Marc Jacobs Beauty Lust & Stardust See-quins Eyeshadows Reviews & Swatches
Glitter Rock
Marc Jacobs Beauty Glitter Rock See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow ($28.00 for 0.12 oz.) has a darker, gray base with subtle, cool undertones packed with a ton of silver shimmer and glitter. It had nearly opaque pigmentation applied dry and had full coverage when applied with a wet brush. The texture was loosely-pressed, slightly drier and chunkier, so there was some fallout during application when I used it dry. To minimize fallout and ensure a smoother application, I’d highly recommend using it with a dampened brush. This shade stayed on well for eight and a half hours and had light fallout over time.
Note: The ingredient list shows Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET glitter) as an ingredient, but there were no warnings on the box nor on the product listing. It turns out that some of the previously released shades also include Polyethylene Terephthalate. The product is marketed for eyes, and it is called eyeshadow. Typically, products containing Polyethylene Terephthalate often come with a warning that they are “not intended for use around the immediate eye area” (like ColourPop Pressed Glitters), but there have been an increasing number of instances where brands include it and market those products for eyes specifically (like Urban Decay Heavy Metal Glitter Gels and Glossier Play Glitter Gelees).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- NABLA Cosmetics Luxuriance (PiP, ) is lighter (95% similar).
- NARS Parallax (LE, $25.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- NARS Jardin Perdu (Left) (DC, $25.00) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- MAC Say It Isn't So (P, $18.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Guerlain Les Gris #4 (P, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop Kickass (LE, $4.50) is more muted, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Dark Cloud (DC, $20.00) is darker (90% similar).
- KVD Beauty Cathedral (LE, ) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Pat McGrath Sterling (PiP, $25.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Just Chilling (LE, $21.00) is lighter (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$28.00/0.12 oz. - $233.33 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to add a "super-shimmering dimension to any look" with a "demi-pressed process" that has "high-impact dazzle with smooth glide and bold color." Per the brand, it can be "packed on for intense glitter or blended for a soft wash of sparkle." They recommend packing it on with a fingertip or using a flat, synthetic brush in a "gentle pressing motion."
I was surprised at how well they applied with a flat, synthetic brush, as I was able to apply all six shades using a flat, synthetic brush (MAC 247s and 242s) and gently pressed the product against my lid and have most of the product adhere without lots of fallout. When I pressed on an eyeshadow, I gently press and then pull in a direction (depending on what and where I'm applying). The formula yielded very shiny, sparkling color that was intense and bright while still offering pigmentation from the base color, too.
They have a very loosely-packed texture--they seem more like a 40-60% loose product, and it was important to use the included "pigment press" to keep the surface flat. I also found that a little went a long way with most shades, and I could see fallout becoming an issue if too much product was on the brush. I usually just pressed the brush gentle on the surface and that was good enough for coverage on my lid. They lasted for eight and a half hours on me before creasing faintly, and there was slight fallout over time but nothing that reached the point where it seemed distracting/noticeable to anyone looking at me. Frankly, I was extremely impressed with how easily they applied, adhered, and lasted on me while delivering on high impact dazzle and bold color. Using fingertips worked for getting even adhesion, but I have always found it harder to be precise with my fingertips on my lid, and I did feel like my fingertip was picking up more product than I needed so there was a bit more fallout when I attempted using my fingertips.
Browse all of our Marc Jacobs Beauty See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
Glitter Rock
LELimited Edition. $28.00.
Pop Rox
Marc Jacobs Beauty Pop Rox See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow ($28.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a medium-dark plum with warm undertones and a glittering finish with flashes of gold and pink. It had good color coverage applied dry, but it really needed to be applied with fingertips or a dampened brush for full coverage that also appeared brighter, warmer, and smoother. This shade left a bluish stain behind, too, which was unusual. The consistency felt more loosely-pressed in the jar (as it was) and seemed to have more sparkle/glitter than some of the original shades released in the formula, so there was a touch of fallout during application (though less than you’d expect). It wore well for nine hours on me with very minimal fallout over time.
