Best Archival Quality Ink

[Sandy1]

  On 8/12/2010 at 10:02 PM, Northwoods said:

The iron gall inks are great for nostalgic reasons, but they're not strictly necessary today for permanence. When the choice was between iron gall and lamp black, it wasn't much of a choice. Lamp black could wash off and wouldn't adhere to parchment (animal skin). But there are modern inks that will hold fast to paper leaving a lasting impression.

 

How lasting? Well, for one, don't expect FP inks to be 100% waterproof. They are water based, after all, and what doesn't chemically bind with the paper will wash away in water. Fading? Some inks are better than others with regards to UV resistance. Chemical fading? Again, mileage varies. Depending how long you intend to archive, you'll want to consider neutral pH for both ink and paper or all the permanence of the ink will be for naught if the ink (or acidity of the paper itself) causes the paper to deteriorate.

 

Archival quality is a term that gets toss around and everyone (even manufacturers) see it differently. Look at what your needs are, look at the characteristics of existing inks, and find the one that best meets your needs. You may not find one that covers every base, especially with a fountain pen ink, so rank importance and be willing to make some compromises. You can see here that everyone has their own preferences and they vary nearly as much as the respondents, who each have their own reasons for liking what they do. And like each of us, you'll find the one that best suits you as well.

+1

[impossiblebird]

  On 8/11/2010 at 2:25 PM, tonybelding said:

I'd just point out that Noodler's waterproof inks come in different categories. . .

 

Baystate Blue -- Waterproof, but vulnerable to household bleach or extended sunlight (UV rays). The other Baystate inks are not waterproof.

 

Eternal -- Cellulose reactive ink that is completely waterproof and has good resistance to bleach and UV.

 

Bulletproof -- Cellulose reactive ink that is completely waterproof and has extreme resistance to bleach and UV.

 

Warden -- Ink with both a cellulose reactive "bulletproof" component and another component to resist energy attacks. It's not completely waterproof because the energy-resistant component washes out. (Texas Blue Bonnet also falls into this category, although not advertised as a warden ink.)

 

As regards the Warden series: I've noticed they're quite a long way away from being completely waterproof. I have to say, though, it hadn't occurred to me that it might be the energy-resistant component that washes out; surely this implies that this property of the ink could be completely removed (for example, by cheque fraudsters) by washing the paper before wacking it with the laser? Not that this possibility keeps me awake at night, but if energy-resistance is the selling point...

 

As a confirmed lazybones, I'd be reaching for the Diamine Registrar's ink (although, as a confirmed lazybones, it's a moot point whether I'd be embarking on such a project in the first place), since there's no time beforehand for properly meaningful tests of the archival properties of alternative inks. As a confirmed scientist, I might include samples to test the permanence of various "bulletproof" inks might prove of interest to future generations, but, if the inks in question were no longer in production at that time, they would be of academic interest only. So I'd definitely make duplicates, or at least samples, in a home-made archival ink endorsed for treaties and such as pharmacist suggests, and include the recipe with my archive, so those future folks wouldn't have far to look for an answer, with proof, to the same question as the OP posted...

[mstone]

  On 8/13/2010 at 4:12 AM, Sandy1 said:

I see no relationship between UV resistance and permanence.

 

That much is obvious. But the reason (as far as I can tell) that you recommended the R&K is it contains IG components. IG doesn't fade. So if the ink fades, the amount of IG is low at best (which should be obvious anyway, since the inks don't age to a deep black). That was the full extent of my initial comment, and I don't understand why that set you off so much. If you have some other reason to believe that the R&K ink you mentioned is archival, other than the IG claim, please state it.

 

  Quote

But I cannot make a direct connection why those admirable attributes contribute to longevity of a properly prepared and stored record. (No criminals toting bleach, nasty chems, gases or lasers in my Archive.)

