What I'm Not Buying: Morphe 39A Dare To Create Eyeshadow Palette

As part of their holiday collection, Morphe has released a 39-pan limited-edition eyeshadow palette, called 39A Dare To Create. 

And I won't be buying. 

Morphe has been... kind of surprising me lately. For me, the surprise started around the time they launched the Jaclyn Hill palette, because the packaging was different and nicer than what I had seen the brand put out before. And then in an unexpected (at least for me) move, Morphe products moved into select Ulta stores and the popular Jaclyn Hill palette was given even better packaging. An added bonus was that people who bought this palette at Ulta didn't have to pay the crazy high costs for shipping. 

And then Morphe came out with the 39A, which looks different from any other Mophe palette I have seen and also appears to have better packaging. 

It shouldn't be all that surprising, I guess, considering Morphe's growth. I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but from my understanding, a lot of brands private label when they first start out, and as the business grows, they are able to start becoming more independent. And it's certainly not surprising that Morphe has grown as much and as quickly as they have because of their selection of partnerships with some of the biggest beauty personalities on YouTube. 

I've mentioned this before in several blog posts, but I have owned a few things from Morphe. There is is store where I live in NYC that has sold Morphe items in-store for years, and I was able to swatch and look at items before purchasing. 

I purchased the 35T and 35OS palettes, but both palettes have been decluttered because they smelled really bad, the mattes were terrible, and the shadows irritated my skin and made my eyes water. That was pretty much enough for me, and I didn't really have an interest in getting anything further from the brand. 

About a month ago, I was gifted the Jaclyn Hill palette, and it was purchased from Ulta, so it had the upgraded packaging. I'll be honest and say that I was expecting the worst, but the palette surprised me. It didn't have any of the issues I had experienced before. The mattes aren't the best I've used, but they aren't nearly as bad as those in the 35T. I still find the general color scheme to be repetitive, there is a lot of overlap among shades in the palette, and I think it's overpriced. I still wouldn't have purchased this myself, but as a gift, I've been enjoying it. 

But here's the thing with Morphe. Since the release of the Jaclyn Hill palette, they have released the 35O2, which has the same cheap packaging as most of their other 35 palettes. And it makes me wonder if the formula is also the same—the formula that smelled bad, had terrible mattes, and irritated my skin. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in what the brand releases, which doesn't give me a ton of confidence as a consumer. 

But their latest release looks different, and with Morphe, I have come to feel that different is a good thing.

Let's look at the palette: 

When I first saw this palette, I didn't really know what to think. I wasn't sure if the bigger pans in the center were supposed to be face products / a mini highlight and contour kit, or if this was all just eyeshadow. I've since learned that the bigger pans are "super-sized transition shades," so I suppose the logic here is that consumers use those shades more and therefore want more product. 

This is a pet peeve of mine, because I don't like it when a brand decides which shadows or colors I'm going to use the most. For example, the color I personally use most as a transition shade is Colourpop The News, which is a mix between pink and coral (sadly, it looks as though Colourpop has discontinued this color, but Costal Scents Petal Peach is similar), and I don't see any shadow in the 39A that looks similar to this, and certainly not in the transition shade row.

To put it bluntly, these "super-sized transition shades" are several shades of beige and brown that don't vary too dramatically. That would be my biggest complaint with the Jaclyn Hill palette as well, which is that there seems to be so many repeated tones. It's as if Jaclyn Hill/Morphe were anticipating the shades consumers were going to run out of and so they decided to put duplicates of those shades in the palette. And that's just not something that I want in a palette. When I look at the 39A, I see the same kind of issue, just with bigger pan sizes. 

Of course, this is an issue across every single large Morphe palette that I have seen, and it is also an issue in other sections of this palette. There are multiple dark browns, blues, reds, and oranges. And while, yes, I can see that there are different tones of those shades, on the eyes, it doesn't always translate to something distinct. 

Let's talk about price. This palette retails for $32, which is higher than most Morphe palettes ($23), but less than the Jaclyn Hill palette ($38). Morphe shipping costs around $8 for domestic orders, and they offer free shipping for domestic orders over $50. So, not including tax, this palette will cost upwards of $40, which is putting Morphe into the mid-range price scale. 

And, here's the thing with this palette. When I look at it, it seems somewhat unique. And that's because it has 39 shadows in it. You can cover a lot of ground with that many shadows. It's got two rows of warm-toned shadows, a row of "transition shades," and two rows of cool-toned shadows. Most palettes have considerably less shadows, so the color schemes aren't exact. 

Nonetheless, palettes that have similar color schemes include NYX Earth:

Urban Decay Vice 3:

Juvia's Place Masquerade:

On the cool-toned side, it looks like NYX Water:

On the warm-toned side, it looks like NYX Fire:

And Colourpop Yes, Please!

Similar tones can be found in Urban Decay Heavy Metals:

And, this one is really important, so many of the shades in the Morphe 39A are also in the Jaclyn Hill palette:

Let's talk about this last one for a moment. I know that a lot of people get attached to packaging. I have been there myself, and, in fact, I've only met one person (a dear friend) who loved the look of my custom palette with depotted shadows so much that she wanted me to tear all of her palettes apart and do the same thing. And it's in the nature of the beast of buying palettes that you will get some overlap. It seems people are constantly torn between the hypocritical nature of "I want this palette to have more unique shades!" and "Ugh, why doesn't this palette have my favorite brow bone highlight or warm brown transition shade?"