Note: The ingredient list shows Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET glitter) as an ingredient, but there were no warnings on the box nor on the product listing. It turns out that some of the previously released shades also include Polyethylene Terephthalate. The product is marketed for eyes, and it is called eyeshadow. Typically, products containing Polyethylene Terephthalate often come with a warning that they are “not intended for use around the immediate eye area” (like ColourPop Pressed Glitters), but there have been an increasing number of instances where brands include it and market those products for eyes specifically (like Urban Decay Heavy Metal Glitter Gels and Glossier Play Glitter Gelees).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Lisa Eldridge Viola (P, $27.00) is less shimmery, warmer (95% similar).
- NABLA Cosmetics Hidden Place (PiP, ) is cooler (90% similar).
- Huda Beauty Ruby #6 (LE, ) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- MAC Nippy's Crease (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- Huda Beauty Jaguar #9 (LE, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Blitz Glitz (LE, $28.00) is darker (85% similar).
- LORAC Majestic (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- ColourPop Something Special (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Anastasia Rose Gold (Norvina) (LE, $12.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (80% similar).
- BH Cosmetics Foil Eyes #23 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (80% similar).
Formula Overview
$28.00/0.12 oz. - $233.33 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to add a "super-shimmering dimension to any look" with a "demi-pressed process" that has "high-impact dazzle with smooth glide and bold color." Per the brand, it can be "packed on for intense glitter or blended for a soft wash of sparkle." They recommend packing it on with a fingertip or using a flat, synthetic brush in a "gentle pressing motion."
I was surprised at how well they applied with a flat, synthetic brush, as I was able to apply all six shades using a flat, synthetic brush (MAC 247s and 242s) and gently pressed the product against my lid and have most of the product adhere without lots of fallout. When I pressed on an eyeshadow, I gently press and then pull in a direction (depending on what and where I'm applying). The formula yielded very shiny, sparkling color that was intense and bright while still offering pigmentation from the base color, too.
They have a very loosely-packed texture--they seem more like a 40-60% loose product, and it was important to use the included "pigment press" to keep the surface flat. I also found that a little went a long way with most shades, and I could see fallout becoming an issue if too much product was on the brush. I usually just pressed the brush gentle on the surface and that was good enough for coverage on my lid. They lasted for eight and a half hours on me before creasing faintly, and there was slight fallout over time but nothing that reached the point where it seemed distracting/noticeable to anyone looking at me. Frankly, I was extremely impressed with how easily they applied, adhered, and lasted on me while delivering on high impact dazzle and bold color. Using fingertips worked for getting even adhesion, but I have always found it harder to be precise with my fingertips on my lid, and I did feel like my fingertip was picking up more product than I needed so there was a bit more fallout when I attempted using my fingertips.
Browse all of our Marc Jacobs Beauty See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
Pop Rox
LELimited Edition. $28.00.
Smash Glitz
Marc Jacobs Beauty Smash Glitz See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow ($28.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a soft pink with warmer undertones and flecks of silver glitter over a metallic finish. The consistency was more emollient in its base, almost like it was more composed of a ton of shimmer/sparkle/glitter and very little base pigment leaving the base more transparent. I found it was a bit overly emollient so the product slid around rather than adhered and built up or blended out around the edges.
As a result, I ended up with more fallout from fussing with this shade compared to others in the formula. It worked just fine for packing onto the inner tearduct or patting onto the center of the lid for a halo eye, where blending was less critical or spreading over a larger area wasn’t necessary. It had semi-opaque pigmentation applied dry as well as with a dampened brush. It stayed on well for eight hours with light fallout over time.
