters? I just don’t get it. I don’t care if they wanted to release this for the holidays. It’s an inferior line of products. It’s no wonder that these glitters were not swatched in her video. So disappointing and clearly these sparklers are nothing without a base. In addition, a vlogger reviewed these and basically had the same issue. I was looking through the comments of the video and a couple of people said they were told by the company that they plan to sell the sifters. I hope this is not true. πŸ™ Anyway, I’m glad you’ve reviewed them.

Their pigments were sold without sifters for a long time, and it seemed like one of the biggest complaints about the product. I remember they reached out to be for input on the type of sifter as they were working on it. They released the duochrome pigments and switched the original line to new packaging, which had a sifter, but there were significant and widespread issues (at least, from what I could tell based on reader/community comments) where jars were cracked, broken, or later cracked/broke after opening and closing a few times. (The general theory or what I have heard is that the sifter was slightly too big, which caused stress on the rim of the jar, which in turn weakened and broke.) I reached out to MUG for an official response when I noticed it on my jars and saw it wasn’t just me (I only had one break on me, so it wasn’t clear if it was bad luck or an issue), and I did include their response when I reviewed the duochrome pigments!

I have seen the comments too that sifters will be sold later on, but I haven’t seen that said officially by the brand, so I’m not sure yet on that.

What I got from their video was that they should have sifters, just that they weren’t going to be ready for a couple of months, and they didn’t want to delay the product any longer, so they released them without sifters for now πŸ™

One time I picked up a container of hot pink loose pigment at an outlet store that sold MAC products and it basically exploded on me … This looks like the sparkly version of that experience

I lost faith in this company after paying $100 for their foiled eyeshadows because she claimed they wouldn’t crease with hooded eyes if you applied the right eyeshadow primer. After many different eyeshadow primers and different bases used, the products still crease because MUG uses to much of a silicone bonding agent for their foiled eyeshadows (it is the same bonding silicone agent that that MUFE uses, but the latter has better eyeshadow formula), not from to much oil to give it that “foiled look,” as she described.

Add to that “wait a minute was I just lied to and feel a bit scammed foiled eyeshadow experience” arose the horrifying experience of yet another $100 purchase for the duochrime pigments that arrived in broken jars that had small plastic pieces mixed in with the product I was putting on my eyelid. After contacting CS and waiting for a resolution or change in packaging so I could order additional duochrime pigments, I just about had enough. You would think they would pull a product they could get sued over, because, God forbid, somebody becoming blind because of a scratched/torn cornia. It’s been MONTHS and the broken duochrime pigment jars continue to be rolled out to customers homes, even while the customer finishes assembling the product with its accompanying faulty “it’s breaking the jars, fall guy sifter.” SMH

Now, knowing full well the “sparkler” product is in a faulty jar, yet again, is being released to its customers that causes them loss of money, waisted time/energy ordering and trying to use, not to even mention the time to clean up after product use because of no sifter, I have decided I am done with the brand. I was a hardcore MUG subscriber and faithful customer. I have spent $1000’s on this brand, but I have been betrayed too many times to continue on with a company that does not respect or ethically serve its customers in a professional way.

Thank you for your honest and thorough reviews and for keeping your integrity with so many people who are loosing faith in the U.S. YouTube makeup community.

I’m so sorry to hear you had so many issues! Did you at least get the broken pigment jars replaced? I know that they were working on that one for sure.

This is a huge dissapointment. I am really interested in playing with pigments and loose glitter, but I don’t think these are worth the hassle without sifters, at least for that price. They should have lowered the price while they improve the product… 12$ is insane for what you’re getting. And I heard that the duochrome pigments, which are also on my wishlist, had problems with the packaging too. Do you know if they had tackled the issue? Thanks for your honesty, Christine! You’re always the reference for my purchases.

As a lazy blogger lol (Balls of Beauty) I commend u for taking what I can only imagine as forever to try em on and show us true swatches of the actual color. I can see how it would take a nice amount to be opaque!! at this stage in my makeup life I don’t want any drama with workin hard to get a product to work lol. this is much appreciated tho <3

Okay…I’m not a loose pigment eyeshadow kind of person, but how hard can it be to get the packaging right?? Aren’t sifters and pot containers standardized by now?

A lot of brands have sifters/pots, and then you definitely have brands that don’t use sifters, but it can depend on the formula/product that gets put in it and how the container is made. Like Sugarpill doesn’t have sifters, but it doesn’t have the same mess/excess product lost as these.

Based on the sifter issues they had with the last pigment launch (when they switched to new jars), it seems like they’re having some significant issues with packaging in general, but I think waiting for the issues to be ironed out would have still been the better move. Or at least discounting and also including disclosure at point of purchase would have been a good half-measure.

So like, does marlena know that 3g jars with sifters exist? Like, the one every other loose eyeshadow producer uses because they don’t knock over, crack, have huge gaping mouths for pigment to fall out and every other packaging disaster she’s managed to experience but no one else has? Packaging pigments and glitters isn’t exactly a unique problem to mug.

Based on the video they launched, they are working on it, but it sounded like the sifters just weren’t ready and wouldn’t be for a couple months (maybe it was a few).

The packaging on Makeup Geek’s reminded me a lot of UD’s glitter jars they came out with (http://www.temptalia.com/urban-decay-bondage-adhesive-heavy-metal-loose-glitters-reviews-photos-swatches), and those had a sifter actually. Nothing fancy, but it was a sifter nonetheless.

I think this year, UD’s Waterline pencils and YSL’s liquid eyeshadows were pretty F-heavy. I don’t recall if they were ALL Fs, lol!

I quite like a lot of the colors but I don’t have much experience with loose glitter. If they actually performed as described (would stick to bare skin) I would be in for a few. I’ll have to stick with Colourpop though.

Christine would these work used with MUFE Aqua Seal?I ordered these before your reviews and I just got the Aqua Seal from Sephora.com but have never used it before.

These look like beautiful glitters, but I’m so disappointed they claimed you could use them dry and without glitter glue like pigments when you clearly can’t. πŸ™
There are a few colors that still look tempting, but I’m definitely going to be holding off till they have sifters! Thank you for your honesty.

I just looked at the MUG site and guess what….there is now a disclaimer (in bold!) that the products are very messy and that sifters are being worked on, AND that the price is temporarily discounted (only $2, i believe) due to these not having sifters yet

….the power of Temptalia? πŸ™‚