No Limited Edition Packaging for MAC Glamour Daze?

MAC Glamour Daze Swatches

With all the excitement surrounding the launch of MAC Holiday 2012 I wonder, did you notice MAC didn’t do any LE packaging for Glamour Daze?

Hmmm…

Unless you count that the compacts are a glossy black versus the traditional matte finish black that MAC prefers.

Does it bother you?

Do you like the LE packaging or are just worried about the contents and not so much what it comes housed in?

I actually don’t mind these glossy compacts. They are nice and simple and I’m not worried about using them. With LE packaging I sometimes get all anal about using the product and wanting to protect it with my life. At least if it’s basic black I don’t feel as protective.

How about you?

  • 10/26/12 10:23 Barb:

    maybe they spent all their $$ on the marilyn rights/packaging ?

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:23 Kiss & Make-up:

    It doesn’t look bad, but I still prefer the matte look. But what’s inside is what counts, right :-)

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:26 Rawr:

    I guess MAC thinks that since they did some fabulous packaging on some of the items then the other items will just automatically not need awesome packaging. oh well

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:28 Mitheena:

    I’m a sucker for pretty packaging but afterall,the product is what that matters :)

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:32 K.B.:

    I’ll admit that I thought last year’s holiday white packaging was pretty, but most of MAC’s LE packaging looks cheap as hell and they increase the cost for their bootleg packaging.

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:43 Jen:

    I guess I was hoping the packaging would be in line with their other Holiday releases, but certainly don’t mind the glossy black. It was just a tiny letdown that it didn’t have some cute retro packaging like the rest.

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 10:50 Brigette Ramos:

    Haha. I feel the same way! I love the glossy finish over the fancy LE packaging…I can use them up and don’t feel protective over them ;) I thought I was the only one….

    Reply

    • 10/26/12 10:52 the Muse:

      hehe! right? I am slightly disappointed but also relieved as I don’t feel bad about using them!

      Reply

  • 10/26/12 11:05 Amanda:

    I can’t stand this “LE” packaging. The fingerprints and the dirt that magically appear on it is very unappealing :(

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 11:07 Jaz:

    I like the glossy…but I find it hilarious that Nordstrom was claiming this collection had L.E packaging

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 12:04 Kelly:

    I do mind the fact that these products are slightly more expensive than the regular products, at least they are here in the Netherlands, but they don’t look special, just glossy black with white logos.

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 12:20 Ryou:

    I don’t mind the regular packaging, but I HATE how they think they can get away charging that much for the tiny eyeshadow! If it came in actual decorated LE packaging then they would at least have an excuse (as poor excuse as it is) for raising the price per ounce by 227.5%. (That’s $650/oz vs $285.71/oz for the original Extra Dimension eyeshadows)

    Reply

    • 10/26/12 12:25 Ryou:

      Oops, bad math on my part, sorry! I thought the mini eyeshadows were 0.03 oz, not 0.04 oz. >.<

      Corrected math: The value of the mini Extra Dimension eyeshadows is $487.5/oz, which equals to a mark-up of 170.63% compared to the original release. Still pretty freaking bad IMO. :/

      Reply

  • 10/26/12 13:06 Tiffanyterese:

    I mean…the lettering is different colored than the regular and the lipstick packaging is a wee bit different.

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 15:58 Sara Elisabeth:

    You know what bugs me? They still charged us the LE packaging price. The lipsticks are $16.50, instead od the usual $15.

    Reply

  • 10/26/12 21:04 Rainbow:

    It was very strange that there was no LE packaging this year. But, by where MAC is going recently with the less-product-for-more-money shenanigan, I probably would have had to sign over my first born child for pretty packaging.

    Reply

  • 10/28/12 0:27 Smirking Valet:

    I second, Sara Elizabeth!!

    Reply

  • 10/29/12 8:52 Jacee:

    I’m with Sara Elisabeth; they still charged LE prices but didn’t deliver on LE packaging… Part of the thrill of ordering a LE product, in my opinion, is getting the special packaging. It just gives it a little “something special!”

    Plus, maybe it’s just me, but not all of the shades in this collection seemed all that unique or difficult to dupe (compared to, say, Blooming Lovely/Lavender Whip, the kind of shade(s) I would buy at LE price, no matter the packaging).

    Reply

  • 10/29/12 10:27 Miradan:

    It was considered special enough packaging that I couldn’t do a Back 2 Mac for one of the lipsticks. It’s snazzy, but not really enough to justify the extra price.

    Reply

  • 11/3/12 22:36 Nancy:

    For the price I would have liked maybe lil bit of leopard print or a tiny black bow somewhere on the pots,like make the eye shadow containers in the pink,peach,light blue w/a black bow rimmed on the top lid,something like that,at least made it match together,but plain black is classic too :)oh well, maybe next year~

    Reply

Comments are moderated and won't show up immediately