blindpassion
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Mini msfs.... I can hear the screams of 1000 wallets right now.
Mini msfs.... I can hear the screams of 1000 wallets right now.
MAC - Sonic Chic Discussion
- Thread starter rocking chick
- Start date
elegant-one
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
HAHAHAHAHA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbella
Here is my husband's face: Courtesy of the funny pics thread in chatter..... |
coachkitten
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
I would love to get all of these blushes. The idea that they are mini-MSFs makes me want them all even more. If they are $18.50 per blush that would be $166.50 w/o tax. Since I most likely will skip color forms & new view $166.50 doesn't seem too bad to spend on MAC in the month of July for all of these blushes. Do I need all of these blushes NO do I want them all YES!!!
I am going to be done for when I see these in person!
I would love to get all of these blushes. The idea that they are mini-MSFs makes me want them all even more. If they are $18.50 per blush that would be $166.50 w/o tax. Since I most likely will skip color forms & new view $166.50 doesn't seem too bad to spend on MAC in the month of July for all of these blushes. Do I need all of these blushes NO do I want them all YES!!!
darkishstar
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Newage: Yeah, I want Dainty the most, but Nuance is a close second!
Newage: Yeah, I want Dainty the most, but Nuance is a close second!
newagetomatoz
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
I'm still really iffy about Nuance. In Tinkerbelle's actual swatches of it, it reminded me of a dirty peach.
I'm hoping that more swatches will appear soon so I'm not stuck debating about it till they are all gone.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by darkishstar
Newage: Yeah, I want Dainty the most, but Nuance is a close second! |
I'm still really iffy about Nuance. In Tinkerbelle's actual swatches of it, it reminded me of a dirty peach.
darkishstar
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
I dunno, I feel like it will work for me, since I'm even tanner now! I'm hoping it will be like a peachy version of Warmed, because I LOVE that MSF, and it's pretty dark too. But if it looks like nothing special, I will skip it. I'm kinda glad all of these colors are more blue-based except for Dainty and Nuance, so it really makes me think about what I will spend on!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by newagetomatoz
I'm still really iffy about Nuance. In Tinkerbelle's actual swatches of it, it reminded me of a dirty peach.
|
I dunno, I feel like it will work for me, since I'm even tanner now! I'm hoping it will be like a peachy version of Warmed, because I LOVE that MSF, and it's pretty dark too. But if it looks like nothing special, I will skip it. I'm kinda glad all of these colors are more blue-based except for Dainty and Nuance, so it really makes me think about what I will spend on!
newagetomatoz
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
I know! I have a list and I keep going over it all the time at work! (Seriously, I sat there for 2.5 hours tonight doing literally nothing.) I'm kind of happy actually that a lot of the colors are on the darker side because I can pass on them and put more money to the Cult of Cherry, which is slowly reaching the $200 mark. lol Plus, I really want to get myself some full-sized brushes from MAC and my "needs" list totaled out at $414 post-tax, but I managed to get it down to $345.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by darkishstar
I dunno, I feel like it will work for me, since I'm even tanner now! I'm hoping it will be like a peachy version of Warmed, because I LOVE that MSF, and it's pretty dark too. But if it looks like nothing special, I will skip it. I'm kinda glad all of these colors are more blue-based except for Dainty and Nuance, so it really makes me think about what I will spend on! |
I know! I have a list and I keep going over it all the time at work! (Seriously, I sat there for 2.5 hours tonight doing literally nothing.) I'm kind of happy actually that a lot of the colors are on the darker side because I can pass on them and put more money to the Cult of Cherry, which is slowly reaching the $200 mark. lol Plus, I really want to get myself some full-sized brushes from MAC and my "needs" list totaled out at $414 post-tax, but I managed to get it down to $345.
sleepyhead
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
hmm, i think we have similar colorings (asain, NC25-30) and to me Nuance looks a lot like Nars Gina blush (with shimmer, of course), which works more like a bronzer rather than a blush on me.
i like Gina a lot, so i'm keeping Nuance on my list for now
Quote:
| Originally Posted by darkishstar
I dunno, I feel like it will work for me, since I'm even tanner now! I'm hoping it will be like a peachy version of Warmed, because I LOVE that MSF, and it's pretty dark too. But if it looks like nothing special, I will skip it. I'm kinda glad all of these colors are more blue-based except for Dainty and Nuance, so it really makes me think about what I will spend on! |
hmm, i think we have similar colorings (asain, NC25-30) and to me Nuance looks a lot like Nars Gina blush (with shimmer, of course), which works more like a bronzer rather than a blush on me.
