What Happened To Solv-x?

[mstone]

I may have cracked the case. While the name Solv-X is not mentioned by name, there are allusions to it's purported qualities in an old patent application. I believe Solv-X was a combination of Phenol, (fungicide) and amyl-xanthale, a flow enhancer. The latter chemical is referred to in the followings ways; "flow promoter" and "the trend of flotation." [/size][/font]I think Phenol was the "solvent," (Solv) and the amyl-xanthale provided the "X." Hence, Solv-X.

 

This patent seems to be discussing the alkaline precursor to skrip (the one that clogged if mixed with acidic ink) rather than skrip. (Interestingly, it talks about nib creep--apparently a topic of concern even 80 years ago.)

 

edit: actually scratch that guess about the skrip precursor--I wasn't really thinking about the timeframe. But, still, they're talking about dumping lye into the ink--I seem to recall most of the skrips (all but jet black?) being acidic.

 

- then again- it takes about 10 years to get a patent.

 

Average wait time isn't anywhere near 10 years even today, and was much lower 80 years ago. They definitely wouldn't have held off using the technology just because they were waiting on a patent, they would have just slapped "patent pending" on the side.

Edited November 20, 2010 by mstone

[corniche]

I may have cracked the case. While the name Solv-X is not mentioned by name, there are allusions to it's purported qualities in an old patent application. I believe Solv-X was a combination of Phenol, (fungicide) and amyl-xanthale, a flow enhancer. The latter chemical is referred to in the followings ways; "flow promoter" and "the trend of flotation." [/font]I think Phenol was the "solvent," (Solv) and the amyl-xanthale provided the "X." Hence, Solv-X.

 

This patent seems to be discussing the alkaline precursor to skrip (the one that clogged if mixed with acidic ink) rather than skrip. (Interestingly, it talks about nib creep--apparently a topic of concern even 80 years ago.)

 

edit: actually scratch that guess about the skrip precursor--I wasn't really thinking about the timeframe. But, still, they're talking about dumping lye into the ink--I seem to recall most of the skrips (all but jet black?) being acidic.

 

- then again- it takes about 10 years to get a patent.

 

Average wait time isn't anywhere near 10 years even today, and was much lower 80 years ago. They definitely wouldn't have held off using the technology just because they were waiting on a patent, they would have just slapped "patent pending" on the side.

 

Greetings mstone,

 

The patent info I supplied is for Parker inks- it has nothing to do with Sheaffer's Skrip. If you take the time to read the patent app. carefully, you will clearly see that they, (Parker), had concerns about highly acidic inks- this formula is designed to REDUCE acidity by adding alkalines, as well as reduce gunk build-up through the "increased trend of flotation." Ironically, (I say not ironically), both issues that Solv-X was supposed to address.

 

Moreover, I remember hearing on one of those A&E or History Channel programs, (I wish I could remember the one- it was several years ago), where they said it usually takes 7-10 years to get a patent- that is why you are allowed to use the "technology" in the interim period; using the patent pending mark- and I've seen that mark on products run several years and more!

 

Furthermore, when did I ever infer in any of my posts that Parker "held-off" on using technology because the patent was pending? It may very well be that Parker had been using that formula between 1933 and 1943, when the Solv-X name was introduced. It would not be the first time a company applied a new name to existing technology in the hopes of expanding their market share or improving their corporate image.

 

Best regards,

 

Sean

 

 

* Edit, fixed typos & adjusted text.

Edited November 20, 2010 by S. P. Colfer

[Fuddlestack]

...

Average wait time isn't anywhere near 10 years even today, and was much lower 80 years ago. They definitely wouldn't have held off using the technology just because they were waiting on a patent, they would have just slapped "patent pending" on the side.

 

As an aside, when I was a child I had a plastic toy motor-cycle and rider. On the bottom was stamped "Pat Pend", so my sister and I decided that that was the rider's name.

[Fuddlestack]

...

well, some past ages were ridiculously credulous.

...

You must be unfamiliar with the patent medicine craze.

 

How about the current alternative medicine craze? Same difference. People are no less creduous these days.

 

Someone will now protest that alternative medicine really works. I rest my case.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Fuddlestack

[mstone]

The patent info I supplied is for Parker inks- it has nothing to do with Sheaffer's Skrip. If you take the time to read the patent app. carefully, you will clearly see that they, (Parker), had concerns about highly acidic inks- this formula is designed to REDUCE acidity by adding alkalines, as well as reduce gunk build-up through the "increased trend of flotation." Ironically, (I say not ironically), both issues that Solv-X was supposed to address.

 

this is why I shouldn't post late at night. This, then, makes complete sense for what I was pondering overnight, that the ink described really sounds like superchrome. (The extremely alkaline nature, and metallic salts.) If that's the case, it definitely doesn't have anything to do with skrip.

 

Moreover, I remember hearing on one of those A&E or History Channel programs, (I wish I could remember the one- it was several years ago), where they said it usually takes 7-10 years to get a patent- that is why you are allowed to use the "technology" in the interim period; using the patent pending mark- and I've seen that mark on products run several years and more!

 

Note that the application is dated 1931 and the patent was granted in 1933.

[corniche]

Greetings mstone,

 

This is not a patent for Superchrome inks- they did not come out until 20 years later, in the early '50s- and I think their formulation was more alkaline than this one. I think I've made enough of a case that Solv-X really did exist and it was not a mythological marketing ploy. EXACTLY what it was, or EXACTLY how it was developed, (the patent information I provided was meant only to show how Parker was moving in that direction, that is why I said, the patents don't mention Solv-X by name), or why it was removed will probably remain in the dark, cob-webbed corridors of time. However, that said, I think I am going to make this my last "argument" with you, because I believe it is foolish to argue with another man over an ink additive from 70 years ago.

 

All the best,

 

Sean

Edited November 20, 2010 by S. P. Colfer

[mstone]

This is not a patent for Superchrome inks- they did not come out until 20 years later, in the early '50s

 

51 ink, superchrome, basically the same stuff. Was designed before the 51 pen, then they needed a pen (the 51) that the ink wouldn't eat. 51 development dates to the late 30s.

 

Here's a thread where someone describes finding patent 1,932,248 in a booklet included with a bottle of superchrome: http://www.collectingbanter.com/archive/index.php/t-139180.html

[SamCapote]

Even the Russians are obsessed with this mystery.

 

Then there's this whole archive hashing out the whole issue in much more detail than we even imagined.

 

WOW, check out this ParkerPens.net archives site. You could spend days reading.

Edited November 21, 2010 by SamCapote

[welch]

I think Sean has got it. The earlier, speculative, threads spun around the notion that phenol was in Solv-X. That's in the patent. The date fits: the patent is earlier than the advertising. Assume that it took a few years for Parker's ink department to come up with a need to publicize Solv-X. Phenol would be dangerous to workers in the ink factory, but insignificant to users. Sometime in the '90s Parker must have shifted ink-making to France, and come under EU OSHA regulation. Solv-X vanishes.

 

Yes, I'll write to Parker and ask why they stopped putting Solv-X in their ink. Such an obvipous solution that I didn't think of it!

 

Note: a friend brought back a bottle of blue Quink from India last year. It has Solv-X. Ink is actually made by Parker's distributor in India, so they would not have been governed by EU regulations.

 

(...and Sheaffer's RC-35 is another lingering mystery. RC-35, the component that could be read under ultra-violet light even after Skrip had been washed away or eradicated...at least the W.A. Sheaffer Pen Company says so oon the box I'm reading.)

[SamCapote]

I think Sean has got it. The earlier, speculative, threads spun around the notion that phenol was in Solv-X. That's in the patent. The date fits: the patent is earlier than the advertising. Assume that it took a few years for Parker's ink department to come up with a need to publicize Solv-X. Phenol would be dangerous to workers in the ink factory, but insignificant to users. Sometime in the '90s Parker must have shifted ink-making to France, and come under EU OSHA regulation. Solv-X vanishes.

