What I'm Not Buying: MAC x Mariah Carey My Mimi Extra Dimension Skinfinish

Photo: Temptalia

MAC recently launched a collection with Mariah Carey that includes lipsticks, lip pencils, lip gloss, blush, eyeshadow quads, and an Extra Dimension Skinfinsih—called My Mimi—that seems to be inspired off of the Mariah Carey cartoon in the Heartbreaker music video.

(I was surprised and a little embarrassed that I was able to pull that reference easily from my pre-teen, TRL-watching memory.)

Though I won't be buying anything from the Mariah Carey collection, this post is specifically about My Mimi. 

I won't be buying. 

I would assume this is the standout product from the collection; the showstopper. The design aesthetic is not for me, though I assume many people—especially Mariah Carey fans—would be thrilled to have a piece of memorabilia like this. 

But that is just what this product is: memorabilia. 

And every time I saw promotional images of the collection, I rolled my eyes as soon as I saw My Mimi. 

Let me explain. 

In every MAC collection, there tends to be at least one piece that is considered to be a collectible. As I've mentioned many times, I don't personally collect makeup, but I know that many people do. My mother collected vintage perfume bottles as a teenager, and I used to love looking at them when I was a child. As an adult, I still appreciate the beauty of a perfume bottle, and instead of throwing away my perfume bottles after I finish them, I keep them in a collection. I don't go out of my way to buy a perfume with a pretty bottle as I personally find that wasteful, but I can appreciate the artistry of bottles that contain my favorite scents. 

I know people who collect movies, video games, plants, books, records, Starbucks "You Are Here" mugs, etc. So I don't take issue whatsoever with people who collect makeup. I also don't take issue with brands making collectible products and appreciate when brands have a quality product that also has beautiful packaging. 

But, and I know I've said this before, the last time I can really remember a MAC collection having incredible collectible packaging was the Manish Aurora collection:

Photo: Temptalia 

Photo: A Beautiful Sentiment 

But this is the packaging for My Mimi:

It's just a regular clear plastic case. 

And I get that the powder itself is the special packaging. And I get that the reason it's has a clear lid is so that the powder is visible. I get it. But still, this powder with a regular clear plastic case is $45.50. 

And that's really where I have a problem with this product. MAC Extra Dimension Skinfinishes are typically $33. And as Temptalia mentions in her review of this product, MAC traditionally charges around $1 to $4 more for a collaboration product. But not more than $10.  

So, for My Mimi to be so much more than a traditional limited edition collaboration product, I would expect that in addition to the creative product design there would also be stellar packaging. I would especially expect that since if this product is ever used, the product design will be ruined. And that begs the question of if this is even a product that is ever supposed to be used. And if it's not, why make it a highlighter?

That I can remember, I have only ever purchased one beauty-related product because of special packaging. And it was the Sephora and Disney Cinderella compact mirror:

I found this mirror to be absolutely beautiful, and I just wanted to treasure the way it looked. But this isn't a highlighter or a face powder, and I probably wouldn't have purchased it if it was. This is a compact mirror. So even though I purchased it for the way it looks, it is still entirely functional to me. And I feel that this is the approach MAC should have taken with My Mimi. 

I've spent the majority of this post talking about the product's packaging because I feel as though that was MAC's full intention of the item. But let's talk about the actual quality. From what I have read, My Mimi is full of glitter particles and is patchy when applied to the skin. I have also read that the formula is not as strong in performance as a typical MAC Extra Dimension Skinfinish. This again begs the question (or perhaps answers it) of if MAC expected people to actually use this product. It seems like the answer is no. 

And that is really, really disappointing because the tone of My Mimi looks as though it was made for medium to deep skin tones. I always get excited when I see brands create products that will not only work for medium and deep skin tones, but are specifically formulated and targeted toward those skin tones. Most products will either only work for light skin tones or are created to work for light skin tones with the "added benefit" of also working for darker skin tones. It's time that some great, in-demand products are released that work primarily for deeper skin tones. My Mimi looks as though it would be beautiful on deeper skin, so I am disappointed that MAC used this opportunity to make an expensive product that probably isn't even supposed to be used practically on the skin. 

From my own collection, the closest product I have that will work for my skin tone is Becca Opal:

Photo: Temptalia

For deeper skin tones, I think Becca's highlighter in Topaz:

And blush in Blushed Copper:

Would be lovely substitutes for the tone of My Mimi. And at $38 and $34 respectively for gorgeous, high-quality products, I think these are a much better option. 

I assume that the majority of people who have or will buy My Mimi are buying it for the product design and collectibility. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I do think it's crappy that MAC has charged so much for a product with basic packaging and subpar performance. Yes, it has a "cool" design, but that's it. And nearly $50 is a lot to pay for that. I'm not personally a fan of the design and am not interested in adding a glitter-filled underperforming product to my collection, so this is an easy pass for me. 