i like Gina a lot, so i'm keeping Nuance on my list for now
Susanne
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
with Dainty, same here. That's why I cut it from my list. I want Gentle, Gleeful and Pleasantry - 3 are enough
Quote:
| Originally Posted by AudreyNicole
As of now I think it will be Merrily and Pleasantry for me, plus the 181se. I like the looks of Dainty, but it reminds me of both Shy Beauty and Alpha Girl b/p, both of which I already have. |
MAC_Whore
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
Ohhhh...I can't help it! I curse at myself for it sometimes
From what I can discern from the pics, the thing that is really tempting me so far is the texture the appear to have. They look like the pigments are quite refined and smooth, similar to what MSFs were when they emerged, i.e. Pleasureflush and Stereo Rose. Not the chunky, disappointing glitter bombs that they have evolved into, i.e.Glissade and Northern Lights. It was that original texture that gave you the "MSF glow", whereas some of the chunkier ones gave you a less organic glow with bits of sparkle resting on your face.
Don't get me wrong, Gissade and Northern Lights are pretty, but they are a far cry, texture-wise, from Pleasureflush, Stereo Rose and the like. The chunkier MSFs are similar to UD's and LORAC's attempt at MSF type products. Not that there is anything wrong with those, it's just that it signals a diminished quality from MAC.
On the note of diminished quality, sadly, I think it is a trend for MAC. I think the rush to pump out collections and the financial toll of all their marketing is showing in their products across the board. Curious what I am talking about? Take a Veluxe Pearl, Frost, Lustre or Satin shadow from the time the formula was introduced, then compare it to one recently released. You do notice a difference. Much more "dusty". The pigments and overall texture have greatly diminished. Look at Studio Fix Fluid and it's poor colour stabilization. Look at Studio Mist.
Things like this will start to affect the way that pros see the product as well. They need and expect a certain level of performance from their products.
I know I went off on a ramble there, but I can't help it. I am a cosmetic purist. I notice the little things. I think erine1881 exemplified this notion when in one post she talked about how MAs see differences between frost, shimmer, sparkle, and glitter. To a lot that would be the same, but I think waaaay too much about the dymamics of my product!
That is why when I swatch items, I see things differently than a lot of people. Not that anyone else is missing anything, I'm just a swatching nut job that has been into MAC for about 15 years and I approach a swatch like Einstein. Do I need to? Probably not, but like I said, I can't help it, I'm a purist. If only I could take all of that cosmetic energy of mine and find the answer to world peace. Sigh......
Quote:
| Originally Posted by AudreyNicole
Oh Jen, WHY did you have to put it that way? Mini MSFs? I am so done. Crap. |
Ohhhh...I can't help it! I curse at myself for it sometimes
From what I can discern from the pics, the thing that is really tempting me so far is the texture the appear to have. They look like the pigments are quite refined and smooth, similar to what MSFs were when they emerged, i.e. Pleasureflush and Stereo Rose. Not the chunky, disappointing glitter bombs that they have evolved into, i.e.Glissade and Northern Lights. It was that original texture that gave you the "MSF glow", whereas some of the chunkier ones gave you a less organic glow with bits of sparkle resting on your face.
Don't get me wrong, Gissade and Northern Lights are pretty, but they are a far cry, texture-wise, from Pleasureflush, Stereo Rose and the like. The chunkier MSFs are similar to UD's and LORAC's attempt at MSF type products. Not that there is anything wrong with those, it's just that it signals a diminished quality from MAC.
On the note of diminished quality, sadly, I think it is a trend for MAC. I think the rush to pump out collections and the financial toll of all their marketing is showing in their products across the board. Curious what I am talking about? Take a Veluxe Pearl, Frost, Lustre or Satin shadow from the time the formula was introduced, then compare it to one recently released. You do notice a difference. Much more "dusty". The pigments and overall texture have greatly diminished. Look at Studio Fix Fluid and it's poor colour stabilization. Look at Studio Mist.
Things like this will start to affect the way that pros see the product as well. They need and expect a certain level of performance from their products.
I know I went off on a ramble there, but I can't help it. I am a cosmetic purist. I notice the little things. I think erine1881 exemplified this notion when in one post she talked about how MAs see differences between frost, shimmer, sparkle, and glitter. To a lot that would be the same, but I think waaaay too much about the dymamics of my product!
Colorqueen
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Wow, someone else out there is like me!
I am the same way- I sometimes drive MAC MAs nuts with my questions- try being me- NO MAC NEAR ME AT ALL- and I don't want to buy stuff that is inferior quality.
That kind of question does not sit well with MAC MAs- "Excuse me, but is this new LE item crappy quality that has deteriorated compared to when they first came out?"
HAHAHAHa
Does not go over well.
I have to depend on photos and feedback and then take a chance to order on phone or online hoping that I am not fooled. The return postage is not worth returns in most cases.
