I love colors with a blue iridescence. I purchased Orly Royal Velvet months ago. When I was at Sally’s this week, I saw Mysterious Curse, from the Dark Shadows collection, and had to have it. When I got home and swatched it, I realized I had another color that was identical to it… Royal Velvet.
Now, I love this color. It’s a deep dark purple with strong blue iridescence. However, I don’t need two of them. To my eyes, these colors are identical.
I’m really disappointed in Orly for releasing the same color twice under different names.
Needless to say, I returned Mysterious Curse.
What do you think of companies releasing the same color under a different name?
Products purchased by me. All opinions are my own.
Tags: Nail Polish, Orly, Swatches
Wow! They are identical! SO not cool to have the same shade with different names!!
I would not have a problem with it if they would somehow/somewhere- on the display
or labeling- state that the product is AKA “previous shade name”.
I don’t think it’s good business to frustrate core customers. Sorry that you this experience.
There was nothing like that or I would have known to skip it. At least I could return it.
I think it’s a little dispucable for a company to re-launch a shade without letting people know it’s not a new shade. Frankly, how hard would it have been to add some glitter or something to atleast make the shade somewhat different?
I was wondering that too! I mean, this is a big movie release and all.
Meh. I don’t mind if the shade is htf like ChG Channelesque was, but they JUST made Royal Velvet core!
I really really wish they’d re-release Hot House. It’s sucky that they made it core and then did this.
I don’t like it when companies rename old colors, especially when it’s just an LE/GC issue. I’m looking at YOU Revlon. Luckily, I tend to have a halfway decent eye for remembering my nail polishes, because there are at least four shades they’ve renamed lately.
I’m also not a fan of reusing the same name for a different color entirely, looking at YOU, Sally Hansen and your second Hidden Treasure!
I find that super annoying too!
I think it’s stinky. And sneaky. And it pisses me off. They should have dumped a buttload of holo into Royal Velvet, then released it as Mysterious Curse.
It makes me wonder if the collection was rushed out.
Pingback: Roundup of This Week’s Post, Friday May 4, 2012 | Phyrra | Beauty for the Bold
In the photo they look really different. But it could be my monitor. The one on top looks bluer and much sparklier. The other one seems to be purpler and have more color complexity.
I also see though that the skin tone differs in the photos, making me think the differences are not real.
I would prefer that companies not do this. It causes us to waste money.
I promise you they are identical to my eyes I’m sorry that the pictures don’t capture that for you, but I did try.
gothchiq: You’re not comparing the right images. Left vs Right, flash and no flash, not top versus bottom. They’re identical.
And the “skintone” differences should be a clue that one is flash and the other no flash.
That’s ridiculous. They could have at least released it with the same name and stated it was a re-promote, because to my eyes it looks identical, as well.
I agree Mandy, it sucks!
Those are definitely twins. Ugh! Hate when that happens.
I know Brit! Crazy!