 

Well, in the absence of the ability to test things for several hundred years the best one can do is accelerated aging tests. UV and heat are two things used in such tests. Guess what one of the easiest ways is to subject paper to UV and heat? Yup, you stick it in the sun. (Curiously, those inks which are known to have good longevity--those with significant IG components and carbon-based inks--pass that poor-man's test with flying colors.) Does this mean that people plan to store their important documents outside? No--and I don't really understand why you keep bringing up that red herring. But unless you're creating a document which is never viewed (in which case, what's the point?) or one which is important enough to be kept under UV-filtered glass in an a noble gas environment (one can always dream) the document will be exposed to UV over time, the UV's effects are cumulative, and a sunlight test will give some insight into how the material will react. Also, the UV exposure accelerates chemical breakdown which will occur in darkness as well, though at a much slower rate. Again, the materials known to be good for archival purposes have no problems passing this test. Does that mean that materials which do pass the test are definitely archival? No--but it is certainly reasonable to question materials which fail. And if you have a better way to perform accelerated aging tests at home (because, as you pointed, the manufacturers' claims should not be taken on faith) I'd love to hear about it, and I'll certainly use that methodology on my inks and post the results.

[Northwoods]

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:48 PM, mstone said:

And if you have a better way to perform accelerated aging tests at home (because, as you pointed, the manufacturers' claims should not be taken on faith) I'd love to hear about it, and I'll certainly use that methodology on my inks and post the results.

You can always add chemical components to aging tests. Mess with the pH. Give it a vinegar or baking soda wash. Give it a peroxide wash to flood it with oxygen. If it stands up to that and sun bleaching, I wouldn't have any qualms about personally using it for anything I wanted to keep for the ages.

 

 

 

[tonybelding]

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:18 PM, impossiblebird said:

...it hadn't occurred to me that it might be the energy-resistant component that washes out; surely this implies that this property of the ink could be completely removed (for example, by cheque fraudsters) by washing the paper before wacking it with the laser?

 

That is my understanding. Mr. Tardiff didn't spell it out in so many words, but he did compare the Warden inks with a "combination lock". So, I reckon you could rinse and/or bleach out the energy-resistant part, then use a laser to burn out the remaining ink. If the paper was tamper-resistant in any way (like most checks) then it should become apparent that it had been altered. Thus. . . It's not impossible to erase, but the hurdles for a forger would be high indeed.

[mstone]

  On 8/13/2010 at 1:07 PM, Northwoods said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:48 PM, mstone said:

And if you have a better way to perform accelerated aging tests at home (because, as you pointed, the manufacturers' claims should not be taken on faith) I'd love to hear about it, and I'll certainly use that methodology on my inks and post the results.

You can always add chemical components to aging tests. Mess with the pH. Give it a vinegar or baking soda wash. Give it a peroxide wash to flood it with oxygen. If it stands up to that and sun bleaching, I wouldn't have any qualms about personally using it for anything I wanted to keep for the ages.

See the torture tests in the ink reviews subforum. But people will probably really hate the idea of storing archival materials in peroxide.

[altair]

I'd be hard pressed to choose between Noodler's and iron gall ink just on the basis of archival properties. Either should last for centuries.

 

If I were worried about fraud I'd choose a Noodler's Bulletproof for its bleach resistance.

 

If I were using a flex nib I'd choose an iron gall ink. The extreme dryness produces very fine hairlines. The ink is also completely waterproof because it reacts to air. When a nib comes off flex it dumps an extra load of ink that flows back a short distance over the surface of the written line. With cellulose reactive inks this can leave tiny pools of unreacted ink on top of the bonded ink which will smear when wetted.

 

Horses for courses. As usual.

[wallylynn]

  On 8/13/2010 at 1:33 PM, tonybelding said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:18 PM, impossiblebird said:

...it hadn't occurred to me that it might be the energy-resistant component that washes out; surely this implies that this property of the ink could be completely removed (for example, by cheque fraudsters) by washing the paper before wacking it with the laser?

 

That is my understanding. Mr. Tardiff didn't spell it out in so many words, but he did compare the Warden inks with a "combination lock". So, I reckon you could rinse and/or bleach out the energy-resistant part, then use a laser to burn out the remaining ink. If the paper was tamper-resistant in any way (like most checks) then it should become apparent that it had been altered. Thus. . . It's not impossible to erase, but the hurdles for a forger would be high indeed.

Hmmm, interesting... There was a post or two way back when the warden line first came out. It said BSB was the most resistant to laser attack. Thus I'm surprised to hear that it's the energy resistant part to wash out, BSB as we know is very water-resistant. Ah well, it's all hearsay and wild guesses.

[wallylynn]

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:48 PM, mstone said:

That much is obvious. But the reason (as far as I can tell) that you recommended the R&K is it contains IG components. IG doesn't fade.

