Makeup Geek Valentine Blush Review, Photos, Swatches
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush ($10.00 for 0.15 oz.) is a muted, medium pink with cooler undertones and a mostly matte finish. Urban Decay Nooner (Blush) (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar). Bite Beauty Lotus (P, $24.00) is brighter (95% similar). Too Faced Skyline (LE, ) is lighter (85% similar). Benefit Hervana (P, $29.00) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar). ColourPop At Frost Sight (LE, $12.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar). Tarte Flush (P, $29.00) is lighter (90% similar). ColourPop Noodle (DC, $12.00) is lighter (90% similar). Make Up For Ever B212 (P, $23.00) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar). theBalm Down Boy (P, $21.00) is lighter, brighter (90% similar). Make Up For Ever S214 (P, $23.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar). Milani Pink Play #3 (PiP, ) is lighter, warmer (90% similar). Tarte Dollface (P, $29.00) is lighter, cooler (85% similar). Urban Decay Native Blush (-, )(85% similar). Tom Ford Beauty Pink Ombre (LE, $55.00) is lighter, cooler (85% similar). Tarte Whimsy (LE, $29.00) is lighter, brighter, warmer (85% similar). Bobbi Brown Nude Pink (P, $30.00) is cooler (85% similar). Zoeva PK030 (P, ) is lighter (85% similar). KIKO 110 Bright Pink (P, $12.00) is lighter, brighter (85% similar). Too Faced Sweet Pink (LE, ) is lighter (85% similar). Makeup Geek Rendezvous (DC, $9.99) is more shimmery, darker (85% similar). Top 20 dupes listed, see the rest. See comparison swatches / view dupes side-by-side.
The new blush formula is supposed to have “rich pigmentation,” “a fade-resistant formula,” and a “smooth, buttery feel.” In the same sentence as “rich pigmentation,” they also say “buildable, long-lasting color,” though “buildable” is more that it can be used lightly and gradually built-up based on watching the launch video/reading through the brand’s Instagram (as well as routinely mentioning how pigmented the blushes were). The new formula definitely kicks up less powder with a thinner consistency and a firmer press, and they seem even more matte than before (this is by design/was intentional per the brand), so some shades can look somewhat flat on the skin. As the brand mentioned, it is by design so that they’ll pair easily with your favorite highlighters if you want a more shimmery finish. The line, in general, also got desaturated; the color range seems a lot more muted, and the shades that were kept (at least by name), seem to have undergone slight color changes to make them softer/more muted as well. I think the more skin-like, semi-matte to satin finish of the original formula is actually what made it standout in a sea of blush formulas, so I’m personally bummed that they didn’t retain that element in most of the shades. I think a lot of it will come down to personal preference which formula is better to you, but the new formula, so far, has been good. The new compacts are definitely an upgrade from the last iteration, though–much sleeker with more heft.
Valentine had good color payoff with a soft, smooth, and very lightly dusty consistency; it had a thinner feel but wasn’t so thin that it lost its ability to blend out or stay true-to-color on the skin (it didn’t sheer out immediately). I didn’t have any trouble diffusing and sheering out the color on the cheeks, and the color wore well for eight hours before fading slightly.
Valentine
PPermanent. $10.00.
See more photos & swatches!
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Makeup Geek Valentine Blush
Oh so girly 🙂 Pretty.
It is a nice color!
Although Valentine is brighter than I expected on your cheeks versus in the pan, I was quite surprised with the overall colour range of the blushes. I was hoping for far more brights and, as you said, it’s far more muted in tone. Shoot.
I like that they did more muted shades, but I think with 20 shades, my personal preference would have been to have variety – some brighter, some more muted, some shimmery, some satin, some matte.
I’m encouraged by the rating of this blush but I wish she had expanded the line so that the original colors/formulations could atill be available. I am digging the muted colors though!
Totally understand, Stephanie! I think it is odd to actually change some of the shades as much as they did and keep the names.
Oh I’m really bummed 🙁 For blushes, I prefer shimmer over matte, I need that glow on my cheeks. I wish she had kept here original formula, which people loved, and just added some more matte shades to it, instead of re-vamping the entire line into matte and muted 🙁 If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it! Instead of “fixing” this blush formula, maybe should’ve spent more time fixing the packaging on those sparklers instead!
I think my favorite finish is satin – something with enough sheen that it can standalone but not look dry/flat on me but can still take a highlighter on top of it!
Agree! And at 46, I’m already matte enough (except for those dang super oily lids!), don’t need to look any more matte.
I agree with you both, Katherine and Christine, satin finish is just more natural looking, less flat or dry looking, easier to apply, too.
I always end up layering matte blushes because I can’t stand how they suck the very life out of my skin. In a shade like this, with my face hollows.. shudder.
Great insight on the reformulation. Agree and we’ll see. Hope they didn’t lose their distinctive competency by changing the formula. The old one WAS distinctive. This one doesn’t look to muted on, though. Agree with everyone that thinks there was room for greater variety, along different dimensions. What do you bet they are working on highlighters? (The implication is that they should be fixing their duds, rather than that, and making sure the sparklers are packaged properly.)
I definitely think it’ll come down to preference; it does not seem like a bad formula, but like you mentioned, it is less distinctive, at least to me, than it was before.
I’m actually really surprised that I like this one! It has richer color than my MAC Pink Swoon, so I am thinking that this would show up better on me. Especially during summertime.
Awesome 🙂
As a huge fan of Makeup Geek, I’m torn. I loved the original blush formula, and for a woman with deep skin, I loved the brighter colors. I don’t particularly care for muted blushes (as a WOC, my skin doesn’t need you to add brown or tan to it) so I wish they would have just added the new colors, not replaced the old ones.
I believe they broke up the new range into shades designed for certain skin tones in mind, so I’ll be curious if you find any appropriate for your skin tone, Felicia!
I’m sure they’ll be appropriate, but bright, vibrant colors like Love Affair were what drew me to their blushes in the first place. Muted tones are nice at times (I guess), but I usually find myself reaching for more colorful blushes like Urban Decay’s Bang, Quiver, or Bittersweet. I know everyone doesn’t feel that way, but I feel like eliminating the truly colorful ones was a bit much.
I completely understand, Felicia! I’m surprised Love Affair didn’t make the cut. I think Summer Summer Fling and Rendezvous are the brightest in the new range.
This one looks very pretty. I’m glad to hear the formula is good so far. I liked the old finish, too, so sorry to hear they didn’t keep it.
There aren’t that many true satins out there, I think!
I’m a satin girl too, this does look very pretty on you though!
Thank you, Cheyenne!
Nice, I wish it wasn’t a matte finish though!
Same!
Oh my Valentine is just gorgeous xo
It is!