 

Yes, I'll write to Parker and ask why they stopped putting Solv-X in their ink. Such an obvipous solution that I didn't think of it!

 

Note: a friend brought back a bottle of blue Quink from India last year. It has Solv-X. Ink is actually made by Parker's distributor in India, so they would not have been governed by EU regulations.

 

(...and Sheaffer's RC-35 is another lingering mystery. RC-35, the component that could be read under ultra-violet light even after Skrip had been washed away or eradicated...at least the W.A. Sheaffer Pen Company says so oon the box I'm reading.)

 

There's people in those last links I gave that know a lot more about all this than our guessing or inferring from patents.

[corniche]

Thank you Welch.

 

Hopefully you will be able to confirm this with your friend, I believe the Parker distributor for India is Modern Enterprises, based in Maharashtra, (link below). Unfortunately, I am unable to meet his minimum purchase of 1,000 bottles; I can only afford 989 bottles. Perhaps your friend can relay to you a website where we can purchase the Parker ink with Solv-X from India. Watch_art is sending me a couple of samples, but I would really like to try this ink out in a more universal fashion.

 

Parker of India (I think???)

 

All the best,

 

Sean

[welch]

I think Parker is sold in India by license to Luxor (http://www.luxor.in/), and I remember "Luxor" in the small print on my bottle. (Unfortunately, I used the ink...)

 

Extra:

 

- Tony F's archives article is great in itself, but I can't find a discussion of ink.

 

- Lion&Pen has fascinating info, but only briefly touches on Solv-X, and then only to only to knock down a suggestion, part fanciful, that Solv-X was the detergent "All". A visitor to Janesville in the early '80s learned that Parker had used detergent to soften the innards of the Parker 61 so the 61 would absorb ink more easily.

Edited November 22, 2010 by welch

[PTLaw]

I remember reading somewhere, I think in another thread on this network, that Solv-X was actually All liquid detergent.

 

Philippa (@PTLaw)

[watch_art]

I read once that Solv-X is the juice squeezed from the hearts of leprechauns. :roflmho:

[dcwaites]

I read once that Solv-X is the juice squeezed from the hearts of leprechauns. :roflmho:

 

Ssshhh!! Don't tell everybody...

[corniche]

I read once that Solv-X is the juice squeezed from the hearts of leprechauns. :roflmho:

 

Hello Watch_Art,

 

Being Irish, that may explain why I like the smell.

 

Best regards,

 

Sean

[SamCapote]

I'm looking at an old box/bottle of MontBlanc "Coffee Brown" in plastic container which also says "With SuperCleaner SC 16," and guess what is the predominant smell...you guessed it! Phenol.

 

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/MB-Coffees.jpg

[Gojira]

OTT...but that old plastic MontBlanc bottle is exactly the same as the ones used by Wancher inks!

 

As for Solv-X...all I can say is that my bottle of 'Permanent' Quink Blue-Black with Solv-X is rather sticky. Err...it just feels that way. Feels fine coming out of a pen although on the dryish side but definitely not as free-flowing as Waterman inks.

[Joane]

As for Solv-X...all I can say is that my bottle of 'Permanent' Quink Blue-Black with Solv-X is rather sticky. Err...it just feels that way. Feels fine coming out of a pen although on the dryish side but definitely not as free-flowing as Waterman inks.

It could have experienced some evaporation.

[Chris]

I'm looking at an old box/bottle of MontBlanc "Coffee Brown" in plastic container which also says "With SuperCleaner SC 16," and guess what is the predominant smell...you guessed it! Phenol.

 

<a href="

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/MB-Coffee.jpg"

TARGET=_BLANK><img src="

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/Inks/MB-Coffees.jpg"

width="500" height="317"></a>

 

This bottle looks like a catastophe waiting to happen

How was it propped up? I've never seen one of these before.

 

Chris