What I'm Not Buying: Natasha Denona Safari Palette

Natasha Denona has come out with another $129 palette, and this time it's full of matte shades and called Safari. 

And I won't be buying. 

If you've been reading my blog for a while, you'll know that I don't have a problem with luxury makeup—most times—and own/have owned products from brands like Pat McGrath, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, and Viseart. You'll also know that I have products from Natasha Denona, and I not only find them to be incredibly overhyped, but also overpriced. And the same goes for Safari, except I feel this one is especially overpriced since it's an all-matte palette.  

The matte palette had its moment a few years ago. It seemed like every brand came out with their version of it, which included Urban Decay Naked Basics, Too Faced Natural Matte, Tarte Tartelette, and the many matte palettes of Viseart. And it was through that craze, specifically, that I learned that I really love shimmer shadows. 

I have owned two 5-pan palettes from Natasha Denona, and for the exception of Nina's Orchid, all of the matte shadows were terrible and have been decluttered from my collection. I kept some of the shimmer shadows from those palettes, and I do find them to be very pretty, but there was nothing about Natasha Denona shadows that made me think that they were even close to being worth their price tag. 

I know that the brand has reformulated their matte shades since then (which is great because they were so terrible), and they have also made what seems to be good strides in not having insultingly bad packaging: 

But I still find this palette to be overpriced and kind of boring. And I don't think you can be both those things at the same time. You can be overpriced and exciting and unique or you can be boring and reasonably priced. And, yes, this is just my own personal opinion, but I can guarantee you that if this palette cost $60, I would not be nearly as hard on it as I am for that fact that it's $129. 

Let's look at it:

If you look at the rows of this palette, you have a cool-toned row at the top with some grays, a blue, a cream, and an olive. In the next row, you have another, nearly identical cream for some reason as well as shades that you will find in almost any warm neutral palette. And in the final row, you've got a pink, an orange that looks like the two oranges in the row above, a berry that looks like something I've seen in a dozen palettes, another brown shade to add to the two in the row above, and a mustard. 

Cool. 

So in this entire palette, I can tell you that, personally:

• I won't ever use the two gray shades in the top row
• I've got so many brown, orange, and cream shades that I have no need for a 15-pan palette where eight of the shades are these colors 
• I have plenty of berries and pinks and don't need any more
• I have at least a few mustard and olive shades that I really like and don't want more

That leaves me with... zero shadows in this palette that I don't already have or want. Which means that even though at first glance this palette looks like it has a "different" color scheme, that's just my brain playing tricks on me since I probably have just not seen all these shades arranged in this way before. 

Let's look at swatches:

I find these swatches to be very confusing. The first six shadows swatched look like the same three colors repeating themselves. And the same goes for the next nine, for the exception of the one pink shade. I'm also highly skeptical when shades look this similar on different skin tones, which tells me that—like all swatch pictures provided by the band—these are manipulative in some way. That can be due to photoshopping swatches onto an arm or laying colors on top of each other in a way that would be never replicated on an eyelid. Either way, I just can't believe that these colors look exactly like this on all three skin tones. 

Looking at this color scheme, I am reminded of one of my personal favorites, Viseart Dark Matte:

As well as ABH Subculture:

Jeffree Star Androgyny: 

TheBalm Meet Matt(e) Nude:

TheBalm Meet Matt(e) Ador:

TheBalm Meet Matt(e) Trimony:

Parts of it remind me of Viseart Neutral Matte:

Mixed with Viseart Cool Matte 2:

As well as basic matte palettes, like Too Faced Natural Matte:

Urban Decay Ultimate Basics:

Elf Mad for Matte Nude Mood:

Elf Mad for Matte Summer Breeze:

Elf Mad for Matte Jewel Pop:

Elf Mad for Matte Holy Smokes:

And Milani Most Loved Mattes:

I know that I say this in every post about Natasha Denona, but I feel like it always needs repeating. I personally feel that Natasha Denona is really out of depth charging the prices that they do. They started with a mediocre matte formula, cheaper than drugstore packaging, and no recognizable designer name. For what it's worth, I don't feel that a name should dramatically increase the value or price of a product. However, Natasha Denona has always justified the price due to the name, and it's not a name that is recognizable outside of this brand. 