What I'm Not Buying: MAC Spellbinder Shadows

MAC has released eight limited-edition loose eyeshadows that are held together with ionized pigments that are magnetically charged. 

And I won't be buying. 

These shadows cost $22 each for 0.02 ounces of product. That is tiny. To put it into perspective:

• Traditional MAC shadows cost $6 per pan for 0.04 ounces 
• Makeup Geek shadows cost $6–$10 for 0.064 ounces
• Inglot shadows cost $7 for 0.08 ounces 
• Make Up For Ever shadows cost $21 for 0.07 ounces
• Kat Von D Metal Crush shadows cost $21 for 0.10 ounces
• Burberry shadows cost $29 for 0.09 ounces 

The Spellbinder shadows cost as much as Make Up For Ever and Kat Von D shadows but have less than a third and  fifth of the product. 

These eyeshadows—pointblank—are a gimmick. Hands down the most interesting thing about them is their appearance (which looks like velvet) and the fact that if you hover a magnet over them, the pigment will move and can stick to the magnet. YouTube personality Tati demonstrates this in a video about the shadows. 

Other than that, when swatched and applied to the eye, they look just like every other eyeshadow. They wear the same as a normal eyeshadow, and they blend the same. I cannot say this enough: there is nothing special about these in terms of performance. 

There are eight shadows in this collection:

Even the colors are not very complex. They are very basic jewel tones. That's it. 

What's interesting about the shadow formula is that they apply much better with a brush than they do with fingers. This is best shown in the Tati video linked above, but you can also see swatches on Temptalia's blog. 

Let's look at some other jewel-tone options:

There's the Sleek Storm palette:

Photo: So Loverly

Urban Decay Smoked:

Makeup Geek foiled shadows:

Inglot shadows:

Photo: Temptalia

Note: This is a palette made by Christine of Temptalia. For more information, see her post.

Kat Von D Metal Crush eyeshadows:

Photo: Temptalia

And Juvia's Place Masquerade:

When I saw the swatches of the Spellbinder shadows, I felt angry at the price. Sure the shadows look nice when applied with a brush, can last well over primer, and blend fine, but so do most eyeshadows. Not even most quality eyeshadows. All the Spellbinder shadows have a shimmer finish, and as I've said many times, I think it's a lot harder to make a good matte than it is to make a good shimmer. 

I'd like to talk about price just a little more. These shadows are overpriced. You are paying for the design and the concept (the gimmick) more than any ingredient benefits that I can see. If you're going to spend $22 on an eyeshadow, I would recommend getting a Make Up For Ever or Kat Von D Metal Crush eyeshadow. 

In terms of palettes, the Sleek Storm palette costs $10 US. The Juvia's Place Masquerade palette costs  $25–$35. I owned the Storm palette several years ago and thought the quality was on par with MAC shadows. I currently own the Masquerade palette and think it is a great palette with variety and good quality. Both of these palettes offer substantially more product and variety and the Spellbinder shadows. 

This is something else that I don't really understand about MAC. Their pan shadows used to cost $10 each. When Makeup Geek came on the market and started selling shadows with comparable, if not better, quality with more product for $6, it hit MAC hard. Since the beauty community has boomed on YouTube and social media, MAC has become less and less part of the everyday conversation. So last year, MAC took action and lowered the price of their pan eyeshadows to meet Makeup Geek's price. However, the pan eyeshadows seem to be the only product to receive that consideration, as the price of the Spellbinder and other limited-edition eyeshadows are very disproportionate. 

As I've been writing this blog and seeing the influx of new products flood the market, I've been able to take a really critical look at products. And the trend that I've noticed quite a bit is that in order to get attention now, a product needs to be attached to a gimmick. And I'm really sick of that trend. I don't need my eyeshadow to look like lead when I run a magnet over it. I don't need my eyeshadow to smell like chocolate or peach or eggnog or anything else. And I certainly don't need my eyeshadow to have cutesy childlike packaging. I just don't need it. When you think about how much the Spellbinder shadows cost in comparison to how little product you get, you have to wonder what you're paying for. Frankly, it's not the shadow or shadow quality. It's everything else. If you take away the packaging and gimmick, these are just normal-perfomring eyeshadows. I have plenty of shadows, including jewel tones, and I don't need magnetic ones. And I won't be buying. 

What I'm Not Buying: MAC Nutcracker Sweet Warm Eye Compact Holiday 2016

As I have mentioned, MAC has released three nine-pan eyeshadow palettes as part of their holiday collection, and the "Warm" iteration is the final palette in the collection.

And I won't be buying.

