Tom Ford Extreme Shadows Reviews, Photos, Swatches (Part 3)
TFX14
Tom Ford Beauty TFX14 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a rich, molten gold with strong, warm yellow undertones and a metallic sheen. The eyeshadow was moderately dense and had noticeable slip (felt like a silicone primer in a way), and while it didn’t seem pigmented initially, it did seem to be more yielding and pliable after a couple of uses (though I feel like that shouldn’t be necessary and certainly not at this price point!). It applied well to bare skin and was buildable even during the first uses. It wore well for eight and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Bayshore (PiP, $4.50) is more shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- ColourPop Sleep In (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- bareMinerals Remix (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Natasha Denona Gold (137CP) (LE, ) is cooler (95% similar).
- Gucci Beauty Oro (DC, $37.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop West Coast (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- MAC Goldmine (P, $17.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Mrs. Potts (LE, $4.50) is darker, cooler (95% similar).
- Sleek MakeUP Sunset #5 (PiP, $9.99) is lighter (95% similar).
- Sydney Grace Golden Scepter (PiP, $6.25) is less shimmery (95% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
TFX14
LELimited Edition. $36.00.
TFX15
Tom Ford Beauty TFX15 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a deep red with warm undertones and flecks of lighter pink glitter over a matte finish. I thought that if any brand could innovate in the glitter eyeshadow category, perhaps it would be Tom Ford at this price point, but I wasn’t seeing it. The texture of the powder was denser and rather pigmented, but the glitter separated away from the base. There was a ton of glitter, so it did translate, but the product did have to be applied with a brush as fingertips were useless–all the glitter stuck to my fingertip and wouldn’t transfer to my lid at all. There was a ton of fallout, nonstop, that it was really hard for me to test these as my eyes watered and felt irritated throughout the day, and there were a few instances where I just couldn’t make it and my eyes were bloodshot.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Huda Beauty Mauve #4 (PiP, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- ColourPop Suite Life (PiP, $4.50) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Red Bronze (141K) (LE, ) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Ladylike (P, $6.25) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- Dose of Colors Sizzle (P, $20.00) is darker (90% similar).
- ColourPop Undefeated (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Phlox (PiP, $29.00) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Stonewall (P, $21.00) is lighter, less pigmented (85% similar).
- Bad Habit Flare (PiP, ) is lighter (85% similar).
- Buxom Best Life (P, $12.00) is cooler (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
TFX15
LELimited Edition. $36.00.
TFX16
Tom Ford Beauty TFX16 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a medium, pinky lavender with flecks of pale gold glitter over a more matte finish. It was incredibly powdery and drier with a ton of fallout during application and nonstop fallout during wear. It was difficult to apply with any evenness or vibrancy, and it just looked like a mess from start to finish.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- NARS Lunar (P, $22.00) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Oh So Dainty (PiP, $4.50) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- NARS Lunar (LE, $25.00) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Goodish (LE, $6.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop Skydancer (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Baby Roo (P, $5.00) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Stila Sea Siren (LE, $24.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop I See the Light (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- Huda Beauty Lilac #2 (LE, ) is less shimmery, cooler (85% similar).
- ColourPop Ignition (LE, $6.00) is darker, cooler (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
TFX16
LELimited Edition. $36.00.
TFX17
Tom Ford Beauty TFX17 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a deep, bluish-teal with flecks of lighter blue glitter. It had opaque color payoff in a single layer, and the texture was definitely firmer, denser, and creamier–almost wet in a way–compared to other shades. The glitter binded a lot better with the underlying powder, and this ended up being one of the few shades that applied fairly well and lasted without an eight-hour thunderstorm of glitter. There was some fallout, but it wasn’t too bad (for a glitter eyeshadow).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Last Dance #3 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Dose of Colors Teal Me More (P, $20.00) is more shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Plunge (LE, $19.00) is darker (85% similar).
- ColourPop On One (LE, $4.50) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Viseart Poseidon (GPV2 #9) (P, ) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
- ColourPop Antimatter (P, $4.50) is more shimmery, darker, more muted (85% similar).
- ColourPop Take Me Higher (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter, more muted (85% similar).
- Makeup Geek Constellation (P, $12.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Madness (LE, $19.00) is lighter, cooler (80% similar).
- Natasha Denona Ice Blue (143CP) (LE, ) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
TFX17
LELimited Edition. $36.00.
TFX19
Tom Ford Beauty TFX19 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a pale, bluish gray with flecks of gold and silver glitter over a matte finish. It was incredibly powdery and had semi-sheer coverage and tons of loose glitter that pretty much fell right off wherever I applied it. There was so little adhesion to the lid that there was almost no fallout during wear… as there was nothing left to fall. This type of release from a luxury brand is what makes people reluctant to even consider spending $36 on a single eyeshadow–why would they when the quality is so low?
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC Silver Gull (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild I'm His Breezey #1 (DC, $2.29) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- MAC Frozen Blue (LE, $21.00) is more shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- MAC Smoky (P, $21.00) is darker (85% similar).
- Smashbox Granite (PiP, ) is less shimmery, darker (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Skywalk (DC, $20.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Cle de Peau Balance (Right) (PiP, ) is less shimmery, more muted, warmer (85% similar).
