Dior's Forever Skin Glow foundation has undergone a reformulation, prompting a detailed comparison of the new and old versions. This review delves into the key differences between these two iterations, examining packaging, SPF, ingredients, application, and overall wear throughout the day. Both formulations retail at the same price point and offer the same shade range, but crucial differences emerge in texture, finish, and long-term wear. We explore whether the updated formula's enhanced coverage and purported skincare benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks for various skin types.This in-depth analysis investigates the impact of the new "clean" formula, highlighting its concentrated floral skincare base and the resulting changes in application and wear. We compare the two foundations' performance over time, considering both their longevity and the effect on skin throughout the day. Ultimately, we aim to provide a comprehensive assessment to help readers decide which version – the original or the new – best suits their individual needs and preferences.
Pros And Cons
- SPF 15
- Concentrated floral skincare base for hydration
- More coverage
- Longer-lasting wear
- Clean formulated with a rigorous list of ingredients
- 30-day shade exchange policy even after use
- Dries quickly
- Feels powdery and mattifying
- Can dehydrate skin
- Reviewer feels it doesn't look as natural as the original
- SPF 35
- Allows more time for blending
- Looks more natural and glowy
- Doesn't dehydrate skin
- Not the reviewer's favorite foundation overall
Read more: Hydrating Foundation for Dry Skin: Top 5 Picks
Packaging and First Impressions
The new Dior Forever Skin Glow foundation comes in the same sleek packaging as its predecessor, but with a subtle update. The new formulation clearly indicates 'Forever Skin Glow' on the packaging. The shades are consistent, ensuring a seamless transition for existing users. While visually similar, slight variations on the back might suggest some formula differences.
Both the old and new versions retail at $52 and come in 42 shades. This indicates a commitment to inclusivity across skin tones. The most notable difference immediately apparent is the SPF; the original boasts SPF 35, while the new one offers SPF 15. This change might affect users' sun protection routines.
Formula and Key Differences
A major distinction lies in the new formula's concentrated floral skincare base. This 86% floral skincare blend promises intense hydration, improved skin quality, and breathability. The original lacked this specific floral skincare component.
The new version claims to be 'clean formulated', adhering to strict ingredient guidelines. It's enriched with extracts of iris, wild pansy, and hibiscus – additions absent from the original formulation. Both claim 24-hour wear, but the ingredient and SPF differences warrant a closer look at actual wear time.
Application and Immediate Observations
The application process revealed key differences. The new formula dried much quicker, making blending slightly more challenging. The reviewer noted a more powdery texture in the new formulation compared to the creamier consistency of the original.
Surprisingly, the new formula provided more coverage despite using the same amount of product (two pumps each). However, the original version offered a more natural, skin-like finish, while the new version appeared more mattifying.
Daylight and Evening Check-ins
A daylight check-in, approximately six hours after application, showed the new formula maintaining its coverage better. The reviewer noted that despite the seemingly better hold, she experienced dryness, especially on the side where she used the new version.
A 12-hour check-in the following day reinforced the observations: the original version faded more but had a more natural finish. The new one looked good but felt much drier, suggesting it might not be suitable for those with dry skin.
Final Thoughts and Verdict
Overall, while the new Dior Forever Skin Glow foundation offers improved coverage and longer wear, it sacrifices the natural glow and comfortable feel of the original. The mattifying finish and drying effect make it less suitable for those with dry skin.
For those who love the original for its natural, radiant finish, the reformulation may be disappointing. The improved skincare ingredients are beneficial, but the trade-off in terms of texture and dryness might outweigh the added benefits for many users. The old version remains a preferable choice for those prioritizing a natural, comfortable finish.