Elizabeth Taylor White Diamonds Body Powder with Puff for Women, 2.6 oz - US Product Analysis

1. Product Information

White Diamonds Body Powder is a perfumed dusting powder sold in a 2.6 oz (75 g) white round jar with a gold-trimmed base, supplied with a soft powder puff. It carries the White Diamonds scent, which the listing describes as a floral chypre built on amazon lily, tuberose, jasmine, rose, amber and sandalwood. The product is positioned as an after-bath luxury — light enough for daily use, dressed up enough for an evening — and is applied by dusting lightly with the puff on the neck, wrists, inner elbows, or anywhere a spray perfume would normally go.

The formulation is a talc-based particulate system. Talc is the first listed ingredient, followed by silica, calcium carbonate, kaolin, silk powder and mica; the remainder of the panel is the fragrance blend and its declared allergen components. The listing dates to October 2001 and the powder is manufactured by Elizabeth Arden, Inc. under the Elizabeth Taylor fragrance licence. At capture it ranked #2 in Fragrance Dusting Powders.

1.1 Product Gallery

1.2 Specifications

1.3 Listing Highlights

• Body powder for women — a sensual dusting powder that embodies Elizabeth Taylor's glamour, aimed at the wearer who wants the sparkle of diamonds.
• White Diamonds scent — a luxurious floral chypre described as day-to-night, radiating lily, tuberose and sandalwood.
• Dusting powder with puff — used as an after-bath luxury to stay dry and confident through the day.
• Fragrance notes — amazon lily, tuberose, jasmine, rose, amber and sandalwood.

1.4 How the Scent Is Built (A+ Content)

The manufacturer's A+ block lays the fragrance out as a three-stage pyramid:

The same page carousel places this powder inside a five-product Elizabeth Taylor family: White Diamonds, Sparkling White Diamonds, White Diamonds Legacy, En Rouge and Passion, each with its own note trio and its own review base.

1.5 Usage and Safety Information

Directions. Use the soft powder puff applicator and dust the body powder lightly around the neck, wrists, inner elbows, or just about anywhere a traditional spray perfume would be applied.

Safety information. For external use only.

2. Product Rating and Customer Voice

The listing carries an aggregate rating of 4.7 out of 5 from 6,824 global ratings. The distribution is heavily concentrated at the top: 84% of raters award five stars and a further 9% award four, so roughly nine in ten raters sit at four stars or better. The negative tail is thin and unusually flat — one-star at 2% sits only marginally above two-star at 1%, a shape that points to specific, well-defined complaints rather than generic disappointment.

2.1 Reading the Distribution

All five buckets are rounded whole percentages, so a 1% or 2% bucket is not proof that no rater sat there — it is a rounded share. With 6,824 ratings the sample is large enough that a single rating moves any bucket by only about 0.015 percentage points, which means the shape shown above is stable rather than noisy. The five-star bucket alone accounts for roughly 5,730 ratings on this rounding, more than the entire combined three-star-and-below tail by a factor of about 28.

2.2 What Customers Say

Amazon's generated summary for this listing reads: Customers love the body powder's beautiful scent that lasts all day, and appreciate its appearance with its slight shimmer. Moreover, they find it makes a wonderful gift, particularly for grandmas. However, the product receives mixed feedback about its quantity, with some loving the powder while others wish there was more. Additionally, customers find it difficult to use, specifically mentioning that the lid is hard to get off and on.

Five aspects carry enough mentions to be broken out. Scent dominates the conversation with 588 mentions — more than the other four aspects combined — and is positive in 84% of them. Appearance (97% positive) and gift-giving (94% positive) are smaller but nearly unanimous. Quantity is the one genuinely split aspect at 52% positive, which is the statistical signature of the "wish there was more" complaint in the summary rather than a dissatisfaction with the product itself.

Two aspects fall below the level at which a listing is usually called clean. Quantity at 52% is a coin-flip: for a 2.6 oz jar, part of the population expects more product for the price, and part is satisfied. The lid difficulty named in the summary does not appear as a tracked aspect at all, which means it is a recurring but sub-threshold complaint rather than a headline one.

2.3 Review Text Availability

No individual United States review text could be captured for this ASIN at collection time. The review page was requested directly, then through a mobile rendering, then through an alternative delivery context, and finally through a three-attempt retry loop with fresh sessions at 15, 30 and 45 second intervals; every response rendered zero review bodies. The aggregate rating, the star histogram and the "Customers say" summary above are all visible on the product page and are reported here, but no review body is quoted anywhere in this report and no reviewer identity is reproduced. The qualitative signal in this section is therefore an Amazon-generated aggregation, and it is labelled as such.

