ratmist
Well-known member
I reproduced this post from another thread (here: http://specktra.net/showthread.php?t=70903) because I wanted to get other opinions from people who may not read the swoosh_uk thread.
The other 11 pigments I have are not from swoosh_uk. They're all from sellsforlessonebay, who is not a routine MAC seller. I'm including shots of them here because I think it's important to note that these are older (from 2005 and 2004). Because they're pigments, I had no problem buying them even if they were a few years old (many people really won't agree, and that's okay, but not the topic of this post). I think it's quite likely these have been used once, maybe a few times more, and then lain on someone's counter for a while. Maybe not, but I bought on eBay knowing the hygiene risks. The seller said they were as new, but that some were discontinued pigments. I'm not sure what are and aren't discontinued, but I'm sure others of you here can help me with that. Either way, the boxes were very stiff as though they'd been rarely opened, and since I use brushes, I figured I could minimise the hygiene risks.
I checked all of them very carefully and found that each of the 11 bought from sellsforlessonebay have the 'Colt-ainer III' insignia on the cover lid and the bottom (inside) of the jar. The lighting I used the first time to check disguised the insignia, which I was quite relieved to find out this evening. Apart from the details and questions below, the boxes and jars appeared authentic according to the criteria set out by this post: http://www.specktra.net/showthread.php?t=69309
(the Identifying fake MAC Pigments ***Guide with photos*** by Xsqueeze_me). Unless noted below, the boxes and jars abide by the guideline set out by Xsqueeze_me's post.
10 out of the 11 pigments came with a little leaflet from MAC. The leaflets change in size and content depending on which pigment jar it accompanied. More on that below.
I thought I would take a few pictures of the ones I have to help resolve a few questions. I'm new to this forum so I don't know if these questions have already been answered. If so, please feel free to direct me to the relevant thread.
**** THE SILVER-STICKERED PIGMENTS FROM 2005 ****
Four of my pigments have silver-background stickers on the bottom of the jar giving the pigment name and the batch code. All of the rest are clear-background stickers. Each of the codes displayed on all of the 11 pigments - including the four silver-stickered pigments - are matched exactly to the stickered barcode on the bottom of their respective boxes. From what I've read on Specktra, the codes are broken down into 'Batch/Month/Year'.
These are the silver-backgrounded stickers: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/4...8000a03f_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/4...11b18a79_b.jpg
The batch codes for each are:
Melon -> A85
Pink Bronze -> A75
Goldenaire -> A95
Pink Opal -> A25
Given that these four pigments match every other criteria mentioned in other threads for authenticity, I can tentatively conclude that in 2005, these pigments were manufactured and sold by MAC. Can anyone confirm the silver-backgrounded stickers from 2005? Are these four pigments real or fake?
**** THE GLITTER BRILLANTS ****
These two are trickier. The jars match up to authentication criteria perfectly. The boxes are a different matter. In all of the photos for the Glitter Brillants, LEFT = 3D Silver and RIGHT = 3D Copper.
These are the boxes for the 3D Silver and 3D Copper pigments.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/4...1776eb0f_b.jpg
This is one of three side views of the boxes, and shows the 3D Copper box has a possible authenticity problem:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/4...8168ef51_b.jpg
As you can see, the side details of 3D Copper are stickered on, rather than printed. The font is exactly the same size/shape as the 3D Silver box. The only difference is the sticker-nature. Interestingly, the sticker contains the same glitter effect that the plastic lids of the jars give off in the light.
The stickers on the underneath of the boxes are different from each other.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/4...c76aa092_b.jpg
As you can see, the barcode sticker on the underside of the box for 3D Copper on the right says 'MADE IN USA', which seems immediately wrong to me because MAC is Canadian. Rather than a batch code, both products say 'N/A' but the 'N/A' for 3D Copper is noticably a different font.
These are the other two pictures show the other sides of the boxes.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/4...3b8be7a8_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/4...be281676_b.jpg
As you can see, these views show the other sides of the 3D glitter boxes are identical. So are the products real, or fake?
Both of the glitter brillants boxes came with MAC leaflets, which brings me to my last point:
**** THE MAC LEAFLETS INCLUDED IN THE BOXES ****
As mentioned above, 10 out of the 11 pigments purchased came with MAC leaflets. Some are identical, and others are different.
I've taken pictures of four to compare.
1. This is from Pink Bronze, which is one of the silver-stickered pigments mentioned in the above section.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/4...47bd9c1f_b.jpg
2. This is from Kelly Green.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/4...b78f33c0_b.jpg
3. This is from Ruby Red.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/4...931aa6e7_b.jpg
4. This is from Bright Coral.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/4...29289cef_b.jpg
The leaflets are actually the most interesting to me because I haven't seen them mentioned in posts about eBay-bought MAC pigments. I was quite upset when I first read the leaflets because many of the ones I purchased from sellsforlessonebay are apparently not to be used in the eye area. I am a novice at MAC products but I'd seen so many positive remarks about MAC pigments that I felt compelled to purchase a few to find out what the fuss was about. I just assumed they could be used anywhere without a problem. I buy most of my eyemakeup on eBay so I figured the pigments would be no different. I had no idea that I would have to wrangle with fakes. As for not being able to use them in the eye area, I have no idea what I'm going to do with those in that criteria now.
