The most effective part of this review is its straightforward value proposition: a familiar budget art brand is asking more than $100 for a 120-color alcohol-marker set, so the product is tested against cheaper alternatives to see whether the price is justified. Ray begins with some genuine enthusiasm for the presentation, particularly the packaging, large color selection, dual nibs, and distinctly Crayola-style color names. That willingness to acknowledge what works makes the later criticism feel less predetermined, even though the video’s title and opening already make clear that the markers are headed for a difficult verdict.
The comparison testing is the strongest material. Ray puts the Crayola markers beside a much cheaper Shuttle Art set and repeatedly examines blending, coverage, nib behavior, and drawing performance under similar conditions. In the blending tests, the cheaper markers appear to produce smoother transitions, while the Crayola samples retain more obvious divisions between colors. Repeating the experiment with another color combination is particularly useful because it makes the result harder to dismiss as a single unlucky pairing.
The nib investigation gives the review more substance than a simple swatch comparison. Ray notices that the Crayola tips feel unusually hard and then uses a clear blender to examine whether they physically indent or scratch the paper. The visible marks shown on the Crayola side, contrasted with Shuttle Art and Ohuhu examples that do not appear to leave the same impressions, provide concrete support for the complaint that the nibs are overly rigid. His descriptions occasionally become hyperbolic, but the underlying test is relevant and easy for viewers to understand.
The flood test further exposes the practical consequences of that performance. Ray finds that the Crayola marker requires additional layering to produce coverage comparable with the cheaper marker, and that the wetter buildup subsequently smears printed material on the page. Although this is not a laboratory-controlled comparison and different nib geometries can affect how quickly ink is deposited, the demonstration still gives viewers a useful picture of how the products behaved in his hands. The review is strongest whenever it stays focused on those observable differences rather than broader assumptions about why they occur.
That distinction becomes important when Ray attributes a shiny finish to what he believes is an improper ratio of alcohol to ink. The video demonstrates the shine, but it does not establish the chemical composition of the marker or measure the ink-to-solvent ratio, so that explanation remains speculation rather than a proven defect. Similarly, a quoted customer review alleges that the markers are white-labeled rather than manufactured by Crayola, but Ray does not investigate or verify that claim. Including harsh customer reactions adds context about the product’s reception, yet the review would be more rigorous if unsupported theories were either tested or clearly left unresolved.
The presentation is energetic and highly watchable, with the escalating frustration giving the comparisons a clear narrative arc. The extended HelloFresh sponsorship, however, arrives immediately after the discussion of negative customer reviews and significantly interrupts the product evaluation before the testing begins. Ray also repeatedly emphasizes the $100 price and his disbelief at the quality, which reinforces the central value argument but becomes somewhat repetitive once the performance problems have already been demonstrated.
Despite the dramatic framing, the final judgment is substantially grounded in what the video actually shows. Ray praises the packaging and naming system while criticizing blending, nib softness, coverage, paper scratching, and overall value, and those complaints largely correspond to the demonstrations that precede them. The result is a persuasive consumer-oriented review of this particular set, though it would be stronger with tighter separation between observed behavior and speculation about manufacturing, ink formulation, or the reasons Crayola later discounted the product.
Pros
- Compares the Crayola markers directly with substantially cheaper alcohol-marker alternatives rather than evaluating them in isolation.
- Repeats the blending test with multiple color combinations, strengthening the case that the initial poor result was not simply a fluke.
- Uses clear-blender and side-by-side nib tests to provide visible support for the complaint that the Crayola tips are unusually hard and can mark the paper.
- Examines several practical qualities, including blending, coverage, nib flexibility, scratching, smearing, and finished drawing performance.
- Acknowledges genuine positives such as the packaging, color selection, dual-tip design, and playful Crayola-style names.
- Keeps the central question focused on whether the demonstrated performance justifies the unusually high price.
Cons
- The claim that the shiny finish reflects an incorrect alcohol-to-ink ratio is speculative and is not established by the testing shown.
- A customer allegation that the markers are white-labeled is repeated without verification or further investigation.
- The video sometimes uses exaggerated reactions and repeated price comparisons after the product’s weaknesses have already been clearly demonstrated.
- The lengthy sponsorship substantially interrupts the review before the main testing sequence begins.
- The suggestion that an early sale indicates Crayola has realized consumers will not pay the launch price is an interpretation rather than evidence of the company’s reasoning.
This is an effective product review because its harsh conclusion is supported by multiple direct comparisons showing weaker blending, harder nibs, less efficient coverage, and paper scratching against cheaper competitors. Some speculative explanations and dramatic repetition reduce its precision, but the practical testing makes the central value criticism convincing.