3. Product Ingredients

The complete ingredient panel below is transcribed from the listing's own published ingredient declaration. It contains 26 entries. Note that both ingredient databases consulted for cross-checking (see 3.3) hold no entry for this product, so the listing panel is the only formula source available and no independent second reading of the same list exists.

3.1 Full Ingredient List

The list below preserves the printed order, which is the descending order of concentration for a cosmetic panel.

Two transcription notes. The source panel prints "Titanium Dixodie" — a typographical error for Titanium Dioxide, corrected above. "Silk Powder / Serica / Poudre De Soie" is one ingredient named in three languages, counted once.

3.2 Classified by Level

Classifying the 26 entries by the role each plays in the formula produces five groups. The fragrance side dominates: 17 of 26 entries (65%) are either the declared fragrance blend itself or one of its named components. The physical powder base is five ingredients, and the optical — shimmer and whiteness — side is four.

What the classification says

• This is a fragrance-first product. Two thirds of the panel by entry count exists to deliver or support the scent. For a perfumed dusting powder that is expected, but it does mean a reader sensitive to fragrance has very little of this formula that is not fragrance-related.
• The base is entirely mineral. Talc, silica, calcium carbonate, kaolin and mica are all inorganic powders. There is no plant extract, no humectant, no emulsifier and no preservative system — a dry anhydrous powder needs none of those, which is one reason the panel is this short.
• Sixteen EU-declarable fragrance allergens is a high count. The EU requires individual declaration of 26 recognised fragrance allergens above a concentration threshold. Sixteen of them appear here by name, which indicates a complex, natural-leaning perfume composition — treemoss extract, coumarin, eugenol and oakmoss-family materials are typical of classic chypre accords.
• The shimmer is explained by three ingredients. Mica at position 7, bismuth oxychloride at 24 and the two white colourants account for the "slight shimmer" customers describe in the appearance aspect at 97% positive.
• No actives and no treatment claims. Nothing in the panel is present for a dermatological effect. This is a scent and skin-feel product, and the listing does not claim otherwise.

3.3 Database Cross-Check: What Was and Was Not Found

Two independent ingredient databases were queried for this ASIN. Neither holds an entry, so the classification above rests on the listing panel alone. The audit is recorded here rather than left silent, because a missing database row is evidence about coverage, not evidence about the formula.

Three points follow from that audit.

• Both databases are live. Each channel returned populated results for other queries in the same session, so the empty outcome is a genuine coverage gap and not a blocked read.
• No substitute was used. The closest near-miss is the same-brand White Diamonds Body Radiance Perfumed Body Lotion, which shares the scent line but is an emulsified lotion rather than a dry powder; its ingredient table has almost no overlap with this one beyond the fragrance blend. It was not substituted.
• No third-party acne, irritancy or safety rating is available for this product. Neither database rates it, and no rating in this section is inferred. Where a reader needs a risk grading, the correct basis is the printed panel above — notably that 16 named fragrance allergens are present — not a borrowed score from a different product.

3.4 Fragrance Exposure, Stated Plainly

The fragrance question deserves a direct statement, because it is the one place in this formula where a count is more informative than a rating. Sixteen of 26 entries are individually named fragrance allergens, and a seventeenth — the Parfum blend at position 3 — is the vehicle that carries them. For a reader who avoids fragrance for sensitisation reasons, this formula offers essentially no fragrance-free option: the scent is the product. For everyone else, the practical reading is that this is a classic 1991 chypre composition with a full allergen disclosure, in a talc base, with no preservative, no surfactant and no active ingredient anywhere in the panel.

4. Product Price and Price History

4.1 Price at Capture

No purchasable price was rendered for this ASIN at capture. The product page was read from a United States delivery context (New York 10001, native USD) and the address change was confirmed, but the buy box returned no featured offer: the listing sat in the unqualified-buy-box state, with no current price, no list price and no savings figure rendered anywhere on the page. No price is reported rather than a converted or estimated one.

That the listing still ranks #2 in its subcategory while carrying no featured offer is consistent with a long-lived catalogue entry whose stock position moves; an independent price tracker recorded a live third-party new offer one day before capture, so the product was being sold on the marketplace at that moment even though the featured-offer slot was empty on the captured page.