If an eBay seller really was interested in just money - despite the age of the product they were offering or even the authenticity of the product - I don't see how they could go to the trouble of printing off a leaflet warning against some uses of some of the very items on offer. So I'd tentatively offer that if there is a leaflet, the product is maybe 5% more likely to be authentic. What do you think?
****Rat's Concluding Thoughts: Feel free to skip! ****
I don't hold too much stock in the idea that makeup should only be purchased at an authorised retail counter. Sometimes you buy makeup that you end up not using, or doesn't suit in the cold light of day, but can no longer return. Or, if you're like me, you have a hard time stomaching the idea of paying the retail price. On a more personal note, I have a lot of problems going into high-end retail shops to buy things, especially makeup. I always feel under pressure, judged, and foolish. I very rarely wear makeup, but I have a helluva collection for when I feel the need or desire (or when my gorgeous husband takes me out on the town). As an archaeologist, I find little need on an everyday basis to glam up. When I walk near the makeup counters, they nearly always look me up and down, see the untrendy, slightly tatty clothes, the makeupless (but flawless!) skin, and (in my head) probably peg me immediately for a cheapskate. They may be right, but treating me that way doesn't make me more likely to release my hard-earned cash. One of the only times I overcame this was to buy foundation from the Chanel counter and parted with £29.99 for a Double Perfection compact - which incidentally, may be the only tautology I'll ever let slide. In any case, I always feel somehow that the makeup counter isn't for me, and I can only conclude from the way I'm usually treated there that I'm not the only one who feels that way about me. Even the Chanel woman was pretty cold, brisk and rather stiff in dealing with me, but I just chalked that up to Chanel.
And that leads me to eBay. eBay lets me buy without feeling pressure. There are many eBay sellers who abide by the rules and sell authentic products, and I accept there is always a risk. But the issue isn't the idea behind eBay: that is, that you should be able to pick up secondhand or once-used goods at reduced prices, or pick up brand new goods at near-to-wholesale prices. The problem is that eBay doesn't protect consumers as well as it should and haughtily claims to do, and we are conditioned to believe branding means authenticity. Thank goodness for people like Xqueeze_me, caffn8me, and everyone else on Specktra.net for taking the time to provide others with the knowledge to make good buying decisions, especially when it comes to counterfeit MAC products. I salute you all!
The other 11 pigments I have are not from swoosh_uk. They're all from sellsforlessonebay, who is not a routine MAC seller. I'm including shots of them here because I think it's important to note that these are older (from 2005 and 2004). Because they're pigments, I had no problem buying them even if they were a few years old (many people really won't agree, and that's okay, but not the topic of this post). I think it's quite likely these have been used once, maybe a few times more, and then lain on someone's counter for a while. Maybe not, but I bought on eBay knowing the hygiene risks. The seller said they were as new, but that some were discontinued pigments. I'm not sure what are and aren't discontinued, but I'm sure others of you here can help me with that. Either way, the boxes were very stiff as though they'd been rarely opened, and since I use brushes, I figured I could minimise the hygiene risks.
I checked all of them very carefully and found that each of the 11 bought from sellsforlessonebay have the 'Colt-ainer III' insignia on the cover lid and the bottom (inside) of the jar. The lighting I used the first time to check disguised the insignia, which I was quite relieved to find out this evening. Apart from the details and questions below, the boxes and jars appeared authentic according to the criteria set out by this post: http://www.specktra.net/showthread.php?t=69309
(the Identifying fake MAC Pigments ***Guide with photos*** by Xsqueeze_me). Unless noted below, the boxes and jars abide by the guideline set out by Xsqueeze_me's post.
10 out of the 11 pigments came with a little leaflet from MAC. The leaflets change in size and content depending on which pigment jar it accompanied. More on that below.
I thought I would take a few pictures of the ones I have to help resolve a few questions. I'm new to this forum so I don't know if these questions have already been answered. If so, please feel free to direct me to the relevant thread.
**** THE SILVER-STICKERED PIGMENTS FROM 2005 ****
Four of my pigments have silver-background stickers on the bottom of the jar giving the pigment name and the batch code. All of the rest are clear-background stickers. Each of the codes displayed on all of the 11 pigments - including the four silver-stickered pigments - are matched exactly to the stickered barcode on the bottom of their respective boxes. From what I've read on Specktra, the codes are broken down into 'Batch/Month/Year'.
These are the silver-backgrounded stickers: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/4...8000a03f_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/4...11b18a79_b.jpg
The batch codes for each are:
Melon -> A85
Pink Bronze -> A75
Goldenaire -> A95
Pink Opal -> A25
Given that these four pigments match every other criteria mentioned in other threads for authenticity, I can tentatively conclude that in 2005, these pigments were manufactured and sold by MAC. Can anyone confirm the silver-backgrounded stickers from 2005? Are these four pigments real or fake?
**** THE GLITTER BRILLANTS ****
These two are trickier. The jars match up to authentication criteria perfectly. The boxes are a different matter. In all of the photos for the Glitter Brillants, LEFT = 3D Silver and RIGHT = 3D Copper.
These are the boxes for the 3D Silver and 3D Copper pigments.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/4...1776eb0f_b.jpg
This is one of three side views of the boxes, and shows the 3D Copper box has a possible authenticity problem:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/4...8168ef51_b.jpg
As you can see, the side details of 3D Copper are stickered on, rather than printed. The font is exactly the same size/shape as the 3D Silver box. The only difference is the sticker-nature. Interestingly, the sticker contains the same glitter effect that the plastic lids of the jars give off in the light.
The stickers on the underneath of the boxes are different from each other.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/4...c76aa092_b.jpg
As you can see, the barcode sticker on the underside of the box for 3D Copper on the right says 'MADE IN USA', which seems immediately wrong to me because MAC is Canadian. Rather than a batch code, both products say 'N/A' but the 'N/A' for 3D Copper is noticably a different font.
These are the other two pictures show the other sides of the boxes.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/4...3b8be7a8_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/4...be281676_b.jpg
As you can see, these views show the other sides of the 3D glitter boxes are identical. So are the products real, or fake?
Both of the glitter brillants boxes came with MAC leaflets, which brings me to my last point:
**** THE MAC LEAFLETS INCLUDED IN THE BOXES ****
As mentioned above, 10 out of the 11 pigments purchased came with MAC leaflets. Some are identical, and others are different.
I've taken pictures of four to compare.
1. This is from Pink Bronze, which is one of the silver-stickered pigments mentioned in the above section.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/4...47bd9c1f_b.jpg
2. This is from Kelly Green.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/4...b78f33c0_b.jpg
3. This is from Ruby Red.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/4...931aa6e7_b.jpg
4. This is from Bright Coral.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/4...29289cef_b.jpg
The leaflets are actually the most interesting to me because I haven't seen them mentioned in posts about eBay-bought MAC pigments. I was quite upset when I first read the leaflets because many of the ones I purchased from sellsforlessonebay are apparently not to be used in the eye area. I am a novice at MAC products but I'd seen so many positive remarks about MAC pigments that I felt compelled to purchase a few to find out what the fuss was about. I just assumed they could be used anywhere without a problem. I buy most of my eyemakeup on eBay so I figured the pigments would be no different. I had no idea that I would have to wrangle with fakes. As for not being able to use them in the eye area, I have no idea what I'm going to do with those in that criteria now.
If an eBay seller really was interested in just money - despite the age of the product they were offering or even the authenticity of the product - I don't see how they could go to the trouble of printing off a leaflet warning against some uses of some of the very items on offer. So I'd tentatively offer that if there is a leaflet, the product is maybe 5% more likely to be authentic. What do you think?
****Rat's Concluding Thoughts: Feel free to skip! ****
I don't hold too much stock in the idea that makeup should only be purchased at an authorised retail counter. Sometimes you buy makeup that you end up not using, or doesn't suit in the cold light of day, but can no longer return. Or, if you're like me, you have a hard time stomaching the idea of paying the retail price. On a more personal note, I have a lot of problems going into high-end retail shops to buy things, especially makeup. I always feel under pressure, judged, and foolish. I very rarely wear makeup, but I have a helluva collection for when I feel the need or desire (or when my gorgeous husband takes me out on the town). As an archaeologist, I find little need on an everyday basis to glam up. When I walk near the makeup counters, they nearly always look me up and down, see the untrendy, slightly tatty clothes, the makeupless (but flawless!) skin, and (in my head) probably peg me immediately for a cheapskate. They may be right, but treating me that way doesn't make me more likely to release my hard-earned cash. One of the only times I overcame this was to buy foundation from the Chanel counter and parted with £29.99 for a Double Perfection compact - which incidentally, may be the only tautology I'll ever let slide. In any case, I always feel somehow that the makeup counter isn't for me, and I can only conclude from the way I'm usually treated there that I'm not the only one who feels that way about me. Even the Chanel woman was pretty cold, brisk and rather stiff in dealing with me, but I just chalked that up to Chanel.
And that leads me to eBay. eBay lets me buy without feeling pressure. There are many eBay sellers who abide by the rules and sell authentic products, and I accept there is always a risk. But the issue isn't the idea behind eBay: that is, that you should be able to pick up secondhand or once-used goods at reduced prices, or pick up brand new goods at near-to-wholesale prices. The problem is that eBay doesn't protect consumers as well as it should and haughtily claims to do, and we are conditioned to believe branding means authenticity. Thank goodness for people like Xqueeze_me, caffn8me, and everyone else on Specktra.net for taking the time to provide others with the knowledge to make good buying decisions, especially when it comes to counterfeit MAC products. I salute you all!
