In the early 2000s, the Expert Wear shadows came in translucent cobalt blue packaging, and Maybelline changed the packaging from blue to black a couple years back (the exact single below looked like this as recently as last year). The new-for-2014 packaging is still black, but the shape has changed. It looks sleeker and a bit more modern to me.
The ingredients for the "new" singles are as follows (from the Ulta website):
Talc, PTFE, Magnesium Stearate, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Tridecyl Neopentanoate, Boron Nitride, Dicaprylyl Maleate, Lauroyl Lysine, Methylparaben, Imidazolidinyl Urea, Polyethylene Terephthalate, Propylparaben, Silica, Carnauba Wax, Polyperfluoromethylisopropyl Ether, Lecithin, Ethylhexyl Palmitate.
May Contain: Mica, Iron Oxides, Titanium Oxide, Manganese Violet, Ultramarines, Chromium Oxide Greens, Carmine, Chromium Hydroxide Green, Bismuth Oxychloride, Ferric Ferrocyanide, Red No. 40 Lake, Blue No. 1 Lake.
As luck would have it, the Walmart website still had a listing up for the old singles (they're out of stock) and you can see that the formula is different:
Talc, Triisostearin, Hydrogenated Polydecene, Magnesium Stearate, Synthetic Wax, Hdi/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer, Phenoxyethanol, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Silica, Calcium Sodium Borosilicate, Alumina, Methylparaben, Tin Oxide, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Butylparaben, Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polymethyl Methacrylate.
May Contain / Peut Contenir, Mica, Ci 77891 / Titanium Dioxide, Ci 77491, Ci 77492, Ci 77499 / Iron Oxides, Ci 77400 / Bronze Powder, Ci 77007 / Ultramarines, Ci 77742 / Manganese Violet, Ci 77000 / Aluminum Powder, Ci 77289 / Chromium Hydroxide Green, Ci 77288 / Chromium Oxide Greens, Ci 77510 / Ferric Ferrocyanide, Ci 75470 / Carmine, Ci 77163 / Bismuth Oxychloride, Ci 19140 / Yellow 5 Lake, Ci 16035 / Red 40 Lake, Ci 77947 / Zinc Oxide, Ci 77510 / Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide, Ci 42090 / Blue 1 Lake.
Therefore, I'm going to assume that the word "NEW" printed on the label is in reference to both the packaging and the formula (just not the shade).
The swatches above were done with the sponge-tip applicator that came with the shadow. I used two swipes per swatch, both on bare skin and over Wet n Wild Fergie Eyeshadow Primer.
In this photo, I applied this shadow over Wet n Wild Fergie Eyeshadow Primer using my Real Techniques Shading Brush. I am wearing no other eyeshadows in this pic.
As you can see, my hand is clearly a lot more tan than my face right now, and this shadow looks a lot different on my eye than on my hand. It's a cool-toned taupe on my eye, but the pigmentation is not as good when applied with a brush, and the pigmentation decreases significantly after blending. I really had to pack this on to get it to the color you see above, going back and picking up color at least three times for what you see above. I was really hoping for that rich, warm taupe that you see on my hand, but on my eye it reads a lot cooler and a lot more sheer. It basically looks like an entirely different shadow on my eye, right?
As for the texture of this shadow, it's quite lovely. It's not powdery and there's barely any fallout left behind in the pan (or on my cheeks when applying). It's a smooth, creamy formula and it's much nicer than I remember the original formula to be. The finish is more of a satin rather than a full-blown shimmer. But sadly, it tends to accentuate every imperfection on my lids, which I think you can see above. I don't know if that's due to the color or the finish, but I'm guessing it's a bit of both.
Staying power isn't ideal, even with my Wet n Wild Fergie Primer (which usually keeps just about all of my shadows rich, vibrant and crease-free for eight hours or more). I can get about four hours before this shadow starts to crease up. BUT, this shadow did not fade until after the eight hour mark.
FINAL VERDICT: So pretty on my hand, but not what I was expecting when I put it on my eyes. When applied with a brush, this shadow seems to lose a lot of its pigmentation, and blending only increases the sheerness. I was hoping for a rich, warm taupe from Tastefully Taupe, but what I got was a sheer, cooler-toned taupe. I do really love the texture of this shadow, but I was disappointed by how much I had to build up the color, even over primer. I'd say that if you're looking for a work-appropriate, cool-toned taupe that's a bit sheer and not too shimmery, this might be a good match if you can grab it on sale. When worn over primer, it did crease on me after about four hours but it did not fade, which I appreciate. Maybelline has never been my favorite drugstore brand when it comes to powder shadows, and I wish that they would bring the quality of their Color Tattoos (which you know I adore) to their powder shadow formula. Until then, I'm not sure I'll be purchasing additional shades (unless you tell me that other shades are much better than this one!).