I mentioned this in my post about the "Smoky" palette, but I don't see how MAC figured this was a warm palette. All of these shadows lean cool, even the yellow, which is the warmest shade in the palette. The only thing I can think is if the eyeshadow palettes follow the same naming system as the foundations. In MAC foundations, NW shades are for cool-toned skin, and NC shades are for warm-toned. So maybe that's what happened here?

My thoughts about MAC and their limited edition collections can be found in my post about the Nutcracker Sweet Smoky Eye Compact. And my thoughts on MAC's place among the cosmetics industry's trends can be found in my post about the Nutcracker Sweet Cool Eye Compact.

This palette costs $39.50 and has received poor reviews. As I mentioned in an earlier post about this collection, MAC quality seems to drop dramatically when eyeshadows are moved from the traditional round pans.

I have one shadow from this palette in my collection, which is Woodwinked:

The reason I only own one of the colors from this palette is because I have warm olive skin and cool-toned shadows don't look the best on me. But for people who do have cool-toned skin or who were interested in this color scheme, I have to tell you: this palette is not that interesting. 

If you take the yellow shade out of this palette, you are left with the most average selection of neutrals imaginable. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but there is also nothing special about it. 

This palette reminds me of the It Cosmetics Superhero palette:

Viseart Theory palette in Cashmere:

Photo: Temptalia

Even the MAC Navy Times Nine:

But it most reminded me of two palettes from E.l.f. The Need it Nudes:

And especially the Everyday Smoky:

Let's do a rundown. The MAC palette costs $39.50 for nine shadows and is of poor quality.

• It Cosmetics Superhero palette: $42 for 12 shadows
• Viseart Cashmere: $45 for six shadows of exceptional quality
• MAC Navy Times Nine: $32 for nine shadows
• E.l.f. Need it Nudes: $10 for 10 shadows
• E.l.f. Everyday Smoky: $10 for 10 shadows

I have heard great things about the E.l.f. palettes, but I have not tried them personally. I imagine that the quality will be lower than my preferred shadows from Make Up For Ever, Makeup Geek, traditional MAC, Kat Von D, and Viseart. However, I would imagine the quality would be on par with, if not better than, these limited edition items from MAC. 

And that is something that really upsets me. E.l.f. palettes are priced at $10 for 10 shadows because the shadow quality and packaging isn't the best. That is not to say that E.l.f. does not have good or great products. The ingredients and formula are just not as high quality as some (not all) more expensive brands. Because of this, E.l.f. has priced their products accordingly and have created a line of cosmetics with a price range that is truly accessible to most people. So watching a brand like MAC release a low-quality, underperforming product and charging $39.50 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 

Again, it seems the only reason to purchase these palettes is if you are a loyal collector of MAC holiday and limited edition collections or if you collect MAC packaging. Because the quality of the product is not there, especially for the price. I don't collect makeup personally, so this collection really has no value for me. 

I have mentioned in all my other posts about MAC that I really do like the brand for the most part. Like every brand they have their hits and misses, but I find the atmosphere in a MAC store to always be so fun and positive. It really is a celebration of makeup, the artistry, and the boost of confidence it can give someone. And for the life of me I can't figure out why MAC wants to cheapen that with their recurring poor quality limited edition collections. 

When I first became interested in makeup, I looked at past MAC collections and drooled over the gorgeous packaging, especially the Heatherette collection:

And most notably the Manish Arora collection:

The eyeshadow palette compact alone was so stunning:

Photo: A Beautiful Sentiment

And I got it. I got the whole MAC thing. Because I imagined that the quality I had in my permanent items would be transferred into this gorgeous packaging. And who wouldn't want their makeup to be as stunning as possible? 

But by the time I got on board with makeup, these collection were gone. MAC started pumping out collections almost monthly, and the quality of the products went severely downhill. And because they were being released so quickly, the quality and beauty of the packaging was also going lacking. 

In fact, the last MAC collection I remember where people were exciting about the packaging was the Alluring Aquatics collection with the globs meant to look like water droplets:

And now, of course, we have the bowling "It's a Strike" collection:

Photo: Thou Shalt Not Covet

And the Nutcracker Sweet holiday collection:

And, I don't know, this is a far cry from Heatherette and Manish Arora. 

Unfortunately, what made the MAC special collections special is long gone, at least in my opinion. The quality of the product and packaging has tanked, so it's a wonder anymore what people are really paying for. And because I am delusional, I keep hoping that MAC will bring back some of what made me fall in love with the brand. Of course gorgeous packaging is a huge bonus, but the focus should always be product quality first and foremost. And a lot of times, quality feels like an afterthought or the least important factor. And as a customer, that just sucks. So again, the holiday collection from MAC was a huge disappointment for me. And I won't be buying.