What I'm Not Buying: Huda Beauty The New Nudes Palette (with Dupes)

Huda Beauty has released their newest palette, which is called the New Nudes, despite the fact that the shades are neither new or inclusive of nudes. 

And I won't be buying. 

Before we get into that, I just want to say that if you've been reading this blog for two years, you'll know that the last US election really hit me hard. And I am still reeling from the recent one. While there is much to celebrate and be happy about, I don't think elections will feel easy or uncomplicated for me for a while. So in an effort to get my mind off of things, I wanted to talk about this palette and why you don't need it. 

But because I'm reeling from this election and my general disgust for a large portion of my country, this palette especially pisses me off for its lack of inclusivity in color story and name. 

Let's start with the name. The "new" nudes. 

So, this is a new color scheme? This is a new play on "nudes" that we haven't seen before?

Cool. Okay. 

But... what about the BH Cosmetics Carli Bybel palette?

Or the Lorac Unzipped that's been around forever?

The Lorac Mega Pro 3?

What about the Urban Decay Naked 3, the name of which seems to imply a "nude" color scheme?

Or that really non-inclusive Too Faced palette, aptly called White Peach?

But those are older releases! This is a NEW take on repetitive rose-toned "nudes."

Oh, so you mean like the new Charlotte Tilbury Stars in Your Eyes palette?

Or the Urban Decay Naked Cherry?

So, yeah. Calling something "new" doesn't make it new. Sorry to break it to you, Huda Beauty, but rose-toned palettes have been around forever. Just because you've got some chunky glitter shades thrown in doesn't mean you've made anything "new."

And, while we're talking, Huda Beauty, calling something "nude" seems to imply a skin color. And having a really light palette that is called "nude" is not only wrong, excluding, and insulting to literally every other skin tone, but that's also not "new." Brands have been making this gross misjudgment since before you were even relevant. In 2018, especially, this is a bad look. 

I could tell you about how repetitive this color scheme is and how you most definitely already have these shades already (and I guess I did by displaying the many similar palettes above), but I thought it would be better to show how easy it is to recreate this palette with shadows you already have. 

So, I did. I duped it. 

As a small disclaimer, I based my shadow selections off of these swatches, which are very clearly heavily applied and therefore not really indicative of true colors:

And I went from this:

To this:

Row 1: Colourpop Say I Do, Colourpop High Strung, BH Cosmetics matte peach, MAC Cranberry, Coloured Raine Ladyship, and Lime Crime Venus

Row 2: Colourpop Silver Lining, ABH Pink Champagne, BH Cosmetics matte mauve, ABH Rosette, Ardency Inn Rose Gold, and Viseart shimmery magenta

Row 3: Coloured Raine Heir, ABH Dusty Rose, Coloured Raine Moments, Makeup Geek Bitten, Make Up For Ever shimmery bronze, and Makeup Geek Cocoa Bear

Now, if you're going to argue that this duped palette doesn't have those chunky glitter shades, I would say to use any Stila Glitter and Glow shadows you might have. 

Like Rose Gold Retro:

Or Smoky Storm:

Here is a look I created with my dupe palette and Stila Rose Gold Retro:

Lid: Ardency Inn Rose Gold and Stila Rose Gold Retro

Transition: BH Cosmetics matte peach

Crease: Colourpop Silver Lining

Outer corner: ABH Rosette and Makeup Geek Bitten

Brow bone: matte white

Inner corner: Urban Decay Roadstripe

Lower lash line: ABH Rosette

Similarly with how I felt when I duped the Natasha Denona Gold palette, my duped New Nudes palette left me really underwhelmed. I think I made a version that is more friendly toward people of color, but there still feel to be too many light shades. Some of these shadows barely show up on me, and I have a light to medium skin tone. So how will those perform on people with a darker skin tone?

The New Nudes also feels utterly monochromatic. All of these palettes feel that way. Naked Cherry, Naked 3, Charlotte Tilbury Stars in Your Eyes—they're all one note: rosy. And if I'm going to spend upwards of $70 on a palette, it sure as hell better be more than one note that I've seen over and over.

And for the record, yes, I think promotional pictures of this palette look really appealing. I like pastel shades, and I like pinks and purples. But when I look at the duped palette with my shadows that aren't new to me, I'm just not that excited. And that's because it's the newness of products that really have the big pull over us, even when we know we already have those shades in our collection. And if I don't want to use my own shadows within this color scheme, why should I pay $70 for new versions of these same colors?

This palette just doesn't have anything exciting to offer—other than it's a new palette, and that newness excites people. It's a palette that a lot of brands have done, and it continues to be a palette that is not inclusive. It is meant for white people and others with a light skin tone. And if there is ANYTHING that the makeup community doesn't need, it's exactly that. It continues to astound me how many brands do not prioritize diversity and inclusivity, and I'm disappointed in this latest offering from Huda. 

For me, I have owned the Naked 3 and decluttered it, owned Loraz Unzipped and decluttered it, owned the Carli Bybel palette and decluttered it, and can dupe this palette with shadows in my own collection—the combination of which doesn't excite me. This color scheme is one that I don't feel I can get too many diverse looks from, and I just have other palettes within my collection that excite me more. 

There's nothing new about The New Nudes and nothing that makes me want to buy it. So, I won't.

* * *

For notifications on my latest posts and to vote on future posts, follow me on Instagram: @antihaulblog