Monday, September 5, 2016

New Wet N Wild Color Icon Blush in Pearlescent Pink vs. the old Pearlescent Pink

Disclosure: Affiliate links.
Comparison of New Wet N Wild Color Icon Blush in Pearlescent Pink vs. the old Pearlescent Pink
Top: New Wet N Wild Color Icon Blush in Pearlescent Pink; bottom: the old Pearlescent Pink
So this is kind of fun: Racked recently linked to an old post of mine, where I complained that people kept calling Milani Luminoso an Orgasm dupe, when it obviously isn't, in their article about the rise of makeup dupe culture. So it seems like a good time to publish this post on another supposed-but-not-actual dupe for Orgasm: Wet N Wild Pearlescent Pink.

Wet N Wild recently reformulated their Color Icon blushes and redesigned the packaging. Some of the new blushes, including Pearlescent Pink, have the same names as the old ones, and there are also some new shades. The old Pearlescent Pink is one of my favorite blushes, but I could tell as soon as I looked at the new one on the store shelf that it wasn't the same, as I'm sure you can see in the photo above. It's weird talking about "dupes" when the two things are being presented as the same product, but this blush is not a dupe of itself. So I bought it (because why wouldn't I buy a blush that looks nothing like another blush I that really like?). Here's a comparison for you. Swatches first: (left to right) new Pearlescent Pink, old Pearlescent Pink, and Nars Orgasm.

Swatches of new Wet N Wild Pearlescent Pink, old Pearlescent Pink, and Nars Orgasm

Clearly neither of these is an Orgasm dupe, and to the overly picky eye of a makeup hoarder, the new and old Pearlescent Pinks are completely different. While the old one isn't exactly pearlescent (rather it has some gold sparkle in it), the new one is neither pearlescent nor pink. It's firmly in peach category. You can see the difference on my face, too.

Old Pearlescent Pink, which on me is a flattering shade of pink that looks like a natural flush:



New Pearlescent Pink, which isn't a bad blush color, but is so peachy it actually leans toward nude/beige on my face:



The formulas of the old and new versions are similar in some ways. They're both soft and kick up quite a bit of powder when you stick your brush in them. They both have some sparkle. The old version is more pigmented, so that I have to use a light touch, whereas I've found that I actually need to build up the new one a bit to get the look I want. How pigmented you want your blush to be is a matter of preference. It's easier to add more layers than to remove it if you go overboard, but it can also be more work to get a visible flush if a blush is too sheer. On the plus side, the new blush is a bit bigger at 0.2 oz. to the old 0.14 oz for the same price ($2.99). It's pretty rare that a makeup company redesigns packaging and actually gives you more product.

The new blush is fine, but I'm annoyed that my old favorite is gone and that they're pretending this new one is somehow the same thing. It's not fucking pink. It's a different product, so it should have a different name. I probably have a few good years left with my original Pearlescent Pink, since it's a huge pan (even in the old size) and I only need to use a very small amount at a time. If, however, you like it as much as I do and want to stock up while you still can, Amazon still has the old Pearlescent Pink available for under $5 with free shipping.

>

4 comments:

  1. 1. Congrats on the mention. FAMOUS NOW. :>

    2. That Racked article gave us "dupe discussion" for which I'll be eternally grateful.

    3. I'll never have to buy blush again, but keep on swatchin' and telling it like it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you! I am getting positively DOZENS of hits a week as a result of that article. Ha.

      I should never buy blush again either, but I was too curious not to compare them side by side. Come to think of it, curiously drives lots of my superfluous purchases.

      Delete
    2. Entire DOZENS! You really are famous now ;)

      Delete
  2. By chance I was reading that Racked article yesterday and saw that you were mentioned! That's really cool.

    I hate when brands do this - I'm still bitterly upset about the new Sally Hansen Pacific Blue, which is laughably dissimilar to the old one. Why can't they just discontinue products instead of giving something different the same name?! It's so much more painful this way. I bought up all the PB I could find but I'm on my second to last bottle and they're currently going for $30 on Amazon, which I am not willing to pay for something that retails for four bucks. At least blush lasts for a loooong time.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...