There are some palettes that I've had no problem depotting, others that I don't want to, and others that I just can't because of how they are made. But I learned the biggest lessons from Morphe when I depotted the 35T and 35OS palettes. I took all of the shadows out, and when I went to put them in a custom palette, I couldn't tell the difference between so many of the shadows. I then started swatching, only to find that there were several instances of the exact same color being in the palette a few times over. 

If you own the Jaclyn Hill palette and are considering buying the 39A, I suspect that you will find quite a bit of overlap, especially in the first three rows of the 39A. 

Packaging is a thing. We all know that it is. That doesn't mean that we all fall for packaging, but we know that brands use it to manipulate us into buying things. I was envious of that friend I mentioned earlier. She visited me recently and was looking at my palettes and was drawn to my duped Desert Dusk palette:

Since she knew she couldn't recreate this exact palette, she asked me if I thought she should buy the palette from Huda Beauty. And I said no. Instead, I told her to get the Coloured Raine Queen of Hearts palette, since so much of my custom palette is just that palette depotted. So we went to this same store in NYC that sells Morphe, and she was able to buy the Queen of Hearts palette in-store. Without missing a beat, when she got it back to my place, she handed it over to me and asked me to take it apart. Just like that. She had absolutely no connection to the packaging or to how it looked with the colors arranged in the palette. So I depotted the colors for her, along with some of her other shadows, and she spent the next couple of hours rearranging her shadows to create a perfect palette for her. 

Seeing her have zero attachment to packaging just really hit me. And it made me realize just how often we all look past buying the same things over and over and over again because it makes us feel comfortable seeing all the colors together in a way that "makes sense" to us. 

On the whole, I'm still not really on board with Morphe. I feel like their brand is generally moving in a better direction with these two not-so-obviously private labeled palettes and selling their products in Ulta where people can swatch and return. But the Morphe shilling is still way too much for me to really be on board with the brand, especially when a lot of people they work with are incredibly problematic. 

With 39 eyeshadows, the 39A is an overwhelming palette. There's a lot of color there. If you're new to makeup, don't already own much, and are looking to experiment with warm and cool tones, I can see the appeal in this palette. Years ago, the Costal Scents 88 palettes were incredibly hyped, and some people still talk about those palettes fondly and credit them with helping them to understand color. Those huge palettes never appealed to me personally, but I can understand the impulse of wanting to try a lot of colors without having to buy several expensive hyped palettes. 

But for people who already have a solid collection of eyeshadow (or who own one or more of the above palettes), the 39A just isn't needed. I think people still think of Morphe has this inexpensive brand, but when you're looking at upwards of $40 plus tax for this palette, it's not inexpensive. And if you have some or all of these shades already (and, let's be honest, most people probably have the browns, reds, and other warm tones), there's not really any need to get this palette. 

I don't personally want to add another 39 shadows to my collection, especially when most (if not all of them) are shades that I already own. So, I won't be buying. 

What I'm Not Buying: Kat Von D Metal Matte Mini

Kat Von D's newest release is a mini version of the brand's popular holiday 2016 palette, Metal Matte. 

And I won't be buying. 

Last year, I wrote an anti-haul post on the Metal Matte palette, and, true to my word, I did not purchase it. But I also wrote the post at a time when I was not very experimental with color. The only shades that would have appealed to me were the neutral shades, and I already had all of those in spades. Since I have discovered my love for colors, Metal Matte has stuck in my head as a "one that got away" kind of palette. I also speculated at the time that I didn't think the quality was up to other products in Kat Von D's line, and I still agree with that. In the end, I think it was a good choice for me to pass on that palette. But it is still one that I think about. 

And I'll be honest. When I first heard that Kat Von D was releasing a mini version of this palette, I had an immediate impulse of "I want to buy that." It's funny to me after all this time blogging about the items I'm not going to buy and changing my mindset to a "use what I have" instead of "buy new things" mentality, that I still find myself with gut reactions of wanting to buy. 

And then images of the actual product came out and I was mad. This? This is what you're putting out from that interesting palette so many people begged you to bring back?

This is a thought process I have talked about before on this blog, which is how we create our own vision of what a particular item will look like simply from hearing the name of a product or seeing a photo of its packaging. And there is a strategy behind this practice, because brands want us to drum up hype in our head, get attached to that hype, and then hopefully stick through with it to purchase, even if the reality of the product disappoints us. 

Strangely, I still wanted to want this product. And I can understand why people would want it. It's the same BS reasons that I see all the time and that I used to use as justification to buy something I didn't need.

Oh, it will be perfect to travel with. 

It'll be nice to have that core group of colors in one place.

And that's just what those reasons are—BS.

Most people don't travel enough to warrant buying "travel makeup." I have traveled more in the past three months than I have in the last five years. I still have more travel in the months ahead. And I still don't feel like I need "travel makeup." I feel like most of my palettes that aren't strictly neon colors can work just fine as a travel palette. I've traveled with Colourpop Yes, Please!, NYX Fire, my duped Just Peachy Mattes palette, and my duped Desert Dusk. On my most recent trip I was gifted the Jaclyn Hill Morphe palette, and I found that, while I had all of those colors sitting in my collection at home, it worked well for travel purposes.

