Lorac PRO Palettes, Compared

The Lorac PRO was my first palette. I still have it, and it is a workhorse. I loved it so much that I purchased, without question, Lorac PRO 2 and Lorac PRO 3, which later had posts.

I don’t own any of the Mega PRO palettes; I am more than a bit jaded on mega palettes and holiday palettes at this point. Now, I’ve owned all (regular) PRO palettes for a while and have had time to put them through their paces.

The Original, $44Lorac PRO Palettes, Compared

My first and for several months only palette once I got into makeup, the first Lorac PRO palette served me extraordinarily well. As a neutral, light-to-medium-at-most skintone, it had everything I needed to handle work, evening, weddings, etc. Garnet looks incredible applied with a wet brush.

My main gripe: The first four shades are too damn light. The lights in this palette are worthless to anyone with even a touch of color in their skin, let alone deeper skitntones. I couldn’t use the light shades when it wasn’t winter. I don’t need white eyeshadow in my life (I need it less than a twelfth pan of black, in fact). Cream is too pale and too pink-toned. The two light shimmery shades, Nude and Champagne, are too frosty and too glittery, respectively.

PRO Palette 2, $44

The light shades are much nicer, and the greys are fantastic. I’m not usually a grey eyeshadow gal, but I make an exception for Cool Grey. Charcoal made a nice eyeliner, too.

My main gripe: The right half of this palette falls short for me. I can’t use silver very often, personally. Navy was unfortunately choppy, so I couldn’t experiment with it. Jade is neat and unique but simply leans too dark to be of use to/on me. Cocoa is a gorgeous color, but isn’t well-suited to deepening a look in the same way Sable or Espresso were from the first go-round. And, because it is shimmery, it doesn’t make for great liner either.

PRO Palette 3, $44

So warm! So many unique shades! The lights aren’t too light or cool. Terracotta is unique in my collection. I wish I had Almond Pearl ages ago; although I have other shades like it, it is best in class.

My main gripe: What is, in my opinion, the prettiest color in the palette is functionally worthless now that I’ve had time to try to use it in practical application. Medallion is dusty, falls out, and fades. Its just ridiculous. It’s a color I’ve craved, but at the expense of application and performance…it leaves me feeling deflated. The colors of the mattes are all neat, but a few lean chalky when being used with brushes.

Which one comes out on top as my favorite?

That depends. My personal favorite, now that I’ve analyzed them, is Lorac PRO 3. I’m actually surprised by this; my initial assessment was that I would still prefer the first.

On my skin, 3 is much more wearable than the first two. A few chalky mattes don’t ruin it for me. My main objection is with one shade – that’s actually more than I can say for its predecessors. The wearability makes it a much better value for me.

The Bottom Line

You do not, “need,” all three. For enthusiasts, I believe all three can happily coexist within a collection without much redundancy (between each other) aside from the apparently requisite black shadow. Other notes to consider for the PRO palettes:

  • They are also not the, “best,” on the market – but they are decent.
  • Their matte formula is generally good with a couple exceptions – fairly similar to Urban Decay’s.
  • The square pans are easier to work with than brands who sell long, narrow ones.
  • The packaging on all three is the same aside from color – I appreciate the design consistency, but the packaging gets messy easily.

If you wish to buy one, and only one, here’s what I think:

  • If you’re starting out with nothing… Still go with the first, as I did – but not if you have medium or deeper skin.
  • If you really just want neutrals from Lorac… Go with the third.
  • If you have a fairly stocked collection and want something different, but not loud… Go with the second.

Do you own any of the Lorac PRO palettes? What do you think of it?

2 thoughts on “Lorac PRO Palettes, Compared”

  1. I’ve had the original palette for a few years now and it’s the only one I’ve ever tried. It’s such a great workhorse tool!
    If I were to buy my first Lorac palette now, I’d still go for Pro #1.

    Like yourself, I have light-to-medium-at-most skin and I agree that the first four shadows on the left are nearly useless. White is bloody useless as heck; I’ve tried giving nude a shot a couple times; cream… just sits there; finally, champagne gets used just a smidgen, on occasion, when I’m going out and want to brighten the inner corners of my eyes, but even for that I prefer to use MAC’s Vanilla pigment.

    If they could just substitute those four pans with some more Mauve, that’d be swell ’cause it’s my favourite go-to shade in general, whether I want subtle work makeup or more of a sultry night time look.

    Wouldn’t it be a *dream* to be able to customize your own Lorac Pro palette?!

    Still, as the only ‘pricier’ palette I own (the rest are a couple of Wet ‘n Wild and Physicians Formula palettes), I’d say it’s a great product and worth the splurge.

    • I agree. Being able to customize one – or, here’s a novel thought, buy singles! – would make my day.

      I still think it is good, it’s just that those lighter shades are better-suited to fairer (and probably cooler) skin tones.

Comments are closed.