Diamine Majestic Blue

[Bhavna]

Dear Sandy,

 

Thank you for an incredible review :clap1: . I have ordered a batch of Diamine inks including Majestic, and I cannot wait to ink up and road-test them. So many people have mentioned Penman Sapphire - does anyone know why Parker discontinued , and what we need to do to bring it (and the exquisite Ruby) back?!

 

Thanks again,

Bhavna

 

Hi,

 

You're welcome!

 

Please let us know of your experience with the Diamine inks!

 

Ah, Penman Sapphire. ♥ IIRC it was discontinued due to problems with clogging in some pens, which caused an undue burden on the Parker repair depot. Some have speculated that the root cause was inadequate pen hygiene by users, who were used to simple inks with low dye-load / saturation. . . . I've posted a review of PPS, which now includes written samples that support ad hoc comparison to most of the other Blue inks that I've reviewed, Post №29 LINK. . . . I have no idea what could be done to bring about the return of PPS.

 

Bye,

S1

 

Hi Sandy,

 

Thank you for the link to your PPS review - simply 'WOW'. It looks incredible with the Safari. I am grateful also for the comparison to the PR American Blue, not a bad close second! I shall indeed update with my Diamine experience. Specifically the Majestic blue as there is such concern.

 

By the way, I love the forensic approach, not OCD at all!!

 

Warm regards,

Bhavna

[JeanManuel]

What a baroque review.

 

About the flow - I think this ink is on the drier side. I recommend a wetter pen, to benefit from the rich color depth (here I use it with a Sheaffer no nonsense M).

 

About the bleedthrough - not that bad. On my finnish 80g/m2 UPM office paper, t's a bit higher than with MB black. It's like half lower than with R&K verdigris. And it's about the same as Diamine Oxblood.

 

It has a lovely saturation and I strongly recommend to try this ink, for its deep color.

[Sandy1]

What a baroque review.

 

About the flow - I think this ink is on the drier side. I recommend a wetter pen, to benefit from the rich color depth (here I use it with a Sheaffer no nonsense M).

 

About the bleedthrough - not that bad. On my finnish 80g/m2 UPM office paper, t's a bit higher than with MB black. It's like half lower than with R&K verdigris. And it's about the same as Diamine Oxblood.

 

It has a lovely saturation and I strongly recommend to try this ink, for its deep color.

Hi,

 

Thanks for sharing your experience with this ink, and mentioning the specific pen+papers used.

 

I used to use the Sheaffer No Nonsense pens, until I gifted them to those who wanted to try using an FP. (I really should replace the Red one.) In terms of wetness, I found them to be 'normal', if not just a bit dry, which is great for a casual carry pen that should be capable of handling most papers encountered.

 

I do not have the 80gsm paper you mention. Of late I use the 'Staples' brand 20lb copy/printer paper for my 'lowest bidder' paper, which was picked-up during a stateside business trip for about USD4/ream.

Such papers are notoriously inconsistent to use with FPs: I imagine their manufacturing specifications / product profile addresses compatibility with printers, copiers and ballpoint pens - not FPs. I was loathe to use such a paper in my Reviews, but something seems to be better than nothing, so long as the reader knows such samples are flakey.

My primary use for 20lb paper is for ephemera, which is mostly 'own use', so I am not too fussy about it. Yet others may be using similar as their primary paper, so I choose not to ignore such paper; but for reasons above, temper my results with lots of 'YMMV'. Also, as I am now including one 20lb paper in my Reviews, readers may see how various inks perform on that paper: reinforcing the fact that my results are not definitive, but consistent enough to allow relative comparison.