Note: The ingredient list shows Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET glitter) as an ingredient, but there were no warnings on the box nor on the product listing. It turns out that some of the previously released shades also include Polyethylene Terephthalate. The product is marketed for eyes, and it is called eyeshadow. Typically, products containing Polyethylene Terephthalate often come with a warning that they are “not intended for use around the immediate eye area” (like ColourPop Pressed Glitters), but there have been an increasing number of instances where brands include it and market those products for eyes specifically (like Urban Decay Heavy Metal Glitter Gels and Glossier Play Glitter Gelees).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Overpacked (LE, $6.00) is lighter, less pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
- Anastasia E3 (Norvina Vol. 4) (LE, ) is lighter, less pigmented, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Specter (PiP, $20.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Chanel Quartz Rose (26) (P, $36.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- ColourPop Can't Party Wait (LE, ) is lighter (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Bad Seed (P, $19.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Whisper Pink (LE, $21.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Cool (Winter 2016) Eyeshadow #1 (LE, ) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Insolent Rose #2 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- Maybelline Rose Riot (140) (LE, $6.99) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$28.00/0.12 oz. - $233.33 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to add a "super-shimmering dimension to any look" with a "demi-pressed process" that has "high-impact dazzle with smooth glide and bold color." Per the brand, it can be "packed on for intense glitter or blended for a soft wash of sparkle." They recommend packing it on with a fingertip or using a flat, synthetic brush in a "gentle pressing motion."
I was surprised at how well they applied with a flat, synthetic brush, as I was able to apply all six shades using a flat, synthetic brush (MAC 247s and 242s) and gently pressed the product against my lid and have most of the product adhere without lots of fallout. When I pressed on an eyeshadow, I gently press and then pull in a direction (depending on what and where I'm applying). The formula yielded very shiny, sparkling color that was intense and bright while still offering pigmentation from the base color, too.
They have a very loosely-packed texture--they seem more like a 40-60% loose product, and it was important to use the included "pigment press" to keep the surface flat. I also found that a little went a long way with most shades, and I could see fallout becoming an issue if too much product was on the brush. I usually just pressed the brush gentle on the surface and that was good enough for coverage on my lid. They lasted for eight and a half hours on me before creasing faintly, and there was slight fallout over time but nothing that reached the point where it seemed distracting/noticeable to anyone looking at me. Frankly, I was extremely impressed with how easily they applied, adhered, and lasted on me while delivering on high impact dazzle and bold color. Using fingertips worked for getting even adhesion, but I have always found it harder to be precise with my fingertips on my lid, and I did feel like my fingertip was picking up more product than I needed so there was a bit more fallout when I attempted using my fingertips.
Browse all of our Marc Jacobs Beauty See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
Smash Glitz
LELimited Edition. $28.00.
Star Dust
Marc Jacobs Beauty Star Dust See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow ($28.00 for 0.12 oz.) is a bright, medium orange with strong, warm undertones and flashes of gold and pink sparkle and glitter. It had good pigmentation applied dry as well as with a dampened brush with the dampened application yielding a brighter, more sparkling finish that looked smoother on my skin. The texture was loosely pressed but had good adherence and minimal fallout (especially considering how much sparkle and glitter was in it!), and it was easy to blend out along the edges. Its lasted well for nine hours on me with very little fallout over time.
Note: The ingredient list shows Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET glitter) as an ingredient, but there were no warnings on the box nor on the product listing. It turns out that some of the previously released shades also include Polyethylene Terephthalate. The product is marketed for eyes, and it is called eyeshadow. Typically, products containing Polyethylene Terephthalate often come with a warning that they are “not intended for use around the immediate eye area” (like ColourPop Pressed Glitters), but there have been an increasing number of instances where brands include it and market those products for eyes specifically (like Urban Decay Heavy Metal Glitter Gels and Glossier Play Glitter Gelees).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Pat McGrath VR Violet (PiP, $25.00) is more muted, cooler (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Peach (P, $28.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Awakening (PiP, $29.00) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Give Me Glow Mystery Topper (P, $7.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Linda Hallberg Cosmetics Moonwake (PiP, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- Urban Decay VR (PiP, $19.00) is less shimmery, more muted, cooler (85% similar).
