Battle of the Taupes

 So, since in my previous Chanel Safari post, I mentioned that it had a likeness to MAC Patina. I thought it is only fair I did a comparison/review of it. Firstly as I said before, MAC shadows are £11.50, and Chanel's are £21 a pop. All though I must admit, the MAC packaging is no where near as luxury as its contenders.

Here are the two side-by-side, in the pan they look almost identical, both a very muted taupe. It appears as though Patina has more of a pearl finish, which it does. Its defiantly in no way glittery, just more metallic than Safari's sheen finish.

 L: Safari (Chanel) R: Patina (MAC)
L: Patina (MAC) R: Safari (Chanel)

Once swatched, you can clearly see that these shadows are no longer twins, more like sisters. From a similar family, but Patina is far more golden and the pigmentation is far greater. Personally on the eyes they colours both give a similar look. I hope you will understand when I say they are both the same darkness (bad explanation!) Basically neither is more dramatic. Both are extremely wearable for day or evening. Perhaps Patina would be better on those with blue or green eyes due to its golden tones, and Safari would look lovely universally. Safari would seem to be more suitable that Patina for those with Pink undertones in their skin, as it is fairly neutral.

Personally, I am extremely pleased to have both shades in my collection. To me they are worlds apart in colour, but when you own so many variations of one colour, it is easy to pick differences. However, if you were looking to get into make-up, the MAC shadow is a brilliant neutral colour, and is almost half the price!

No comments:

Post a Comment