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. 

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

I've already mentioned that MAC has released three nine-pan eyeshadow palettes as part of their holiday collection, and the "Cool" iteration was the second to catch my eye. 

But I won't be buying. 

My thoughts about MAC and their limited edition collections can be found in my post about the Nutcracker Sweet Smoky Eye Compact. 

The "Cool" palette, which to me looks the most "smoky" out of the three palettes, caught my attention because of the pink tones. I haven't always loved pink on me, but I think that's because the first pink palette I tried was the Urban Decay Naked 3:

This is probably one of my most disliked palettes I have ever owned. Every single look I did looked wrong, unflattering, or muddy, and I really hated all of the glittery fallout. I especially hated the first several shades. I liked Liar enough, but it wasn't that unique on me, and Nooner was the only shadow that I loved. I ended up using Nooner every time I touched this palette because it was the only shade that looked good on me. 

I finally decided enough was enough with this palette a couple years ago and gave it away. But it was only later when my good friend told me that the Naked 3 is her all-time favorite palette and that her favorite shades are the first few that I hated that I realized why I didn't like the palette. My friend has fair, cool-toned skin and naturally reddish hair. She also has gorgeous huge dark brown eyes. Pinks look killer on her. My complexion is quite different. I have warm olive undertones and blue-green-gray eyes. 

Because of this, I assumed for quite a while that pinks were best suited for people with cool skin tones and dark eyes in the way that bronzes and coppers look great on people with blue and green eyes. But the reality is that I just needed to find the pink colors that best suited me. And those were not in the Naked 3. Also, I just really don't like the formula of Urban Decay shadows. 

I realized that the best way to make pinks work for me was to pair them with warm-toned shadows, including warm-toned pinks and mauves. Since I've discovered this, pink eyeshadow has really become a favorite of mine, and so when I see a palette full of pink shades, I get excited. 

However, when I really evaluate the Cool palette by MAC, the colors are not at all exciting. 

The first five shadows look like they would be practically indistinguishable on the lid as a light wash of color. The gray and black are absolutely nothing new and are included in pretty much every natural palette from Urban Decay's Naked to the Lorac Pro. That leaves the dark pink and brown, which are not exactly unique. 

I especially don't need this palette because it looks like a toned-down, less interesting version of the Too Faced Chocolate Bon Bons:

Or the Tartelette in Bloom:

And less obviously but still in the same family as the Lorac Unzipped:

Swatches of the MAC Cool palette have left much to be desired and have also confirmed my suspicion that the first five colors would all look the same when applied. The pigmentation is also quite sheer, which is not something that I really enjoy, especially when there are a ton of better options available. 

My thoughts about the Cool palette are the same as the Smoky palette from MAC. I don't think the quality of their permanent line translates into all of their limited edition palettes, especially when the pans are not the traditional round shape and size. $39.50 is too much for a nine-pan palette of inferior quality with a low quality brush. Again, I think the only reason to buy this palette would be if you like to collect MAC holiday palettes and you like the packaging. I don't personally collect makeup, so there is no reason for me to purchase this. 

In a lot of ways I feel MAC can't keep up with the rest of the cosmetics industry. And that's an odd thing for me to say since MAC is incredibly successful and will likely remain successful. They have a solid customer base with their eyeshadows, foundations, and lipsticks. They are a brand that many people show loyalty. As I mentioned in my other MAC holiday eye palette post, MAC was the very first makeup I ever owned, and I learned how to apply makeup from a MAC artist. I am a part of that loyal customer base even though I don't shop there as exclusively as I used to. 

But MAC also doesn't branch out all that often. They were way behind the liquid lipstick trend when they released their version of it, and it was poorly received with many complaints about patchiness and dryness. When highlighters came fully into focus, MAC didn't reformulate any of their Mineralize Skinfinishes to have a smoother formula with less chunky glitter. Eyeshadow palettes have been hot since the Naked palette was released over six years ago, and yet MAC has only recently started putting out premade palettes, and most of them have been limited edition. Added to that, MAC has moved from being cruelty-free to non-cruelty-free, which also feels like a step backward instead of forward. 

Releasing a palette like the "Cool" palette with such bland colors that looks exactly like several others that have been on the market for years solidifies how "behind" MAC is with their releases. It also feels like MAC is having a bit of an identity crisis. For a while it seemed they didn't care what the current trends were, they were going to stick with what always worked for them. But lately, it seems they are trying to slightly change to go with the trends, but are just really behind and not coming out with much that's interesting or innovative. 