The Natasha Denona packaging has always been a sore spot for me, and the brands's most popular palette, Sunset, was made out of foam:

And the packaging of the 5-pan palettes I purchased were made of very cheap plastic:

Compare that to the packaging of the Pat McGrath Mothership IV palette:

This packaging is decadent, heavy, and the information on the back of it is engraved. Is that over the top? Of course! But at least I feel like I understand where some of the $125 price of these palettes comes from. That packaging is expensive, and the name Pat McGrath "means something." 

Similarly, I own one Tom Ford lipstick, and it cost a whopping $55. The packaging is lux, the product is great, and Tom For is a recognizable, established brand and name. With that said, I still consider Maybelline Touch of Spice one of my all-time favorite lipsticks. It's not that I think luxury is better than other products, I just find it really obnoxious that Natasha Denona came out of no where, teamed up with YouTube influencers who said that her shadows were "the best" they had ever used, and charged the prices of established luxury brands for cheap packaging and somewhat lackluster products. 

The best comparison I can make to the Safari palette in terms of color scheme, price, and packaging is Viseart Dark Matte. Now, it took me a long time to admit this, but I actually don't like Viseart shadows all that much. I have owned six Viseart palettes, but I have decluttered or depotted most of them. The only one that has remained is Dark Matte, and I love that one. 

Dark Matte costs a staggering $80, and it also has cheap, nothing packaging. It is marketed as "professional" makeup, which makes sense in terms of being functional for a makeup artist's kit. I bought mine a few years ago during a sale, and I was convinced for the longest time that it was the worst purchase because it was so expensive and I didn't wear those colors at the time. I'm so glad that I didn't declutter it, however, because as I started exploring my collection more and growing to love color, this became a staple in my collection. Dark Matte is not a palette that I reach for on a daily basis, but it is one that I use weekly and one that keeps me from buying a lot of newer palettes that have similar color schemes. 

Safari has three more shadows than Dark Matte, a mirror, larger packaging, and costs $50 more. And I just can't say that the "upgrades" in Safari are worth that price difference, especially when Dark Matte is already so expensive. Dark Matte, in my opinion, has a more diverse color scheme and doesn't repeat the same colors a few times over. I think the formula is great, and if you are willing to spend that much money on a palette, I genuinely feel like Dark Matte is the better option. 

But then you have to consider the Elf Mad for Matte palettes. I own Summer Breeze and Jewel Pop, and I was really surprised by their quality. They're not as great, in my opinion, as Dark Matte, but for a $70 price difference, they are not bad. I think Holy Smokes looks the most like Safari, and you could buy that and Summer Breeze for $110 less than Safari. 

Based on swatches and reviews, I assume that the new Natasha Denona matte formula is similar to the Anastasia Beverly Hills or Lorac matte formulas. Personally, I have never liked that kind of formula. It's just too soft for me, and I find any blending that I do turns muddy. With that said, it is just my assumption since I haven't tried the new Natasha Denona matte formula and can't see myself buying any of her products any time soon. 

Personally, I use matte palettes as companion palettes. I like shimmer, and I even like to put shimmer in the crease from time to time. I very rarely wear an entirely matte look, and when I do, it's usually a mustard shade all over the lid. Therefore, for me, Safari would be a bad purchase. I already have these shades several times over, I don't need any more cream-colored, orange, or brown eyeshadows, and I don't like gray shadows. Natasha Denona feels about three years too late on this palette, and even though the color scheme is slightly less boring than the likes of Too Faced Natural Matte or the very similar Urban Decay Ultimate Basics, it still feels like a basic neutral palette. And with affordable options like the Elf Mad for Matte palettes or the Milani Most Loved Mattes, I find it incredibly difficult to justify the $129 price (plus tax and shipping, which will likely run at least another $10). 

I feel like the main sell of this palette will be people who want to "try the formula" or "understand the hype." And I get that because that was the reason I bought the two 5-pan palettes. It took me trying the shadows to realize that, while some of the shadows are absolutely beautiful, they are overall just not worth the hype and the price. And I see a lot of people share similar sentiments. So, if you're one of those people, just remember that, at the end of the day, eyeshadows aren't going to make a huge difference in your life. These shadows, specifically, won't make a huge difference. You very likely have all of these colors already, and if not, maybe check out the Elf palettes to see if you even like the color scheme and all-matte looks, or if you will only use it as a companion palette. 

For me, I already have all of these shades, and I just find Natasha Denona so laughably overpriced. When her most popular palette can be easily duped by a $16 Colourpop palette, it really puts into perspective just how much we are paying for hype. I don't need or want this palette, so I won't be buying. 

* * *

For notifications on my latest posts, follow me on Instagram: @antihaulblog