On my most upcoming trip, I'll likely bring the Jaclyn Hill palette again, along with my duped Just Peachy Mattes palette, as I feel those two palettes pretty much cover a condensed version of my collection.

But I would feel comfortable traveling with my BH Cosmetics Zodiac palette, my Milani Earthly Elements palette, or any of my custom palettes. So, in the end, there aren't many palettes that I wouldn't consider for travel purposes. And using that as an excuse to buy a palette full of colors you already own isn't substantiated.

And as far as the second excuse, we all know that you don't need to buy an entire palette just to have a core group of colors in one place. It's really not that big of a deal to pull from more than one palette.

Let's look at Metal Matte Mini:

This palette costs $39 for 10 shadows. Now, this isn't totally crazy for Kat Von D. The Pastel Goth palette, which was released earlier this year, had eight shadows and cost $38. Saint and Sinner, on the other hand, which was released a few months ago, has 24 shadows and costs $62. I don't know why, but I was kind of shocked at the price of this palette. That's especially perplexing because I did buy Pastel Goth, which was essentially the same price for two less shadows. (Please see this post if you have questions about why I own Pastel Goth when I have written an anti-haul post on the product.) I think the reason the price of Metal Matte Mini feels so steep to me is because this palette is just so boring, so overdone. And for it to be a "mini" of an existing product, I just expected a lower price point. 

Let's look at Metal Matte:

Between these two palettes, there is a lot of overlap. Two of the metal crush shadows are repeats from the original, Flash and Synergy, and all of the matte shades are found in the original. 

Needless to say, if you own Metal Matte, there is really little reason to think about buying Metal Matte Mini. That's a complaint that I have heard a lot about this palette, and I can't help but to roll my eyes. People want to know why there are so many repeat shades. They want to know why Kat Von D is making it hard for people to give over their money. But here's the thing: you don't need everything! And here's an even bigger revelation: Not everything is made for you. 

I don't think Kat Von D put out the Metal Matte Mini for people who already own Metal Matte. I think the brand put it out for people who didn't buy Metal Matte, and they made the palette neutral so that it would appeal to a wider audience of people who have zero to two palettes. 

I only own one Kat Von D Metal Crush eyeshadow, and that's Thunderstruck, which is in the Mini palette. It's a beautiful shadow that I really love, and once upon a time, it was really unique. But now, not so much. It's similar to Too Faced Satin Sheets (in the Chocolate Bon Bons palette), Coloured Raine Crown (in the Queen of Hearts palette), and the Physician's Formula Butter Highlighter in Pearl. 

Raw Power is another shade in the Mini palette that's not in the original, and this was a shadow that I owned years ago and then returned. I remember swatching it in the store and completely falling in love, but when I applied it to my eyes, the color payoff wasn't what I wanted. At $21 each, Metal Crush eyeshadows are expensive, and I could not justify that price for the way the shadow looked on my eyes. 

Even if you don't already own Metal Matte, my guess is that you already have these colors in your collection. 

Let's look at swatches:

This is really the clincher for me, because when I look at these swatches, I just think, "Oh, this is Kat Von D's version of the warm neutral palette with pops of red, yellow, and orange that we have seen every brand come out with all year."

In my collection, most immediately I thought of Colourpop Yes, Please!:

And NYX Fire:

The matte shades remind me of the Melt Rust Stack:

And the general color scheme is similar to Smashbox Ablaze: 

Urban Decay Naked Heat:

Tarte Tartelette Toasted:

And Sephora Pro Warm:

Even though these palettes have more color options, all the colors in Metal Matte Mini are also found in Huda Beauty Desert Dusk:

And the Jaclyn Hill Morphe palette:

If you have any of the above palettes, I think you can safely say that you have all the colors in Metal Matte Mini. I own four of the above palettes, so I certainly have no use for this palette in my collection. 

Finally, I would like to talk about something that I personally find kind of silly, but I also know can be a big deal, and that's the packaging: 

Just like the original Metal Matte, the script on the packaging is a symbiotogram, which is a type of ambigram, meaning the design allows two different words to be read depending on the orientation of the palette. It reads "Metal" if right-side up, and "Matte" if upside down. 

In general, I am not a packaging snob. I have always been more invested in what is actually inside of a product than what it looks like on the outside, but then there is some packaging (like Natasha Denona) that I think so so terrible for the price that it becomes a non-selling point for me. But, if you can't tell, I love words. And I also really love ambigrams. So the Metal Matte packaging has always been something that intrigued me and something that I wanted. 

I also think that Kat Von D's packaging just stands out among the crowd. And I suppose that's not surprising because she is an incredibly talented artist. The Mi Vida Loca Remix packaging is absolutely stunning, and I've also really come to love the packaging for Pastel Goth. Saint and Sinner is one of the most original concepts I have seen with packaging, but I'm not personally a huge fan of religious iconography. Nonetheless, I think it certainly stands out among other holiday releases. 

And if I'm going to be the most honest I can possibly be, I would say the biggest reason why Metal Matte feels like the "one that got away" is because of the packaging. And that's why I won't let myself buy it for resellers. Fundamentally I am against that thinking when it comes to buying products, and I refuse to pay upwards of $65 because I like the design on some cardboard. 