Overall, the most interesting thing about the "Cool" palette is the dark pink shade, and there is absolutely no need to buy an entire "meh" quality palette for one shade. It reminds me of the days before iTunes when you would buy an entire CD because you liked one song. And you convinced yourself that you would like and listen to the other songs, but you never did. You just listened to the one song you bought the entire CD for. And I think that's what happens a lot with palettes, at least for me. I see that one awesome color that I want and decide that there are enough "good" colors for me to justify buying, or I bargain with myself and make promises that I have no intention of keeping that I will find ways to use the other colors or will experiment. No, I won't. I just want that one color. And in the case of this palette, that one color just isn't all that special. And I won't be buying. 

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

MAC has released three eyeshadow palettes for the holiday season, in smoky, cool, and warm themes. While I was somewhat interested in each of the three and will touch on the other two in subsequent posts, I was most drawn to the Smoky palette. 

But I won't be buying.

I actually find it a bit odd that this is considered the "Smoky" palette.

This is the "Warm" palette:

And this is the "Cool" palette:

None of these palettes feel properly named or categorized to me. The "Smoky" palette feels the most objectively warm to me, the "Warm" palette seems like it leans pretty cool, and the "Cool" palette has the most smoky shades. 

So right off the bat this collection really confuses me. 

I'd like to have a little conversation about MAC before I get too far into this. MAC will always have a special place in my heart because it was the first makeup I ever purchased. I was 21 when I first bought makeup, and I bought it because I wanted to feel a little more feminine. I was a college athlete at the time, and I had been an athlete for the majority of my life. I felt I had this part of me that was so creative, artistic, and overtly feminine, but it was completely hidden throughout all the years I felt I had to fit into the athletic world. When I was 21 and in college, one girl on my team always looked like she came out of a magazine. I finally asked her how she did it and how she learned, and she told me to go to a MAC store and ask an artist to teach me how to do makeup. And I did, and I've been deeply in love with makeup ever since. 

On that first trip to MAC, I bought a paint pot, quad of eyeshadows, blush, lip gloss, eyeliner, mascara, and brush. I was ready. After that, I started watching YouTube videos, and at that time, people pretty much only talked about MAC. So my eyeshadow collection grew and grew. So did my blushes and lipsticks. Eventually the Naked palette by Urban Decay came out and the entire game was changed, and my MAC shadows were used less and less until I finally felt they were too old for me to comfortably use. 

I have since purchased four MAC singles: Amber Lights, Wookwinked, Cranberry, and Coppering and have the limited edition Nordstrom C'est Chick all-matte palette. 

Photo: Temptalia

And I again remember why I fell in love with MAC (and makeup in general) in the first place. 

But I have some conflicting feelings about MAC. I absolutely adore their Viva Glam campaign, and while I feel there are plenty of better representatives they could choose each year, I still love everything about Viva Glam and the MAC AIDS Fund. But then I am massively disappointed that their cruelty-free status has changed. I am currently not cruelty-free, but like to mostly support cruelty-free brands when possible. Seeing a brand like Kat Von D transition from cruelty-free to vegan is really inspiring and seems like a great step in the right direction. So seeing a previously cruelty-free brand give up that status feels backward. And then, of course, there was the cultural appropriation with no apology whatsoever. 

Something else that has always rubbed me the wrong way about MAC is their constant, incessant limited edition collections. I don't mind so much that they exist, but really dislike that the quality always seems to be lacking in favor of cute packaging or a gimmicky idea. Unfortunately, it looks like that may be the case with the Nutcracker palettes as well. 

The packaging is cute:

But the transition from round pans into rectangular seems to have compromised the quality. I looked at Temptalia's swatches and was very unimpressed. 

As I mentioned, I was most drawn to the "Smoky" palette because of its collection of warm shadows, but when I really consider each shade, there is nothing interesting or unique going on here. If fact, it looks really similar to the Jouer palette I wrote about recently:

Within my own collection, I have the Kat Von D Monarch palette:

And the Too Faced Peanut Butter and Jelly palette:

I'm certainly not hurting for warm-toned neutral shadows, and need chunky, glittery, patchy shadows even less. The Nutcracker Smoky palette costs $39.50 for nine shadows and a dual-ended brush. While this is certainly a less expensive price than what MAC has traditionally offered, I still don't think this is a good deal. From my own experience, MAC's holiday brushes are not at all of comparable quality to their permanent brush line, and I found mine to be scratchy and generally unpleasant to work with. And yes, you get nine shadows for $40, but they are not great quality. I think if this palette interested you, you would be better off buying nine MAC or Makeup Geek individual shadows for $45 because then the quality would at least be worth the price. 

Like so many other brands, I always get excited to see what MAC will bring out during the holidays. This year I was generally less disappointed than most years, but the quality still left a lot to be desired. And within the Smoky palette, I already had all of the colors in better performing shadows. And I won't be buying.