- Bad Habit Sky's the Limit (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- ColourPop Strawberry Jam (P, $9.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Natasha Denona Botanic (192DC) (PiP, $29.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Make Up For Ever 108 Burgundy (P, $26.00) is darker (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$28.00/0.12 oz. - $233.33 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to add a "super-shimmering dimension to any look" with a "demi-pressed process" that has "high-impact dazzle with smooth glide and bold color." Per the brand, it can be "packed on for intense glitter or blended for a soft wash of sparkle." They recommend packing it on with a fingertip or using a flat, synthetic brush in a "gentle pressing motion."
I was surprised at how well they applied with a flat, synthetic brush, as I was able to apply all six shades using a flat, synthetic brush (MAC 247s and 242s) and gently pressed the product against my lid and have most of the product adhere without lots of fallout. When I pressed on an eyeshadow, I gently press and then pull in a direction (depending on what and where I'm applying). The formula yielded very shiny, sparkling color that was intense and bright while still offering pigmentation from the base color, too.
They have a very loosely-packed texture--they seem more like a 40-60% loose product, and it was important to use the included "pigment press" to keep the surface flat. I also found that a little went a long way with most shades, and I could see fallout becoming an issue if too much product was on the brush. I usually just pressed the brush gentle on the surface and that was good enough for coverage on my lid. They lasted for eight and a half hours on me before creasing faintly, and there was slight fallout over time but nothing that reached the point where it seemed distracting/noticeable to anyone looking at me. Frankly, I was extremely impressed with how easily they applied, adhered, and lasted on me while delivering on high impact dazzle and bold color. Using fingertips worked for getting even adhesion, but I have always found it harder to be precise with my fingertips on my lid, and I did feel like my fingertip was picking up more product than I needed so there was a bit more fallout when I attempted using my fingertips.
Browse all of our Marc Jacobs Beauty See-quins Glam Glitter Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Star Dust is simply gorgeous.
However, in light of both your ingredient call-out of Polyethylene Terephthalate, and my own ugly experience with one of his prettiest of See-Quins, I’m not chancing it. From now on, whenever I do wear Topaz Flash, I’m using it over Nyx Glitter Glue Primer. When I take it off, no rubbing . Just upward swipes until it’s all gone, only then will I worry about mascara and everything else!
I wish there was more information about it, because it is very conflicting when some brands market them for eyes vs. some that put up the disclaimer. These aren’t small brands doing it; they’re large, established brands owned by massive parent conglomerates, so…
Worrisome, because I believe it will take some poor unfortunate person going blind and filing suit before these brands quit using Polyethylene Terephthalate in eye products. I have the same issue with it as I do Too Faced (and a few others) using Sodium Saccharine in eyeshadows. These do not belong on people’s eyelids. Therefore, I view them doing this as extremely reckless and irresponsible on their part.
As gorgeous as Pop Rox is, it is a pass for me right now. I will revisit in the fall.
The shades are pretty, but hardly unique. Lots of brands seem ti be getting onto glitter bandwagon lately and that includes adding ingredients that are definitely not eye safe. MJ should know better, going blind or having a severe eye infection because of an ingredient that is known to potentially damaging is not on,
Going to pass on all 4 shades. I was very intrigued by Star Dust in the promo photos, but it looked straight up RED in those shots when it’s clearly not. How annoying! Oh, well, at least I’m saving my money!
Hmm. This may be why the bronze shade in PM Mothership V burned the crap out of my eyes. I don’t feel like there was a warning on that either — I checked your previous post and her website and neither seems to have an obvious warning. So this might be another brand that isn’t marking things as not safe for eye use? I’m kind of scared to use the palette now since I had that reaction.