(As a side note, I saw someone say the other day that the packaging of the Pat McGrath Labs Mothership palettes completely justified the $125 price of the palette. I've seen the palettes in person, swatched them, played with the colors, and held the full weight of the packaging in my hand. And I can say, yes, that packaging is luxurious and Natasha Denona should take note. But the eyeshadows were just okay. And for that kind of money, hell no the packaging does not make the $125 price worth it.)

I bring all of this up to say that the packaging, and having a smaller version of this symbiotogram, is really the only reason I have to buy this palette. I have all the colors already several times over. I own Thunderstruck outright and returned Raw Power because I didn't like it. Almost every palette I own has at least one of these colors in it, and, let's just be frank here: This palette was not made for me. So, no, I'm not going to spend upwards of $40 so I can have a symbiotogram. I don't need this palette for any reason, and it would be terribly redundant to my collection. So I won't be buying. 

What I'm Not Buying: Too Faced Chocolate Gold Palette

Another month has passed, and you know what that means—Too Faced has released yet another palette. This is the Chocolate Gold palette, a limited edition palette that looks a lot like their Chocolate Bar palettes but will not (as of now) be a part of the permanent range. 

And I won't be buying. 

I'm going to start this post off a little different today, and that is by talking about a positive aspect of this product. Too Faced has released so many new palettes and collections over the past couple years, and when I see whatever the new product looks like, the vast majority of the time I find it so boring. When I look at the Chocolate Gold palette, I don't like it enough to potentially want to buy it, but it doesn't look as bad as so many of their other palettes—at least at first glance, but we will get into that in a bit. 

Upon first look, there are some shades in this palette that I would really like if I didn't have a large eyeshadow collection. I'm immediately drawn to Classy & Sassy, because I've been really loving gold pinks, and I'm also really drawn to New Money (hot pink), Old Money (copper), and Chocolate Gold. 

If this palette was good quality and if I didn't already have a large collection, I could see myself using almost all of these colors. In fact, the only colors I don't think I would use a ton are Decadent (matte black) and Dippin' Diamonds (silver). That is something that I feel has been lacking from a lot of Too Faced releases lately, which is a (somewhat) exciting(ish) color scheme. 

But, here's the thing. While this color scheme seems a little "exciting" for Too Faced, it is not at all exciting when compared to what is currently on the market. And, as far as I can tell from reviews and swatches, this palette is just okay. Some shimmers have decent pigment, some don't. Some mattes look sheer, others look patchy. This isn't all that surprising to me or probably most people at this point, but for $49, you have got to be dreaming to think I will pay that for so-so quality. 

Again, it seems like Too Faced's priority with this palette was the packaging: 

Now, I will say that I actually really like this packaging. I love how shiny the gold is, and if I was a sucker for packaging, this one would be hard for me to resist. I think it's beautiful, and I think Too Faced did a good job with it, which makes it even more disappointing that the actual product is just okay. 

The packaging also serves another purpose, which is making a statement against the brand Makeup Revolution that has built an entire brand off of ripping off successful brands and products. Here is the packaging for their copied version of the Too Faced Chocolate Bar:

Makeup Revolution seems to be a divisive brand. Some people like it because they offer popular color schemes at fractions of the cost and they are sold in countries where the original brand is not. So for people who live outside the US and who don't have access to the same products, Makeup Revolution is a brand they like. 

Personally, I really hate brands like Makeup Revolution for ripping off someone else's creative work. There's a difference between having palettes with similar colors (like Natasha Denona Sunset, Colourpop Yes, Please!, and NYX Fire) and flat-out ripping someone off, copying their exact color scheme and layout, replicating the packaging, or even ripping off the name. 

The worst offender, I believe, is the Makeup Revolution "Light and Shade" palette:

Which is such an egregious ripoff, down the the name and shadow layout, of the Kat Von D Shade and Light Eye palette:

I could never support a brand that makes money off of stealing from another brand in such a blatant, unapologetic, and obvious way, so I personally find it fun that Too Faced ripped off Makeup Revolution's packaging of a product they ripped off from Too Faced. 

But I am not someone who purchases an expensive product just for the packaging, and I am disappointed, as always, that Too Faced put more care and attention into that than into giving consumers a fantastic product. 

Let's look at swatches:

These swatches are so disappointing, especially when you consider that the swatches provided by the brand are going to look the best (and also unrealistic). There is no question that brands apply a hefty layer of primer on models' skin and then layer the product on top. It is also very likely that a lot of photo editing takes place afterward. That seems exceptionally obvious in this case because there is hardly any variation of the swatches between the different skin tones. 

And personally, I don't think these swatches look that great. In fact, I'm surprised that this is even the same palette as pictured above. The gold pink color that I was so drawn to in images of the palette does not exist in these swatches. The hot pink looks identical to the "Jelly" shadow in the Too Faced Peanut Butter and Jelly palette, and the rest of the swatches just look incredibly neutral and boring. 

If you take away the green shadow, the palette looks very neutral, and if you also take away the pink/violet shade, you've basically got the first Chocolate Bar:

So if you already have this palette, there is really no need to consider the Chocolate Gold palette. All you are missing is a green and pink/violet. 

