Skip to main content

making faces :: the mystique of mystic

back when i did my "30 days of lips" project, wearing a different shade of lipstick every day, i closed off with mac's "mystic", my favourite mac shade of all time and one of my favourite shades period. although it had been part of their regular assortment for many years- as long as i've been a mac customer, which would mean about a decade- they discontinued the shade in 2010. since i'd never heard anyone else mention this as a personal favourite, i'd assumed that the discontinuation meant that there wasn't any real interest in the shade.

oh how wrong i was.

of all the search terms that lead people to my blog, consistently among the top is "mac mystic lipstick" or some variation thereof, especially searches for "best replacement" or "closest match". so this shade does have its fans and they're just as lost as i am trying to figure out how to fill the mystic void. ladies, i want to help you. and by help you, i mean let you benefit from months of experimentation on myself.

first, to describe the original mystic is a little tricky. i did find that the formula changed over the years that i bought it, which is one problem, but it's also just a difficult to pinpoint colour. i generally classify it as a cooler red, meaning that it has an undertone that is more blue than orange/ brown. however, when i was comparing it to other shades i thought might be similar, i did notice that it looked brownish in next to many of them. go figure.

it's described as a reddish plum and, indeed, it does kind of look like the skin of a red plum. it's what i like to call a "classic" red- not a full-on screen siren in-your-face red and not a bloodstained vampire red either. it's a very classy shade, looking timelessly conservative and at the same time very rich and sexy. it also has a lovely sheen- nicer than on a lot of mac's other satin-finish lipsticks- that catches the light and responds very well to flash photography. it's very much opaque and, while the colour can be intense, it fades to a very nice gooseberry-red shade over time.

despite my searching, i haven't come up with a true dupe for it, but listed below are the closest i've found.

l to r :: chanel rivoli, mac party time, mac mystic, ysl rouge vermillion, guerlain grenade
MORE INFO AFTER THE BREAK...


mac :: party time

i'm assuming that the reason mac thought to discontinue "mystic" in the first place was because they'd introduced a newer variation on the shade in their permanent line when they launched their "cremesheen" formula.

like "mystic", "party line" is a plummy red, medium to dark in tone. cremesheen lipsticks have a shine and an emollient consistency that has won them many fans. personally, i like the formula, although i find it can be a little drying. like many cremesheens, "party time" doesn't have a lot of nuance to it- there's no shimmer and, although swatches look similar on the arm, i find you can't ever get "party line" to build up to the intensity of "mystic". it's not quite as opaque either, but it is a very pretty shade. i have to admit that, while you can clearly see the difference under certain light, at a quick glance they look very close on the lips.

yves st. laurent :: rouge vermillion

this is part of the ysl "rouge pur couture" line, one of my very favourite lipstick formulas. rich and opaque, "rouge vermillion is a little lighter than "mystic" and a little closer to a true red, but it's still restrained enough that it looks similar. very, very elegant.

chanel :: rivoli

this is one of chanel's "rouge coco" lipsticks, which means it's intense and opaque, with a satiny sheen, much like the original "mystic". it is noticeably bluer/ pinker and a little lighter, which means i think it would work as a substitute chiefly for ladies with cooler complexions.

guerlain :: grenade

while this captures the understated red aspect of "mystic", it is quite a bit lighter. it looks more the way "mystic" looks after it's faded a little. "grenade", though, is the only shade i found that has the same quality of looking cooler or warmer depending on the light and, while the differences are clear, it is still in the same family.

since party time was the closest match i've found [makes sense that mac would be best at duplicating their own colour], i thought i'd show you how both shades compare with all other things being equal. here's a quick look i tried with both shades. [it also features mac's new "prolongwear" eye shadows. i picked up a few and i've been quite happy with the satiny texture and the selection of very wearable shades. i'm less happy about the price, but at least you get a lot of product. they are long-lasting, although honestly, shadows last pretty well on me to begin with, so they don't seem that much more effective than most other powder shadows.]


you are not seeing double
you are not seeing double












mystic
products used

face ::
mac prolongwear foundation "nc15"
diorskin nude concealer "001"

eyes ::
mac prolongwear e/s "sweet satisfaction" [frosted deep beige]
mac prolongwear e/s "one to watch" [soft terracotta brown]
nars e/s "night star" [sparkly light yellow-peach]
mac superslick liquid liner "desires & devices" [deep swampy green]
party line
mac pigment "partylicious" [super-bright tuquoise]
mac eye kohl "smolder" [black]
benefit they're real mascara

cheeks ::
mac blush "breezy" [shimmery red raspberry]

lips ::
mac l/s "mystic"
mac l/s "party line"


any other potential matches you've found?

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: hot stuff, comin' through

i don't even know what to say about the weather. the end of september saw temperatures at a scalding 36c/ 97f outside. this is especially annoying because we've had a moderate summer. most days it rained a little in the morning, the temperatures didn't creep into the 30s too often and there wasn't the normal stretch of a few weeks when it felt like we were living on the sun. now, we've receded into more normal fall weather, although it's still on the warm side for mid-october. that climate change thing is a bitch.

trying to think of something positive in the situation, it does put me in a perfect frame of mind to write about urban decay's naked heat palette. it's the latest in what appears to be an endless series of warm neutral and red eyeshadow palettes that have followed in the footsteps of anastasia's modern renaissance. [which i ultimately decided i didn't need after doing a thorough search of my considerable stash.] i do think that it'…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…