 

Guess what one of the easiest ways is to subject paper to UV and heat? Yup, you stick it in the sun. (Curiously, those inks which are known to have good longevity--those with significant IG components and carbon-based inks--pass that poor-man's test with flying colors.)

 

I put a sample of Lamy Bottled Blue-black in my windows for a year. It's now a pale brown... No Black anywhere. Seems to have finished fading though. The writing in my journal is a dark grey however, darker than when I first wrote with it.

 

On the other hand, I have Manhattan Blue in the same window. That was good for 6 months. Then it turned pale green since I think winter condensation messed it up. It's only partly water resistant. I had to restart that test.

 

I'll put some MB-MB (Blue-black) in my window and report back next year. It's much darker than my Lamy. So wait until then, and do remind me to post my results.

 

Curiously, there are a lot of websites that claim the Declaration of Independence was written with Pokeberry ink. I don't believe it (probably parroting each other, I think they used iron-gall), but if it's true, that's an actual 200 yr test. Pokeberries are in season. I have a bottle fermenting on my desk.

[Lloyd]

  On 8/13/2010 at 7:39 PM, altair said:

I'd be hard pressed to choose between Noodler's and iron gall ink just on the basis of archival properties. Either should last for centuries.

 

If I were worried about fraud I'd choose a Noodler's Bulletproof for its bleach resistance.

 

If I were using a flex nib I'd choose an iron gall ink. The extreme dryness produces very fine hairlines. The ink is also completely waterproof because it reacts to air. When a nib comes off flex it dumps an extra load of ink that flows back a short distance over the surface of the written line. With cellulose reactive inks this can leave tiny pools of unreacted ink on top of the bonded ink which will smear when wetted.

 

Horses for courses. As usual.

Perfectly stated.

[Sandy1]

  On 8/13/2010 at 12:48 PM, mstone said:

... And if you have a better way to perform accelerated aging tests at home (because, as you pointed, the manufacturers' claims should not be taken on faith) I'd love to hear about it, and I'll certainly use that methodology on my inks and post the results.

 

Thank-you for seeking my advice.

 

'Tests', as you use the term, require a means to control the process and evaluate the results relevant to what is in fact being tested. Sticking something outdoors may well be a means to add heat (depending on geographic location - places with cold winters need not apply) and UV, but one also picks up atmospheric stuff - pollution. In an urban environment, one may be actually testing the resistance of ink and paper to pollution - not so much just addional UV and heat. Ah me. My faith in such a methodology/process really takes a beating.

 

But, I brought more than pickles to the party:

A suggestion that I'm surprised no one has mentioned: Compare whatever ink + paper combo to an ink + paper combo known to be and 'certified' as Archival. ... Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

I think perhaps use the RBs that are compliant with the relevant ISO standard, and do a side-by-side with x, y, z FP ink from inked-up FP pens. (Also an i-g ink and a Noodler's BP as 'controls'.?)

 

You are unlikely to get 'values', rather 'more or less' (pass-fail). The relevant properties which place an RB ink in the Archival category can be deduced.

For example, if the colour fades, but the line/shape remains visible/legible to the unaided eye, then that's an OK result for FP ink too = PASS in that aspect.

 

I'm sure I won't be the only one to be surprised by your results.

 

You may wish to post your methodology for peer review in advance of your 'tests'; other wise, I await your posts of findings. So I don't miss them, please send a PM when complete. Have fun!

 

Bye,

S1

(Kippers for breakfast again.)

[mstone]

  On 8/14/2010 at 7:02 AM, Sandy1 said:

'Tests', as you use the term, require a means to control the process and evaluate the results relevant to what is in fact being tested. Sticking something outdoors may well be a means to add heat (depending on geographic location - places with cold winters need not apply) and UV, but one also picks up atmospheric stuff - pollution.

 

Well, that's why I don't stick them outdoors. Those tests tend to end in the paper falling apart. I generally leave them in a sun-facing window. It is important to make sure that you aren't using the newer UV-filtered glass, as that will really boost how long this takes.

 

  Quote

I'm sure I won't be the only one to be surprised by your results.

 

So far you haven't proposed anything that different from what's already in the ink torture test subforum.

[Sandy1]

  On 8/14/2010 at 12:01 PM, mstone said:

  On 8/14/2010 at 7:02 AM, Sandy1 said:

'Tests', as you use the term, require a means to control the process and evaluate the results relevant to what is in fact being tested. Sticking something outdoors may well be a means to add heat (depending on geographic location - places with cold winters need not apply) and UV, but one also picks up atmospheric stuff - pollution.