On Too Faced's website, they showcase a few looks that can be achieved with the Chocolate Gold palette, and this is one of the looks:

I really couldn't believe when I saw photo. First, this does absolutely nothing in terms of advertising any quality of the product, and second, it barely looks like the model is wearing any eyeshadow. Obviously people have a wide array of preferences, and I know there are plenty of people who love a "no makeup" makeup look. I also know that many people just want to lightly define their crease or only wear neutral matte shadows. Those are not my personal preferences, but I know so many people who love a "natural" look. But when you look at images of the Chocolate Gold palette, it isn't one that jumps out at me to be for the person who loves a natural/minimal look. This photo just makes me think that the shadows in the palette don't perform very well. Furthermore, the "pigment" shown in the above swatches seems to be totally absent here.

When I first saw this palette, I immediately thought of the Too Faced Pretty Rebel palette:

This palette has been discontinued for many years, but I know it was beloved by those who owned it. 

The thing with Too Faced is that they built a fan base of consumers who loved the quality of their products. Then they started moving into the gimmicks (smelling like chocolate) and focusing on the packaging (looking like a bar of chocolate), and people went with them because gimmicks and packaging can be fun if the product is still good, which it was for a while. 

And then Too Faced started churning out products in preparation of selling to Estée Lauder, and since the sale of the company, the quality has only declined further. Even this palette, which looks to be quite a step up from the White Chocolate Bar palette, still can't hold up to a $16 palette from Colourpop. 

If you are drawn to this palette and have the original Chocolate Bar, there really is no reason to buy the Chocolate Gold. Not only do you have all of the tones already, but the Chocolate Bar (at least those sold a few years ago before the sale of the company) is of better quality. Buying the Chocolate Gold palette would give you duplicates of what you already have (but only worse), plus two shadows and different packaging. 

And, frankly, the color scheme of this palette is not unique enough even with the green and pink to justify adding it to an already full makeup collection. 

Other palettes that have similar tones include the Urban Decay Vice 3:

As well as the Urban Decay Vice LTD:

I recently saw a post from someone who had purchased the Chocolate Gold palette with the caption: "Please don't suck." For $49, I certainly expect more from a palette than the hope that it won't suck. When I purchased the BH Cosmetics Zodiac palette for $19, I had that same thought. "Please don't suck." I really wanted to love that palette, but I bought it before reviews had come out, and I knew I was taking a risk. And for $19, I was okay with that risk. But I shouldn't have to hope that a product from a more expensive brand won't suck. (Frankly, I shouldn't have to hope that with any brand, because companies should not be releasing mediocre or bad products.) 

But that is what I feel Too Faced has come to. "Please don't suck." This was once a brand that was on top of the beauty pyramid. I used to get so excited to see every new release, but that faded around the time of Chocolate Bon Bons. Now, with the flood of new products, I just roll my eyes. I mentioned this in my last post about Too Faced, but it feels like they are creating disposable makeup because of how frequently they release new products. And yet, prices have not gone down; pan/product sizes have not gone down. 

If you haven't seen Amber F's channel on YouTube, I recommend it. Each year she uses up an entire palette, and this year she is tackling the Chocolate Bar. She uses much more eyeshadow in her looks than I do, and she also multi-tasks several shadows as eyeliner, eyebrow powder, contour, bronzer, blush, and face highlighter. (I will link her playlist for the Chocolate Bar series here.) She has remarked several times throughout the year on how much product there is in the Chocolate Bar and how densely packed the shadows are, meaning that she doesn't go through the shadows as quickly as she does with other brands. Watching her use up this palette has really hit home for me how much product is in these palettes and how long it would actually take to use them up. If it takes her a year or more to use up the Chocolate Bar, while using the shadows for almost all aspects of her makeup look on a daily basis, I can't imagine how long it would take me. 

So for Too Faced to treat these products as disposable is truly baffling to me. Releasing a new palette every month doesn't allow anyone to actually use and enjoy their current products (and Too Faced's target audience are the people who buy everything new that the brand releases). And I really don't appreciate that this brands thinks that my income is this disposable. 

This same behavior is what drove me away from MAC, which was my all-time favorite brand for years. They kept coming out with a new special collection seemingly every few weeks, and as a result, all of them were of terrible quality. I was never big on getting the special collections, but I found it annoying that the sales associates were always trying to push these crappy products on me when I went into the store. And now, I barely have any MAC products in my collection. 

Colourpop is also coming out with new products and palettes at an alarming rate, but I find it less obnoxious since their entire business model is to provide trendy makeup with less product and at low prices. I'm not a person who cares about price per gram since I hardly ever even hit the pan on eyeshadows, so I am happy to pay an overall less price than to pay a crazy high price because it is lower in price per gram. 

I am not a fan of Anastasia Beverly Hill's palette formula, but I appreciate that they only come out with one or two palettes a year. And although Subculture was a bit of a disaster, you could tell that the brand had attempted to create shadows that had intense pigmentation. As a result, the shadows couldn't be pressed very hard in the manufacturing process, which led to all the of problems. I think ABH didn't handle that situation well, but it still seemed to me like the intention was to create a quality palette that consumers would love. Whereas it seems Too Faced just creates things to make money and doesn't put a ton of attention and care into giving consumers a quality product. 