 

So, here are scans of the obverse side of Staples 20lb & HPJ1124 24lb papers:

 

Majestic Blue on Staples:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN%20Stuff%20-%202011/Ink%20Review%20-%20Diamine%20Majestic%20Blue/665a06dd.jpg

 

Majestic Blue on HPJ1124:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN%20Stuff%20-%202011/Ink%20Review%20-%20Diamine%20Majestic%20Blue/d9bdb671.jpg

 

Relative to R&K Verdigris, I share your experience, as shown on the Staples 20lb, from a Platinum President Purist with wetness similar to the 330 above:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN_2012/Ink%20Review%20-%20RK%20Verdigris/6e389c0a.jpg

 

 

 

Bye,

S1

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sandy1

[The Good Captain]

What a baroque review.

 

About the flow - I think this ink is on the drier side. I recommend a wetter pen, to benefit from the rich color depth (here I use it with a Sheaffer no nonsense M).

 

About the bleedthrough - not that bad. On my finnish 80g/m2 UPM office paper, t's a bit higher than with MB black. It's like half lower than with R&K verdigris. And it's about the same as Diamine Oxblood.

 

It has a lovely saturation and I strongly recommend to try this ink, for its deep color.

Hi,

 

Thanks for sharing your experience with this ink, and mentioning the specific pen+papers used.

 

I used to use the Sheaffer No Nonsense pens, until I gifted them to those who wanted to try using an FP. (I really should replace the Red one.) In terms of wetness, I found them to be 'normal', if not just a bit dry, which is great for a casual carry pen that should be capable of handling most papers encountered.

 

I do not have the 80gsm paper you mention. Of late I use the 'Staples' brand 20lb copy/printer paper for my 'lowest bidder' paper, which was picked-up during a stateside business trip for about USD4/ream.

Such papers are notoriously inconsistent to use with FPs: I imagine their manufacturing specifications / product profile addresses compatibility with printers, copiers and ballpoint pens - not FPs. I was loathe to use such a paper in my Reviews, but something seems to be better than nothing, so long as the reader knows such samples are flakey.

My primary use for 20lb paper is for ephemera, which is mostly 'own use', so I am not too fussy about it. Yet others may be using similar as their primary paper, so I choose not to ignore such paper; but for reasons above, temper my results with lots of 'YMMV'. Also, as I am now including one 20lb paper in my Reviews, readers may see how various inks perform on that paper: reinforcing the fact that my results are not definitive, but consistent enough to allow relative comparison.

 

So, here are scans of the obverse side of Staples 20lb & HPJ1124 24lb papers:

 

Majestic Blue on Staples:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN%20Stuff%20-%202011/Ink%20Review%20-%20Diamine%20Majestic%20Blue/665a06dd.jpg

 

Majestic Blue on HPJ1124:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN%20Stuff%20-%202011/Ink%20Review%20-%20Diamine%20Majestic%20Blue/d9bdb671.jpg

 

Relative to R&K Verdigris, I share your experience, as shown on the Staples 20lb, from a Platinum President Purist with wetness similar to the 330 above:

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/FPN_2012/Ink%20Review%20-%20RK%20Verdigris/6e389c0a.jpg

 

 

 

Bye,

S1

It would be useful if paper weights in GSM could also be included in all the comments coming from the Western Atlantic so that the interested population of the 'rest of the world' could understand what paper was being discussed, without having to check through the posts containing the odd reference snippet about conversions.

Nothing personal of course, Sandy, just that this was the first one I've seen when the old grey matter finally kicked in and reminded me to comment!

 

 

[JeanManuel]

[...]

It would be useful if paper weights in GSM could also be included in all the comments coming from the Western Atlantic so that the interested population of the 'rest of the world' could understand what paper was being discussed, without having to check through the posts containing the odd reference snippet about conversions.

Nothing personal of course, Sandy, just that this was the first one I've seen when the old grey matter finally kicked in and reminded me to comment!

 

Indeed. faster to just adopt the modern and simpler SI (international system of unit m,kg,s). As I understood, it's under way.

 

It should avoid problems like these also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

Edited September 9, 2012 by JeanManuel

[JeanManuel]

[...]

