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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …