Originally Posted by lovelux2010
i'm set on the beaufort now..but still undecided about sykkoil or original wax. the information i recieved in store at Barbour in London - the girl said both will age equally well (which i doubt is accurate)
the blog with the chap who has both has said the sylkoil one has aged better (looks more "worn" but in a good way) while other souces including some in this forum say the original wax will look silly for first while but will age better than sykoil..
i even emailed Barbour myself but no one has been good enough to reply..
i wonder if original wax the way to go...perhaps sylkoil just a marketing ploy, i mean - as far as i understand sylkoil did not exist and is NOT the "original" formula..
anyways all very confusing putting me off buying one all together, especially as different people at Barbour gave me different answers..no one has a clue
The difference isn't in the wax it's in the cotton - the wax is the same.
Sylkoil cotton is uncalendered and hence slightly fluffy, Thornproof (I think that is what you mean by original) uses calendered cotton. Because the Sylkoil cotton hasn't been calendered through rollers, as the wax wears the finish looks 'soft/worn' more quickly, whereas the smoother Thornproof takes longer to show wear. As to which looks better that depends what you want.
The Thornproof is marginally more snag resistant than the Sylkoil, but it's pretty marginal at the same cloth weight, the bigger difference is the thornproof is often available in a heavier cloth weight.
Barbours of the 30's -40's used uncalendered cotton so sylkoil is technically the 'original' finish, in the 70's-80's they were pretty much all made using calendered cotton. Neither is really more 'authentic'.