Add the possible two hour sell out and the stress is really intense sometimes.
I am still waiting for these MSFs- the texture of the pearlescent ones is what I have been WAITING for.
BTW, the neons make fantastic blush- who would have believed it!
Quote:
Wow, someone else out there is like me!
I am the same way- I sometimes drive MAC MAs nuts with my questions- try being me- NO MAC NEAR ME AT ALL- and I don't want to buy stuff that is inferior quality.
That kind of question does not sit well with MAC MAs- "Excuse me, but is this new LE item crappy quality that has deteriorated compared to when they first came out?"
HAHAHAHa
Does not go over well.
I have to depend on photos and feedback and then take a chance to order on phone or online hoping that I am not fooled. The return postage is not worth returns in most cases.
Add the possible two hour sell out and the stress is really intense sometimes.
I am still waiting for these MSFs- the texture of the pearlescent ones is what I have been WAITING for.
BTW, the neons make fantastic blush- who would have believed it!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by MAC_Whore
Ohhhh...I can't help it! I curse at myself for it sometimes
From what I can discern from the pics, the thing that is really tempting me so far is the texture the appear to have. They look like the pigments are quite refined and smooth, similar to what MSFs were when they emerged, i.e. Pleasureflush and Stereo Rose. Not the chunky, disappointing glitter bombs the have evolved into, i.e.Glissade and Northern Lights. It was that original texture that gave you the "MSF glow", whereas some of the chunkier ones gave you a less organic glow with bits of sparkle resting on your face. Don't get me wrong, Gissade and Northern Lights are pretty, but they are a far cry, texture-wise, from Pleasureflush, Stereo Rose and the like. The chunkier MSFs are similar to UD's and LORAC's attempt at MSF type products. Not that there is anything wrong with those, it's just that it signals a diminished quality from MAC. On the note of diminished quality, sadly, I think it is a trend for MAC. I think the rush to pump out collections and the financial toll of all their marketing is showing in their products across the board. Curious what I am talking about? Take a Veluxe Pearl, Frost, Lustre or Satin shadow from the time the formula was introduced, then compare it to one recently released. You do notice a difference. Much more "dusty". The pigments and overall texture have greatly diminished. Look at Studio Fix Fluid and it's poor colour stabilization. Look at Studio Mist. Things like this will start to affect the way that pros see the product as well. They need and expect a certain level of performance from their products. I know I went off on a ramble there, but I can't help it. I am a cosmetic purist. I notice the little things. I think erine1881 exemplified this notion when in one post she talked about how MAs see differences between frost, shimmer, sparkle, and glitter. To a lot that would be the same, but I think waaaay too much about the dymamics of my product!
|
MAC_Whore
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Quote:
Thank goodness for the lovely members who contribute to our discussion and swatch threads!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Colorqueen
...I have to depend on photos and feedback and then take a chance to order on phone or online.... |
Thank goodness for the lovely members who contribute to our discussion and swatch threads!
CantAffordMAC
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
I have always thought of these as little color packed mini MSFs. I really can't wait. Since I'm not doing Colour Forms and wont be getting much frm Electroflash...I know I'm going to end up with at least 5 of these.
I love blush so much. Ever since I got my X-Rocks blush..I havent been using my Light Flush MSF or my Warmed MSF because x rocks is shimmery already. I can't wait to see more swatches of these....
I have always thought of these as little color packed mini MSFs. I really can't wait. Since I'm not doing Colour Forms and wont be getting much frm Electroflash...I know I'm going to end up with at least 5 of these.
I love blush so much. Ever since I got my X-Rocks blush..I havent been using my Light Flush MSF or my Warmed MSF because x rocks is shimmery already. I can't wait to see more swatches of these....
GlossyAbby
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
I am going to try and limit myself to 2 of these..... keyword TRY ok I guess 3 wouldnt ber so bad....
I am going to try and limit myself to 2 of these..... keyword TRY ok I guess 3 wouldnt ber so bad....
GlamYOURUs
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
Soooo how much are these babies?
Soooo how much are these babies?
Face2Mac
Well-known member
Re: MAC Cosmetics Sonic Chic Discussion
You would think they would range from 18.50 to 24.50. I mean look at the Colour Form blush/bronzer, that is 24.50. But if they were smart and want to get rid of all of them at once. 18.50-19.50 at the most. I wouldn't bat an eye at buying 3 for $55 opposed at $50 for two at 24.50.
You would think they would range from 18.50 to 24.50. I mean look at the Colour Form blush/bronzer, that is 24.50. But if they were smart and want to get rid of all of them at once. 18.50-19.50 at the most. I wouldn't bat an eye at buying 3 for $55 opposed at $50 for two at 24.50.