- YSL Wet Blue (10) (P, $30.00) is more shimmery (85% similar).
- LORAC Lost at Sea (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
TFX19
LELimited Edition. $36.00.
TFX20
Tom Ford Beauty TFX20 Shadow Extreme ($36.00 for 0.03 oz.) is a deep, orange-yellow base with flecks of gold glitter. The base was decently pigmented, and there was a ton of gold glittery bits that translated onto the lid so long as I used a brush (the glitter just stuck to fingertips mercilessly otherwise). It applied unevenly and had a lot of fallout when blended with continued fallout throughout the day. It did not wear well at all.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- elf 24K Gold (P, $6.00) is more shimmery, warmer (95% similar).
- Sephora Wendy G (LE, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Side Kick (P, $6.00) is darker (90% similar).
- ColourPop Nouveau (LE, $4.50) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- ColourPop I Like You (P, $6.00) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- ColourPop Gold Star (PiP, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Natasha Denona Sundazed (128K) (PiP, ) is less shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- Too Faced Lemon Zest (P, $22.00) is more shimmery, more muted, less pigmented (85% similar).
- ColourPop Golden Touch (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- ColourPop Pain and Panic (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$36.00/0.03 oz. - $1200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is split into two finishes--metallics (Foil) and glitters (Glitter)--and the performance depends largely on the finish. In general, the formula is supposed to "glide" on with an "ultra-thin, water-resistant gloss of color onto the lids." Though each compact seemed to be the appropriate size for a standalone eyeshadow, they only contain 0.03 oz. a pop, which made them some of the smaller single eyeshadows on the market. There were some really lovely shades but enough inconsistency that for the price point, it never amounted to being an impressive range.
The Foil finishes have a softer, more yielding powder base that have moderate to high shine (some are actually metallic, some are more pearly) with better color payoff, easier application, and better wear. The Foils tended to be creamier and smoother with better adhesion and blending on the lid, though there were a few shades that seemed to have too much slip and a tendency to go on unevenly or blend out unevenly during application. For the most part, though, the Foils were good eyeshadows and were easy to work with.
The Glitter finish shades are supposed to have "micronized glitter" and find that they don't really work as well as intended. They have more powdery base colors and larger flecks of micro-glitter, so that they tend not to bind as well and result in fallout during application or get lost in a brush. I tried applying with fingertips but the majority (like 90%!) of the glitter sticks to the fingertips and doesn't budge. Due to the more powdery base, they did not work particularly well with a dampened brush either. Your best bet would be to pat them on top of a cream eyeshadow or tacky base.
Browse all of our Tom Ford Beauty Shadow Extreme swatches.
Ingredients
Oh my gosh, these are really bad. This would be sad at any price point but for this price I would be very angry to have paid for these and got this type of performance. Time to step back and re-think your formula TF.
These are quite beautiful in the pan….but loosely packed glitter over a colored base isn’t my favorite thing.
Yikes, looks like Tom Ford shouldn’t have even bothered issuing some of these colors. At $36 a single, if it’s not at least a rated A and/or very unique color, not worth it. Can probably buy 1-5 dupes at that price
The Fs are so intriguing to me lol. I’ve never seen anything swatch like that. It looks like loose glitter scattered over a matte… how is it bound together in the pan??
A lot of Fs, but you did manage beautiful eye looks!
Extreme ripoff maybe… even the press looks messy and uneven so putting it in a fancy case and slapping at TF sticker on it doesn’t make it “worth it” – I will happily pay big $$$ for top quality product and unusual shades, great textures, etc – but I have shadows from the dollar store that are better then this.
No, Tom, NO!
Christine,I am so sorry that you had to go through with testing these out. You would think that with a brand name like Tom Ford, quality would be of the utmost importance. I guess that is not the case here. These fared far worse than the MAC Dazzleshadows that were recently launched. At least with MAC the price point is within reason.
Wow, that performance is completely unacceptable at that price point. Thanks for the warning!
These are all so “dupe-able”, even the better ones (“better” being a relative term). I can’t believe just how bad TFX19 is – ugh! It’s laughable (but not funny) that this company can have the gall to offer such mediocre quality at such high prices. I feel sorry for people who don’t avail themselves of the reviews here at Temptalia..
Thank you, Christine. You are so right, at these prices these shadows should be perfect.
Wow – these have gone from bad to worse! Tom Ford what is happening there! Thank you for the review Christine!
At $36 for a mere .03 of product, I expect, no, I DEMAND far better quality than these! They had better be so fantabulous that they apply like silk, wear like iron, and are as good as gold. These are not. *Especially* when I’m sitting up here reading about glitter thunderstorms! Oh no, no, no!!!
Admittedly, TFX17 is super pretty, but thank goodness I have 2 pans of UD Madness to quench any icy Frozen craving I may get, LoL.
Wow, Christine, I don’t remember a multi-product review that was so consistently terrible. I’d like to say I’m interested in the blue shadow but I have TF’s Last Dance quad, which has a dupe. Super disappointed in the quality of these glitter shadows.
Wow, all those F’s! Unacceptable at $36 a pop.
Wow, so bad for the ridiculous price point. Does anyone test these out at all? How do they get through quality control?