4.2 Price History Summary

The table below is the all-time price record from an independent Amazon price-tracking source covering this ASIN since December 13, 2012 — roughly 13.9 years of monitoring. Every figure is an all-time value across that whole window, not a 30-day, 6-month or 12-month statistic. The current column is a last-observation value: the only current figure in the table is dated one day before this report's capture date, which is fresh enough to quote.

A dash is a finding, not a gap: no live observation exists for that price type at collection time. The list price on record for this ASIN is $16.94.

4.3 Comparing the Three Channels

Averaged over the full window, Amazon's own price has run $17.11, third-party new $16.31 and third-party used $12.74. Set against the $16.94 list price, Amazon's average sits almost exactly on list (+1.0%), third-party new runs slightly under (−3.7%) and used runs a quarter under (−24.8%). That is the shape of a first-party listing that rarely discounts, a marketplace that undercuts it a little, and a second-hand market that clears well below.

4.4 Where the Current Price Sits

The single live figure, $20.48 through a third-party new seller, sits +20.9% above the $16.94 list price, +25.6% above the third-party new average, and only 3.8% below the third-party all-time high. Placed on the all-time band from $2.00 to $21.29, it sits at the 96th percentile. In plain terms: this is currently an expensive time to buy this product relative to its own history, and the practical anchor for a normal price is closer to the $16.31 average — or the $16.94 list — than to today's observation.

4.5 The $2.00 Low Is an Artefact

The headline third-party low of $2.00 should not be read as a market floor. It is dated November 25, 2021 — 25 days after a $21.29 high dated October 30, 2021 — a 90% collapse inside four weeks. Two observations that close together and that far apart are characteristic of a mispriced or liquidated offer rather than of normal price movement, and this source exposes no observation-level series that could show what happened in between. Excluding it, the working floor is better approximated by the $12.74 used average and the $16.31 new average. The same caution applies in the other direction to the $24.50 Amazon high, which is dated April 2013 — four months after monitoring began — and is more plausibly a launch-era listing than a real market price.

4.6 Timeline of Dated Extremes

Both Amazon extremes are early — the high four months after monitoring started, the low just over three years in — and every dated extreme after 2021 belongs to a third-party price type. That pattern is consistent with the first-party price going dormant and the marketplace taking over the listing, which is exactly the state the captured product page shows today.

5. Methodology, Confidence and Limitations

5.1 How This Report Was Built

• Marketplace and context. The product page was read on amazon.com from a United States delivery context (New York 10001). Prices are native USD throughout; no currency conversion was performed and none is implied.
• Ingredient source. The 26-entry panel in section 3 is transcribed from the listing's own published ingredient declaration. No ingredient list was reconstructed from brand knowledge.
• Cross-checks. Two independent ingredient databases were queried (three queries and two queries respectively); both channels were proven live in the same session by populated results for other queries, and neither holds this product.
• Price history. The all-time record in section 4 comes from an independent price-tracking source that has monitored this ASIN since December 2012, read once with the full-window setting.
• Privacy. No reviewer name, handle, profile identifier, avatar or profile link appears anywhere in this report. No review body is quoted at all for this ASIN, because none could be captured.
• Snapshot discipline. Rank, availability and price move between captures. Everything here describes the state observed on 2026-10-27.

5.2 Confidence by Element

5.3 Limitations

1. No live price at capture. The listing rendered no featured offer, so no first-party current price appears in this report. Substituting the tracker's third-party figure would have mixed two different price types, so the two are reported separately and never merged.
2. All-time price figures only. Period-specific lows, highs and averages are not obtainable from this source. A question such as "what was the lowest price in the last six months" cannot be answered from the data used here.
3. No observation-level price history. Only five values per price type are exposed, so the shape of the series between dated extremes is unknown.
4. No review text. Zero review bodies rendered across every capture strategy tried. The qualitative layer rests on Amazon's own aggregation, which is a weaker evidence class than quoted reviews.
5. No customer photos. The listing exposed no buyer image tiles, so the gallery in section 1 is listing imagery only, and the buyer-photo slot is empty by evidence rather than by omission.
6. No independent ingredient database confirmation. Both databases lack this product, so the panel cannot be cross-checked for formula currency, and no acne, irritancy or safety rating is available from either channel.
7. Fragrance allergen counts are entry counts. Percentages by entry count are not percentages by weight; position 3 Parfum dominates the olfactory character regardless of how many named components it contains.
8. Two listing images carried no third-party endorsement. All gallery images are listing imagery supplied by the seller, and none is a buyer photograph.