 

Well, that's why I don't stick them outdoors. Those tests tend to end in the paper falling apart. I generally leave them in a sun-facing window. It is important to make sure that you aren't using the newer UV-filtered glass, as that will really boost how long this takes.

 

  Quote

I'm sure I won't be the only one to be surprised by your results.

 

So far you haven't proposed anything that different from what's already in the ink torture test subforum.

 

Well, it seems you have numerous problem/s I can't fix or won't fix. Some of them have to do with the OP.

I have no iinterest in 'Torture Tests'; and what brought that on I have no idea, and I don't want to know. (I think the Noodler's Prize was already claimed.)

I have no interest in your opinion of my suggestions: you asked for them, I gave them, and you dismiss them. Real constructive/progressive behaviour, no?

Well, at least I now know to ignore any conclusions drawn from your 'tests'.

I will not re-engage.

 

I'd ask you to summarise what's in the 'Torture Test Subforum' methods, results, but that's pointless.

[IWantThat]

Wow, as the original poster, I'd say we're waaaaay off topic...with 'torture tests.' I've enjoyed reading all the tips given regarding ink options

[mstone]

  On 8/14/2010 at 3:05 PM, Sandy1 said:

Well, it seems you have numerous problem/s I can't fix or won't fix. Some of them have to do with the OP.

I have no iinterest in 'Torture Tests'; and what brought that on I have no idea, and I don't want to know. (I think the Noodler's Prize was already claimed.)

I have no interest in your opinion of my suggestions: you asked for them, I gave them, and you dismiss them. Real constructive/progressive behaviour, no?

 

You proposed putting various samples in the sun for comparison. If you look in the tests subforum you'll find fade tests with various samples placed in the sun for comparison. I solicited suggestions for accelerated aging tests not involving sun/uv exposure, since you were the one who seemed aghast at the idea that someone would store their archival materials in bright sunlight.

 

  Quote

Well, at least I now know to ignore any conclusions drawn from your 'tests'.

I will not re-engage.

 

I'd ask you to summarise what's in the 'Torture Test Subforum' methods, results, but that's pointless.

 

I kinda figured it would be pointless, since that's been your attitude from the beginning. If you were actually interested you'd look around and see what people have already done before criticizing it.

[Pat1]

  On 8/14/2010 at 7:18 PM, mstone said:

I kinda figured it would be pointless, since that's been your attitude from the beginning. If you were actually interested you'd look around and see what people have already done before criticizing it.

I looked and coodnt make sence

[Pat1]

  On 8/14/2010 at 7:18 PM, mstone said:

I kinda figured it would be pointless, since that's been your attitude from the beginning. If you were actually interested you'd look around and see what people have already done before criticizing it.

I looked and coodnt make sence

[scunepo]

I use De Atramentis Document Ink. A permanent and waterproof ink that conforms to ISO 12757 part 2 for archival quality. Suitable for all fountain pens.

[Chris1]

Indeed, look for the ISO standard as a pretty good guide to long-lastingness.

 

Of course, Registrars' records have to be long-lasting and so their ink is a good place to start, whether it is the Diamine version or bought from ESS.

 

As this very interesting thread has shown, there are many alternatives when searching for a long-lasting ink, however defined.

 

Just a quick word on Montblanc blue-black, or Midnight Blue as it is, or was, called; I have several bottles left that are 'square' shoe bottles and came in dark blue boxes. I bought a dozen or more of them perhaps eight or more years ago. Most were labelled 'permanent for documents' and had the number 105194 on the box; they were certainly iron gall formulations. However, one was not labelled 'permanent for documents' and had a different number on the box; this I discovered was not an iron gall formulation and although similar in colour, was not the same ink. I sold the empty bottles and boxes so I'm sorry but can't say what the other number was. 

 

I believe the non-permanent one was the more recent version, or so I was told as the time when the work was that the permanent version was being discontinued. Certainly, I couldn't get any more of the permanent version anywhere in London or online. In any event, I believe that the old Midnight Blue has long since been superseded by the current MB inks in white boxes; MB has both Permanent Blue and Permanent Black, as well as other colours; I have a bottle of Permanent Black, though I have used neither it nor the Permanent Blue so can't comment on its resilience. 

 

 

[Chris1]

Sorry, that should be word, not work.