This is also something I mentioned in my last post about Too Faced, but I really feel like the brand won't be able to sustain this kind of model for much longer in the changing beauty landscape. Colourpop is really changing the game, and although I wasn't a fan of the brand in its early days, now that they are more established, I'm really supportive of what they are doing. If I can get a great quality palette for $16 that also has a cool, interesting color scheme, why in the hell would I pay $49 for a crappy palette from Too Faced? Just so I can get some gold plastic covering some brown plastic on the packaging? No thanks. 

While I think the Chocolate Gold palette is better than other recent offerings from Too Faced, it is still more of the same from the brand and absolutely nothing to get too excited over. I don't need another expensive palette with basic colors and mediocre quality, so I won't be buying. 

What I'm Not Buying: Too Faced White Chocolate Bar Palette

For the holiday season, Too Faced has released the latest in their Chocolate Bar gimmick series, the White Chocolate Bar. 

And I won't be buying. 

I'll just be honest, this isn't so much an "anti-haul" at this point, but rather a roast of Too Faced because I sincerely doubt too many people are conflicted over buying this overpriced, uninspired, poor quality palette.

You may have noticed my absence over the past few weeks (or maybe you didn't) and that is because I was enjoying life so much and felt completely burnt out by the makeup and beauty communities. To clarify, my blog was not the thing that made me feel burnt out—I really enjoy writing this blog as well as the interaction I get from readers. It was the communities in general as well as discussions surrounding the Sephora VIB sale and upcoming Black Friday sales that left me feeling like I wanted a break.

I wish I could have made an anti-haul post about the Sephora VIB sale, because I personally felt inundated by all of the videos and posts I saw that were "guides" to the sale or recommendations for what people should purchase. And 20 percent is just not a substantial enough discount for me to think it really "justifies" how much people buy during the sale. Because sales like that are not designed with you in mind. Sephora makes bank during the sale because it prompts people to buy stuff they normally wouldn't. Hardly anyone can resist the notion of "getting a good deal," even when it's not a good deal.

As for me, I bought two things during the sale: A replacement cleanser and a replacement Hourglass Ambient Lighting Powder in Dim Light (I used up an entire full-size container of it). That was it. And I would have purchased both of these items regardless of a sale.

I just became a little overwhelmed with it all and wanted a break. I was also traveling for the past month and really enjoying myself, and I just wanted to be present instead of thinking about new makeup and getting absorbed into the less enjoyable sides to these communities.

But this White Chocolate Bar palette has been on my mind for several months. Not in an "I'm considering purchasing this" kind of way, but rather a "What is Too Faced doing?" kind of way. And now that people are starting to get their hands on it and have confirmed what I've suspected for a while (that it's bad), I wanted to make this post.

So, this is the White Chocolate Bar palette:

And this is the Too Faced White Chocolate Chip palette:

If you think these two palettes look similar, it's because they do. If fact, they share a whopping TEN shades in common. Yep, 10. And, yes, the White Chocolate Chip palette has a total of 11 shadows. Meaning, every single shadow in the White Chocolate Chip palette (except Ambrosia, which is the top shade on the third column) is also in the White Chocolate Bar palette. 

The White Chocolate Bar palette has 16 shadows, so there are only six "new" shades in this palette. 

Personally, I don't really have any positive thoughts on the White Chocolate Chip palette. I think the quality is horrendous and insulting for the amount of money charged, and I feel like the color selection is ignorant at best and utterly laughable. This is not an inclusive palette whatsoever as these colors would only show up and look potentially distinguishable on the lightest of light skin tones. I have a light to medium skin tone with warm olive undertones, and these shadows did not show up on me when swatched. 

This is also one the worst reviewed palettes sold at Sephora and released by Too Faced. So it is utterly baffling why Too Faced would choose to include nearly every single one of these shades in another palette. 

Except, of course, if they just don't care. Which, in all honesty, is what this feels like. 

For months I have watched people's anti-haul videos on YouTube and heard nearly everyone mention this palette. But the main reasoning I heard for why people were not going to buy it was that the color selection was "odd." And what I think that means is that it has a green in it. Because when you take that color away, you're left with the most neutral of neutral palettes: the White Chocolate Chip. 

Adding insult to injury, the quality of this palette seems to be pretty atrocious. I highly recommend reading Temptalia's full review of this palette. I specifically applaud her for how she ended the review:

"The palette shares the bulk of its shades with last year’s palette, and there was little to no room for improvement from palette to palette, so this seemed like it was just a waste of time and money for all involved. It’s actually more frustrating to see a brand completely disregard customer feedback. It makes me feel like the brand doesn’t care, takes no pride in their products, and has no desire to improve their products."

Too Faced, in my opinion, has been in decline for the better part of two years, specially leading up to and after selling their company to Estée Lauder. Every single one of my Too Faced anti-haul posts has had a similar sentiment, which is that this brand so obviously cares more about the gimmick of the product, theme, and packaging than they do about actual quality. 

I have not purchased anything from Too Faced in a long time, and the only products I have left are five eyeshadows that I depotted from the Chocolate Bon Bons palette. I momentarily flirted with the idea of purchasing the Peachy Mattes palette, but I was able to easily dupe that palette with shadows in my own collection (and make what I consider improvements to the color scheme), and that duped palette remains the most used palette in my collection.

