Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Wet 'n' Wild Ice Baby Collection is Not Really Back

In Friday's display post, I shared the Wet 'n' Wild Fan Favorites display which I'd seen at Walgreens. The top of the display says "Guess what? We're bringing back the Ice Baby Collection!" and the bottom has two rows of Color Icon glitters with names I remembered from the Ice Baby collection.





I mentioned that I suspected they didn't really bring the colors back but just re-used the names and that I'd have comparisons in the next few weeks. Forget a few weeks; I've got swatches and comparisons today, because I want to help spread the word that these are not the glitters you're looking for if you want the original Ice Baby colors.

Here's how things stack up—new Ice Baby color in the top row and the original 2011 Holiday Ice Baby colors on the bottom:



To start, the new collection is one color short; it lacks the acid green-leaning gold Give Me a Price Quote (leftmost polish in the bottom row). As for the other seven, the names match, as do the basic color families, but things start to diverge in the details. Some are more divergent than others, as you'll soon see. First, though, I want to share a lineup of six Fergie by Wet 'n' Wild colors which look quite similar to the newly released Ice Baby glitters (I thought about stacking them on top of the Color Icon bottles but that seemed like it wouldn't be stable even if I could fit them in my lightbox):



There is no Fergie match that I could find for the first Ice Baby we're going to look at, 24 Carats, also known as the gold one. This has undergone quite a transformation. The old version (on the left in the photo below) has gold and copper bar glitter as well as smaller gold and silvery purple glitter in a clear base. The new version has a gold shimmer base with small glitter in brighter gold and copper.



Here's three coats of each on the nail; I'm not going to spell out which is which because you can surely tell just by looking at them. I've included detail shots so you can marvel at how very much not alike these are beyond the gold with copper idea.







Moving on to the blue green family, in the original release, Cost is No Issue was small teal glitter with larger blue glitter in a clear base. In the new release, it's small and large iridescent glitter in a sheer turquoise base. This new version looks quite a lot like Fergie Mermaid Curves.



Unfortunately, the photos of the blue greens on my nails are nowhere to be found; I know I swatched them because I've got notes about which nails had how many coats of which polish, but there is no photographic evidence of that on either my main photo storage drive or the backup. I'm not sure if I didn't take them in the first place or deleted them accidentally from the camera before I pulled the photos off the card, and don't know which possibility would be a more worrying indicator of the state of my brain. In any case, here are the polishes on a wheel (because by the time I realized these photos were missing, I was a couple days into a wear test of some strips). Left to right below: Cost is No Issue (new), Cost is No Issue (original), Fergie Mermaid Curves. The Fergie seems a bit less densely glittered than the new Ice Baby, but it could be I didn't mix up the Fergie well enough before using it (it's been sitting in my stash for a while, whereas the new Ice Baby hasn't had as much time to settle).



Believe Me It's Real is blue glitter with purple hexes in a clear base in both the old and new Ice Baby collections. The difference is that the blue glitter in the new version is slightly sparser and leans more navy compared to the brighter blue in the old one. Dutchess is the Fergie equivalent of the new version.



On the nail below (all 3 coats)—Believe Me It's Real (original), Believe Me It's Real (new), Believe Me It's Real (original), Dutchess.



Back Alley Deals was a mix of small purple and fuchsia hex glitter; now it's small fuchsia and turquoise glitter, a la Fergie XoXo. They do both look purple if you stand back and unfocus your eyes, and they're both in a clear base, but in no way is the new version "bringing back" the Ice Baby color.



Look at the difference in coverage on the nail at three coats&mdash: Back Alley Deals (original), Back Alley Deals (new), Back Alley Deals (original), Fergie XoXo:



It's All in the Cut was a lovely mix of small lilac and pink hex glitter. Now it's a mix of small fuchsia and large silver hex glitter, the same mix that's in Fergie Take the Stage. Not cool, Wet 'n' Wild, not cool. There were two purples in the original Ice Baby collection and they're both hot pink in the new versions.



Left to right below (all three coats)—It's All in the Cut (original), It's All in the Cut (new), It's All in the Cut (original), Fergie Take the Stage.



Rockin' Rubies is fine red glitter plus larger holographic glitter in both the original and new versions. The same combination appears in Fergie No Place Like Home.



Left to right below (three coats of each)—Rockin' Rubies (original), Rockin' Rubies (new), Rockin' Rubies (original), Fergie Take the Stage. The original version has more of the holo glitter and a rougher finish (this swatch is without topcoat); the Fergie seemed less dense with glitter than the new version of Rockin' Rubies, but that could be me not paying attention to how thick my coats were or batch differences.



Diamond in the Rough is the charcoal grey version of Rockin' Rubies. Of all the Ice Baby colors, this one changed the least in the reissue. Fergie Rock 'n' Roll is a match for the new version.



Below (all three coats)—Diamond in the Rough (original), Diamond in the Rough (new), Diamond in the Rough (original), Fergie Take the Stage. As with Rockin' Rubies, the new version seems to have fewer holo glitter pieces and a smoother finish, though the difference in the distribution of holo glitters is not as big with this one as with the Rubies.



So there you have it. If the display were being honest, the "We're Bringing Back the Ice Baby Collection!" line on the display would have a footnote to say "but it's just the names and bottles". I'd be more forgiving of the bait and switch here if the new versions weren't so very close to existing Fergie colors—well, except for the gold; I can't figure out where that one came from. I feel like I've seen something similar before, but don't pay as close attention to golds as other color families.

17 comments:

  1. that's disappointing that they are so different. i wouldn't mind the colors but naming them the old names and saying you're bringing them back is pretty lame. i did end up picking up the grey one at the drugstore the other day though. the rest looked somewhat uninspiring. thanks for the comparison!

    the painted ninja

    ReplyDelete
  2. It looks like the just put all the Fergie colors into new bottles. Lame!

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are liars!!! Oh WnW you disappoint! I actually don't have most of the original ones so I was considering picking up a couple but now I will save my money and buy the new Sinful Colors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I get mildly annoyed when companies "re-promote" the same polish under a different name, but I'll take that any day over using the same name for a completely different polish. And so many of these aren't even close! I happen to really like the Mermaid Curves dupe, as well as some of the others, but they look almost nothing like the original glitters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. wow these aren't the same at all! why would wet n wild be so misleading? shame

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very disappointing that they would do that. Like you said, not cool.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oooooh! That is bad. Very, very bad! Those aren't even close to the same collection. Shame on Wet-n-Wild!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hate it when companies cannot get their batches even - and this is a super post showing everything so clearly, thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow what a disappointment! I wouldn't mind as much probably is the new ones were better but unfortunately I like more the older ones!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for doing this comparison post. I'm really disappointed in Wet n Wild for doing something so misleading. Not only are most of the colors repromotes of Fergie colors, some of them are dupes with $1.99 Sinful Colors as well! :(

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's weird that they did that...great comparisons as always though :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. hehehh revlon does the opposite. Same colour different name.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow... that's awful. And they didn't even keep a version (even if altered) of the acid green!? Blasphemy.... :(

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, did they think polish ladies would actually be fooled into thinking this was legit? Bummer. Makes me glad I've got the original Believe Me, It's Real because it's so much brighter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Um now which one is the old gold one and which is the new one? DERP! I hate when polish companies think we are that stupid to fall for this crap. Makes me want to write my congressman. Well not really, but you get my drift right?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It wouldn't have really bothered me if they weren't so close to the Fergie varnishes. It is basially just the Fergie polish in a new package!!

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading and commenting! I greatly appreciate knowing I'm not just talking to myself here. :)