Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow ($20.00 for 0.05 oz.) is described as a “metallic lime-gold with gold 3-D sparkle.” It’s a green-tinged gold with brownish undertones and a sparkling, metallic finish. Clinique Whopping Willow is darker, greener. Tarina Tarantino Dandy Lion is much greener and darker. MAC Sumptuous Olive is less metallic. Inglot #433 is less green, darker. MAC Old Gold is warmer, less green.
I know the question you’re dying to ask, so let’s just get it out of the way: there’s fall out. And yes, there’s fall out not just during application but while it’s worn–and it is less than Urban Decay’s micro-glitter powder eyeshadows. Is the effect dynamite? Oh, it’s gorgeous. It’s a glittering, sparkling affair that is so, so pretty as the light catches different parts of the lid. It’s an effect that shows itself best in person (with movement) as the shimmer shifts like glimmering water. The fall out is noticeable enough that it’s a drawback; with three on at once, it’s noticeable, but with just one shade, it happens but is not quite as glaring. As someone who has little tolerance for fall out, I’d occasionally wear these and deal with it because the effect really is (to me) stunning–but that doesn’t excuse it.
Stargazer has good color payoff whether applied dry or wet, though it is much smoother and metallic in finish when applied with a damp brush. It applied well to the lid, and the fall out during application was noticeable but not as much as you’d expect. The real downside is that there is perpetual fall out throughout the time you wear it. You can clean-up fall out that occurs after you’ve applied your eyeshadow, before you leave, but a few hours later? Not so practical. Because the sparkle in this is rather fine, it’s not nearly as noticeable as the micro-glitter found in Urban Decay’s powder eyeshadows. It’s more visible as the particles catch the light. It didn’t crease or fade on me during the eight hours I wore it, and though there was fall out, the color itself didn’t look patchy or as if anything were missing.
Three years ago, Urban Decay released Stardust Eyeshadow, and Moondust feels a lot like them. It has the same wet-but-not texture that feels rather different from powder eyeshadows (and not like a cream, as it is very thin and feels almost wet). I don’t think these are quite like products such as Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense or L’Oreal Infallibles, which have a more powdery texture and feel and are not quite as sparkly. MAC’s Pressed Pigments are somewhat similar, but the sparkle/glitter is larger, chunkier. The texture feels different, and the sparkle content is much, much higher. Moondusts have a finer sparkle/shimmer compared to the Stardusts, as there’s not a bit of grit with them. Moondust was also much more blendable and easier to apply overall.
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Swatches
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Stargazer Moondust Eyeshadow
Urban Decay Moondust Eyeshadows: Stargazer, Zodiac, Diamond Dog
OMG THIS IS GORGEOUS. Looks like I’ll be picking these new eyeshadows up very soon 🙂
I hate fallout, but this is so gorgeous…I wonder if something like Fyrinnae’s Pixie Epoxy would help?
Very pretty. I was going to pass on these, but I love that color!
Fallout is the bane of my eyeshadow existence. When you have deepset eyes, it all catches on the area beneath the eyes and becomes very noticeable very quickly. I’ll be passing on these, but you are right that they are stunning to look at. I can see many a glitter lover getting on these!
Bummer! I can’t stand fallout. I was so hoping these would be THE glitter shadow I could wear with it staying on my lids and not on my cheeks.
Do you know how this compares to Bare Escentuals True Gold??
I don’t have that shade! 🙁
That is stunning. My favorite of the bunch. I hate fallout, too, but if it’s a gorgeous, not dark shade like this, and I’m too lazy to clean it all up, I just pretend it’s highlighter!
This would look amazing as a pop of colour on the centre of the lid when doing a dark smokey eye!
Do you think someone who loved the old stardusts would be happy with these? i love my stardust i use it as a sheer top coat most of the time since they are rather sheer. I don’t really care about fallout and the fall out from the stardusts has never been a big bother.
Yes, I think so 🙂 Not every shade is created equal, but generally speaking, the biggest problem I had with these was fall out, so if that’s not a big deal to you, then have at it!
Christine, have you tried a Tom Ford quad with a glitter shade? I don’t believe you’ve reviewed on on this site, but you may have tried it and not reviewed, so that’s why I’m asking. If so, how does the formula of these compare to the Tom Ford? I am so tempted to get the Cognac Sable in large part for that glitter shade!
No, I’m not fan of the sparkles shades by TF. I reviewed it here: http://www.temptalia.com/tom-ford-cobalt-rush-eye-color-quad-review-photos-swatches
The formulas aren’t alike – TF’s is definitely a powder, it doesn’t have the slickness/wetness that the UD shades have!
I couldn’t tell from the last part – are you saying these are more or less sparkly than Mac pressed pigments?
MAC Pressed Pigments are really glittery – these are a finer sparkle.