Something that's worth mentioning is that the White Chocolate Bar, unlike the existing Chocolate Bar palettes, is limited edition. And it's in these limited edition products that I feel Too Faced really just doesn't care. The White Chocolate Bar costs $49, and I think it is pretty terrible for a brand to charge that kind of money on poor quality. That is blatantly a ripoff. This isn't a case of some people will like it and others won't—this is objectively a bad product from shade range to quality. And when you think about other palettes within the $50 range, it is laughable to think that Too Faced put out a crap product and expect people to buy it simply because it is serialized within the Chocolate Bar range, smells like cocoa, and comes from Too Faced. 

With that money you could buy almost any other quality eyeshadow palette, so it's a wonder why Too Faced thinks that people would spend that kind of money on a bad product. 

Palettes with this color scheme (but done better) include Too Faced Chocolate Bar:

Too Faced Chocolate Bon Bons:

Lorac Unzipped:

Urban Decay Naked 3:

Tarte Tartelette in Bloom:

And several others. 

Finally, and this is something that I touched upon earlier, but the White Chocolate Bar is not very inclusive. Even under the best of conditions, if the palette performed well, it still has a color scheme is that is suited for the lightest of skin tones. And at this point, that is just ignorant and irresponsible. 

Something I always like to consider when thinking about my anti-haul posts is what, if anything, a particular product is contributing to the makeup community. And this palette contributes nothing. I don't know any person who feels like their makeup collection is lacking very light neutrals, especially in a palette of poor quality shadows. 

This was a lazy release by Too Faced, and it honestly makes me think poorly of the brand. It feels like they expect me to just hand over substantial amounts of money just to have the "pleasure" of having a product with their name on it that is chocolate scented and themed. It feels disrespectful to consumers because the product is in no way worth the price they are charging. And I think they know that, which makes it that much worse.

I'm disappointed to see Too Faced have such little regard for their customers. With the rise of brands like Colourpop, that offers good products at reasonable prices, and Fenty, that offers beautiful packaging and inclusivity, there may not be a place for Too Faced in coming years unless they step up their game in a major way. This palette is garbage, and I won't be buying.

What I'm Not Buying: Pat McGrath Labs Mothership Palettes

Pat McGrath Labs has released three "Mothership" eyeshadow palettes at a whopping $125 each. 

And I won't be buying. 

Pat McGrath is an unbelievably influential makeup artist, and since she first started her brand, I have wanted to support it. However, I haven't found anything from the brand that I have wanted enough or that I have felt was special enough for me to justify the cost. 

The price point of these palettes is in line with Natasha Denona, so I would just like to compare the two brands a bit. 

• Pat McGrath has been called "the most influential makeup artist in the world" by Vogue. 
• According to Natasha Denona's website, Natasha Denona is "an internationally renowned makeup artist and trendsetter." I couldn't find any other source discussing Natasha Denona's influence as a makeup artist. 
• Pat McGrath Labs palettes cost $125 for 10 shadows. 
• Natasha Denona palettes cost $129 for 15 shadows. 
• Pat McGrath Labs palettes have incredibly lux packaging. Several reviewers have commented on the quality, heft, and luxurious nature of it. 
• Natasha Denona palettes have some of the cheapest packaging that I have personally seen. I would not call the packaging luxurious by any means. 

While I would have a difficult time paying that kind of money on any eyeshadow palette, I personally feel like it makes more sense for Pat McGrath's brand to have a luxury price tag than Natasha Denona. 

With that said, $125 is a ton of money to pay for an eyeshadow palette with 10 shades. On the Pat McGrath Labs website, you can buy all three of the Mothership palettes for $300 and save $75. Spending $300 on three palettes blows my mind, and I just really feel like there are so many other eyeshadows that can be purchased at a lower cost instead.

With that said, price is relative. With the "discounted" price of buying all of these palettes together, the price comes out to $10 per shadow. Makeup Geek foiled shadows cost $10 each. Natasha Denona palettes come out to $8.60 per shadow, and, for comparison, Colourpop Yes, Please! comes out to $1.33 per shadow. Tom Ford eyeshadow quads come out to about $21 per shadow, and I own two quads. All of that is to say that price is relative. Singles are typically more expensive than palettes because you are paying for the convenience of selecting your own shadows and not being at the mercy of whatever is in the palette.

Let's look at the palettes.

There's Mothership I:

Mothership II:

And Mothership III:

A few things to note about the palettes. There's a variety of finishes, including matte, shimmer, high shine, and glitter toppers. Xtreme Black is repeated throughout all three palettes, and Astral Ghost Orchid is repeated in Mothership II and III. So, even if you were to buy all three palettes, you would be getting 27 different shadows, not 30. 

Let's look at swatches.

Mothership I

Mothership II:

Mothership III:

Yes, there are some really shimmery and sparkly colors in these swatches, but it is also important to keep in mind that swatches provided by the brand are nearly always unreliable. There are certainly pretty colors here, but I don't feel like they are all that unique. Even the "special" shades aren't especially unique, and I feel like suitable replacements could be found in single shadows from brands like Makeup Geek, Coloured Raine, and Colourpop (let alone indie brands like Fyrinnae and Notoriously Morbid). 

