Recently, there has been significant research into magnesium batteries due to their potential as a beyond Li-ion technology. This is due to a number of beneficial properties of the Mg negative electrode, including high volumetric capacity, twice that of metallic Li (Figure 1) and lack of dendritic growth on cycling.1,2 However, current electrolytes are insufficiently stable to the Mg electrode, leading to reduction of the electrolyte and formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI), which is believed to be detrimental to performance.3-7 Furthermore, a majority of reports have used noble metal electrodes to assess the suitability of electrolytes with Mg, which is not representative of the conditions in a practical Mg battery.8,9 Here, we probe the cycling behavior of bulk Mg electrodes in two electrolytes, one Grignard-based (BuMgCl in THF) and the other glyme ether-based (Mg(TFSI)2 in TEGDME). Cyclic voltammetry identified different plating and stripping behaviour in each electrolyte, with the Grignard demonstrating plating/stripping typical for a bulk electrode, while Mg stripping in the glyme ether resulted in a finite peak in the cyclic voltammetry. This unexpected result suggests a protective SEI forms on the Mg surface in the glyme ether, which critically still allows Mg-ion diffusion. The nature of the SEI in both electrodes was characterised using FTIR spectroscopy and SEM imaging, confirming that the nature of the SEI is dependent on the electrolyte and that it affects the way in which Mg electrodes cycle. Our results suggest that it is possible to protect Mg electrodes with a stable SEI and allow the use of electrolytes with increased oxidative stability. Reference s : [1] M. Matsui, J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 7048–7055.[2] J. Song, E. Sahadeo, M. Noked, S. B. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7 (2016) 1736–1749.[3] M.-S. Park, J.-G. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, N.-S. Choi, J.-S. Kim, Isr. J. Chem. 55 (2015) 570–585.[4] S. Y. Ha, Y. W. Lee, S. W .Woo, B. Koo, J. S. Kim, J. Cho, K. T. Lee, N. S. Choi, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6 (2014) 4063–4073.[5] I. Shterenberg, M. Salama, H. D. Yoo, Y. Gofer, J.-B. Park, Y.-K. Sun, D. Aurbach, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (2015) A7118-A7128.[6] O. Tutusaus, R. Mohtadi, N. Singh, T. S. Arthur, F. Mizuno, ACS Energy Lett. 2 (2017) 224-229.[7] M, S. Ding, T. Diemant, R. J. Behm, S. Passerini, G. A. Giffin, J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, (2018) A1983-A1990[8] K. Ta, K. A. See, A. A. Gewirth, J. Phys. Chem. C 122 (2018) 13790–13796.[9] J. G. Connell, B. Genorio, P. Papa, D. Strmcnik, V. R. Stamenkovic, N. M. Markovic, Chem. Mater. 28 (2016) 8268–8277. Figure 1