Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison*

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

A few years ago, I received the Rimmel London Match Perfection foundation* to trial and review. This was a re-release of an older formulation, so I was excited to try. I instantly fell in love, and it became my day to day foundation. I took it overseas with me as it was so versatile and perfect for every day wear.

Recently, I received the re-release of my favourite formula. It has been reformulated, so I was interested to try this one out. As I'm such an avid fan of the "original" (we'll just call it that - I know it wasn't the first formulation under it's name) I thought I would do a comparative post.


Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Aside from aesthetics, there are a few things I notice right away. The original version claims to be a "light perfecting radiance foundation" which I would tend to agree with. The new formulation claims "pore blurring effect" and "invisible coverage." That's a big difference, in my opinion. The new formulation has also bumped it up from SPF15 to SPF20. 

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Unfortunately for this reviews sake, I have had to show you two different shades. The first is 100 Ivory, and the second is 010 Light Porcelain. I actually prefer the Ivory shade, but I'll go into the later. You might not be able to tell from these swatches alone, but the original formula is far runnier and more like a traditional liquid foundation. The new formulation was more creamy, and felt like it should of been in a tube packaging rather than a pump bottle. But that's just nitty gritty.

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Left - Original, Right - New

I did half of my face with the original, and half in the new formula. No primers, no powders. I already feel like the original sits on my skin better, and gives a smoother appearance. (As much as it can without the help of other products, that is.) I found the newer formulation clung to my pores and actually increased the visibility, if you look closely around my nose you can see it bunching up a little. I also found the newer formulation to be greasier on application, and didn't seem to set instantly like the original does. I feel with the original I don't need a powder all the time, but with the new formulation it would be a must.

For a creamier base, I felt it gave less coverage that the original as well. The colour was a tad too light for me, so that probably attributed to some of the pore visibility; nonetheless I felt that it no longer gave me a natural, dewy complexion.

--

Unfortunately, I'm not loving the new formula. Sorry Rimmel London but I am not a fan. I'm incredibly disappointed that one of my favourite foundations has now been discontinued, but at least I have a few bottles in my stash.

Have you tried the new Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation? If so, what are your thoughts? Which version do you prefer?

--


Products mentioned in this post were provided for consideration.
Share:

8 comments

  1. I've heard great things about this foundation personally haven't used it yet

    Beauty Candy Loves

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've only tried the formula that was released last year and I love it! Works really well on my skin!


    Tahana <3
    www.tahanalee.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't tried either the new or old formulas, sucks that you prefer the older version though! Hate when that happens :(

    Kate | themintedblog.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the informative post, I love the old formula and I need to repurchase it. What a shame the new formula is so different from the old one. Even in your pic the difference is visible, old one looks great.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh no! I really wish I'd tried the original formulation, especially as that was the one everyone was raving about! I was sent the new one and I don't mind it, it's not my favourite foundation ever but I still wear it! I guess I don't have the old one to compare it to though!

    Tasha // shiwashiful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How funny! I actually think I like the new formula more than the old formula, but I haven't done a side by side yet, so maybe I just THINK I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I had no idea they changed the formula - this was really interesting, thanks :)

    Sophie x

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh no, I really loved the new formula but I had never tried the older one I really wish I had though so I could see the difference between them. Glad you have a few backups of your favourite :)

    Nicole xx | www.nicolesbeautybabble.com

    ReplyDelete

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison*

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

A few years ago, I received the Rimmel London Match Perfection foundation* to trial and review. This was a re-release of an older formulation, so I was excited to try. I instantly fell in love, and it became my day to day foundation. I took it overseas with me as it was so versatile and perfect for every day wear.

Recently, I received the re-release of my favourite formula. It has been reformulated, so I was interested to try this one out. As I'm such an avid fan of the "original" (we'll just call it that - I know it wasn't the first formulation under it's name) I thought I would do a comparative post.


Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Aside from aesthetics, there are a few things I notice right away. The original version claims to be a "light perfecting radiance foundation" which I would tend to agree with. The new formulation claims "pore blurring effect" and "invisible coverage." That's a big difference, in my opinion. The new formulation has also bumped it up from SPF15 to SPF20. 

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Unfortunately for this reviews sake, I have had to show you two different shades. The first is 100 Ivory, and the second is 010 Light Porcelain. I actually prefer the Ivory shade, but I'll go into the later. You might not be able to tell from these swatches alone, but the original formula is far runnier and more like a traditional liquid foundation. The new formulation was more creamy, and felt like it should of been in a tube packaging rather than a pump bottle. But that's just nitty gritty.

Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation Comparison - Sweetaholic Beauty

Left - Original, Right - New

I did half of my face with the original, and half in the new formula. No primers, no powders. I already feel like the original sits on my skin better, and gives a smoother appearance. (As much as it can without the help of other products, that is.) I found the newer formulation clung to my pores and actually increased the visibility, if you look closely around my nose you can see it bunching up a little. I also found the newer formulation to be greasier on application, and didn't seem to set instantly like the original does. I feel with the original I don't need a powder all the time, but with the new formulation it would be a must.

For a creamier base, I felt it gave less coverage that the original as well. The colour was a tad too light for me, so that probably attributed to some of the pore visibility; nonetheless I felt that it no longer gave me a natural, dewy complexion.

--

Unfortunately, I'm not loving the new formula. Sorry Rimmel London but I am not a fan. I'm incredibly disappointed that one of my favourite foundations has now been discontinued, but at least I have a few bottles in my stash.

Have you tried the new Rimmel London Match Perfection Foundation? If so, what are your thoughts? Which version do you prefer?

--


Products mentioned in this post were provided for consideration.

8 comments:

  1. I've heard great things about this foundation personally haven't used it yet

    Beauty Candy Loves

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've only tried the formula that was released last year and I love it! Works really well on my skin!


    Tahana <3
    www.tahanalee.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't tried either the new or old formulas, sucks that you prefer the older version though! Hate when that happens :(

    Kate | themintedblog.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the informative post, I love the old formula and I need to repurchase it. What a shame the new formula is so different from the old one. Even in your pic the difference is visible, old one looks great.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh no! I really wish I'd tried the original formulation, especially as that was the one everyone was raving about! I was sent the new one and I don't mind it, it's not my favourite foundation ever but I still wear it! I guess I don't have the old one to compare it to though!

    Tasha // shiwashiful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How funny! I actually think I like the new formula more than the old formula, but I haven't done a side by side yet, so maybe I just THINK I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I had no idea they changed the formula - this was really interesting, thanks :)

    Sophie x

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh no, I really loved the new formula but I had never tried the older one I really wish I had though so I could see the difference between them. Glad you have a few backups of your favourite :)

    Nicole xx | www.nicolesbeautybabble.com

    ReplyDelete

-

© Sweetaholic Beauty | All rights reserved.
Blogger Template Developed by pipdig