These palettes, like all of Pat McGrath Labs products, seem most appropriate for editorial looks, which is also how Pat McGrath Labs advertises the products:

For professional makeup artists who specialize in editorial looks, I'm sure these palettes could be a worthwhile investment. But even then, from what I have seen in reviews, there doesn't seem to by anything all that special about these shadows that they can create something that significantly cheaper shadows couldn't also achieve. 

The color schemes of all these palettes remind me of Kat Von D Saint and Sinner:

As well as Metal Matte:

The color schemes also remind me of the Make Up For Ever holiday palette from 2015:

As well as the Make Up For Ever holiday palette from 2016:

Mothership I has similar tones to NYX Wind:

And Mothership II and III have similar tones to NYX Earth:

I started the post by discussing comparisons to Natasha Denona, and that's because I do believe that with the Mothership palettes, you are absolutely paying for the Pat McGrath name. Just like in my Tom Ford quads, I'm paying for the name. It's nice that the quality is also great (unlike a lot of Dior and Chanel quads and palettes), but if we are being real, the quality isn't so spectacular that it justifies the cost when there are alternatives like Colourpop and Makeup Geek. The Pat McGrath name means something to me, unlike the Natasha Denona name. And that is just my own personal opinion. That is not at all to imply that Natasha Denona is not a talented makeup artist. And clearly the brand she created makes some stunning eyeshadows. But for me personally, the name alone is not worth me paying an insane price. 

I would eventually like to get something from Pat McGrath Labs because of the respect I have for Pat McGrath as a makeup artist. But, I am also a smart(er) consumer at this point, and I only want to buy things that would be additive to my collection or are truly unique or special. And I haven't yet found anything that meets my own criteria. I was happy to see that these Mothership palettes have very lux packaging, because for the price, they absolutely should. From what I can tell, the packaging blows Natasha Denona out of the water (but then I think brands like Tarte and Too Faced easily do that) and is better than Tom Ford, Chanel, or Dior. If I was a professional makeup artist, I can see how owning one of these palettes would be satisfying. As a makeup enthusiast, the product itself is not so special for me to justify the cost and adding it to my collection. 

Personally, I am most drawn to Mothership II. It has the warmest color scheme overall (which is my personal preference), and it has tones that I really enjoy, like gold, green, and pink/mauve. But when I look at the colors in this palette, there is not a single shadow that I don't already own. 

Mothership I has, in my opinion, the least interesting color scheme. There are a few pops of interesting colors (like the blue), but even then, it's not difficult to find a nice blue shade. For the exception of the NYX Earth palette, all the palettes I listed above have a shimmery blue. The color scheme leans way too cool-toned for me to personally be really excited over, but that is just personal preference. I think this palette has the most "dupable" shades, and I think it would be pretty easy to replicate this palette at a cheaper price.  

Mothership III also has a color scheme that I find interesting, and I suppose out of all three palettes, this one has the most unique shadows, but I still feel like I already have all these colors. The three colors I find most interesting—the cranberry, olive, and blue—remind me of Fyrinnae shadows:

Octopus:

Aztecs Gold:

And Because Cats:

I'm not too fussed with the duochrome shadow that is repeated in two of the palettes, Astral Ghost Orchid, because I have suitable replacements throughout my collection. And I probably don't even need to mention how unnecessary it is to have the matte black shadow repeated in each palette. It's interesting to me that Pat McGrath chose to include these shadows in each palette, because it tells me that the brand assumes that most consumers will only be purchasing one of the palettes. And since some of the shadows are meant to be layered over a black, it makes sense to include that shadow in each palette. What's nice(ish) about this is that it is kind of a deterrent from feeling the need to buy all three. 

This is something that I have noticed a lot in Pat McGrath Labs kits. A kit will include five or so products (making the price very high) and the only thing that will be different from kit to kit is one product. So if you want to buy more than one, you will be buying a lot of excess. I'm not a fan of kits in general and find that to be a really obnoxious practice, but I think it does curb the idea to buy everything just because. It almost forces a consumer to practice a "healthy" habit of selecting the one item that they like the most and that being the only one they own. 

One final thing I would like to touch on is a huge positive: the inclusivity in the shade selection. When I look at all three of the Mothership palettes, I truly see shades that will work for an array of skin tones. I don't find this surprising, however, as Pat McGrath is a woman of color. This is something that I have really noticed, which is that the brands that have the most inclusive shade ranges are owned or creatively directed by people of color. 

I personally prefer to support brands that value inclusivity, compared to brands like Too Faced that released a palette that could only work for the lightest of skin tones, the White Chocolate Chip palette:

I'm interested in keeping an eye on Pat McGrath Labs to see what they come out with in the future. I certainly think the Mothership palettes are beautiful, from the packaging to color selection to quality. The price point for these palettes is hard for me to justify, especially when there are so many cheaper alternatives. I've always felt that there is a lot to like about Pat McGrath Labs, but they haven't yet put out a product that is practical enough for my daily life. And they don't necessarily need to. I think it's kind of cool that this brand is so editorial—and it also saves me money. The bottom line is that I already have all the colors in the Mothership palettes, so I won't be buying.