Are you a fan of Maybelline Expert Eyes Eyeshadows? If so, have you tried these "new" versions? How do you think they compare to the older versions? Is there a hidden gem in this range I should know about?
The products featured in this post were purchased with personal funds. For more information, click here.
Maybe I'm crazy but the packaging kinda reminds me of elf packaging??
ReplyDeleteIf you mean the elf studio eyeshadow singles, then yes! I never made that connection, but they do look a bit similar! (Although I always think of the NARS eyeshadow singles when I see the elf Studio singles...the shape is so similar, except the NARS shadow don't have a window, of course). :)
ReplyDeleteyes! Or even the blush packages except obviously the size is different. But you're so right! now it seems like all the cosmetics companies are emulating another company that is emulating another company that is a dupe of another company :P
DeleteYour swatches look a bit like Wet n Wild Nutty. At least on my lids.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I was thinking
DeleteI haven't compared the old and new formula side by side (the exact same shades) but I did buy all the new quads and the new trio and I much prefer the old formula. Of the new ones only one quad (Sandstone Shimmer) was even usable IMO, the others including the trio performed so poorly (mostly horrible pigmentation, but also some serious texture problems) they were not worth purchasing. The odd thing was there was at least one, sometimes two very nice shadows in each quad.. so I don't know what the issue is because they can obviously make a nice shadow. I honestly wish they had just left them alone, and I'm very glad I own the older ones. While they were not the most pigmented on the market they were nice to work with, blended beautifully, and had buildable pigmentation.. as well as very nice wearable color combinations and a mix of finishes which is rare in the drugstore (although we are seeing more mattes recently). They were easy, and pretty, and sometimes that is what I'm looking for, especially for "everyday" eye looks. Additionally they discontinued most of my favorite singles, including Nutmeg and Cinnamon Spice.
ReplyDeleteThis might be good for someone like me who wants a hint of color without full-on coverage. I have a hard time finding shadow I can blend enough to not be so prominent. And that could very well be because I really don't know what I'm doing and I'm too lazy to learn! So I keep looking for nice sheer (preferably matte but sometimes a little sparkle is ok) shadow.
ReplyDeleteI loved cinnamon spice!!
ReplyDeleteI never was impressed with the old formula, mainly because of lack of pigment, and it sounds like they haven't fixed that. With so many good choices for eyeshadow, this is a pass.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for linking to me! Isn't it weird how taupes can look different like constantly? I wonder if these were reformulated at all...I bought quite a few before the repackaging on clearance!
ReplyDeleteI hope 'made for mocha' is still good, since I use it for my brows. I have plenty of backups for now, though. Phew.
ReplyDeleteI purchased a few Maybelline eyeshadow's a few years ago and was so disappointed in them that I swore I would never purchase Maybelline again. They disappeared almost immediately after I put them on. I was hoping this formula would be bad
ReplyDeleteI live Silken Taupe, that's a lighter version of Tastefully Taupe. TT was my HG until I found ST. I love that it's a cool taupe. I have a backup of the old version, I'm going to see if I can find any stragglers when I'm out and about.
ReplyDeleteOh shoot! I loved the old formula. Hate to see it go.
ReplyDeleteYikes - the second ingredient in the new formulation is PTFE, a/k/a Teflon!!! Why on earth would they use teflon ,esp. as the second ingredient? Wouldn't that make it slide off? :) Also, I am not real sure I want it on my skin for hours on end.... I will pass.
ReplyDeleteYikes - the second ingredient in the new formulation is PTFE, a/k/a Teflon!!! Why on earth would they use teflon ,esp. as the second ingredient? Wouldn't that make it slide off? :) Also, I am not real sure I want it on my skin for hours on end.... I will pass.
ReplyDeleteI have the old formula eyeshadow and it is better than this one. Everybody is changing their packages or formulation. I just bought blushing bride from tarte. It was the new package version. It is hardly pigmented. It is nothing like the original. Now I have a 26 dollar blush I really don't like. I just think about other cheaper blushes that are pretty and could of bought instead and I get so annoyed.
ReplyDelete