I used to use the Sheaffer No Nonsense pens, until I gifted them to those who wanted to try using an FP. In terms of wetness, I found them to be 'normal', if not just a bit dry,

 

Hi,

That is a surprising opinion. but maybe european pens are dryer than american pens.

Could you give us a quick list of wet/medium/dry pens?

 

E.g. I find that (out of factory, Post 1990s):

Sheaffer - wet

Lamy, Pelikan - medium

Waterman - medium-dry (actually very good flow optimization for students)

Parker, pilot prera - dry

[alexander_k]

[...]

I used to use the Sheaffer No Nonsense pens, until I gifted them to those who wanted to try using an FP. In terms of wetness, I found them to be 'normal', if not just a bit dry,

 

Same here: all my No Nonsense pens (and I had a few over the years) were on the dry side. The same applies to Rotring ArtPens.

[Sandy1]

[...]

I used to use the Sheaffer No Nonsense pens, until I gifted them to those who wanted to try using an FP. In terms of wetness, I found them to be 'normal', if not just a bit dry,

 

Hi,

That is a surprising opinion. but maybe european pens are dryer than american pens.

Could you give us a quick list of wet/medium/dry pens?

 

E.g. I find that (out of factory, Post 1990s):

Sheaffer - wet

Lamy, Pelikan - medium

Waterman - medium-dry (actually very good flow optimization for students)

Parker, pilot prera - dry

 

Hi,

 

The 'NIB-ism' images show the relative width and wetness of each pen used. Using those depictions, and the Written Samples, one may derive a list of [my] pens that are of a desirable wetness in a given width.

 

That said, I have found there is significant difference in wetness across a given pen+nib. For example, I use two Pelikan P99 Technixx + B nib pens for my Reviews: one pen is Red, the other Blue. Each pen is significantly different in wetness. Same for the Sheaffer 440 + F nib: my Black one is a bit drier than my Burgundy 440. And the nibs for the Parker 45 have a nutty wide range of wetness, and even the width engraved on the nib holder does not always match the width of the line generated by the nib!

 

I really wish I could be of more help, but I think there's too much of a range - even amongst the pens of the same model with the same nib width - that any list I could make may well be misleading or unreliable: my sample is too small. Please consider taking a look at the Writing Instrument Forum for pen wetness trends.

 

Bye,

S1

Edited September 9, 2012 by Sandy1

[JeanManuel]

[]

 

Same here: all my No Nonsense pens (and I had a few over the years) were on the dry side. The same applies to Rotring ArtPens.

 

@Alexander, agreed on the art pen.

@Sandy good point about the variability, within a same model.

Thank you both for clarifying that point. I thought you had geyser-pens for a moment.

 

Well, what matters is that we understand dry and wet.

Sandy, I would like to thank you for your patience answering me, and all the work you put in this thread.

[Sandy1]

[]

 

Same here: all my No Nonsense pens (and I had a few over the years) were on the dry side. The same applies to Rotring ArtPens.

 

@Alexander, agreed on the art pen.

@Sandy good point about the variability, within a same model.

Thank you both for clarifying that point. I thought you had geyser-pens for a moment.

 

Well, what matters is that we understand dry and wet.

Sandy, I would like to thank you for your patience answering me, and all the work you put in this thread.

Hi,

 

You're welcome!

 

Even though this Topic is posted in the Ink Review Forum, it can serve as a means to garner information about pens and papers - which to me are essential to the FP experience.

 

So when the thread meanders constructively into discussion of pens & papers, I think that adds to peoples' understanding and confidence, hence increasing appreciation and enjoyment.

 

Ink + Pen + Paper =

Bye,

S1

Edited September 9, 2012 by Sandy1

[JeanManuel]

A couple images taken in the daylight. Diamine Majestic blue written with Sheaffer no nonsense M used as eyedropper. Paper 80g/m2 UPM office.

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue3.jpg

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue2.jpg

Edited September 9, 2012 by JeanManuel

[Bigeddie]

I have a big 110ml bottle (The Writing Desk £6 special) of Majestic Blue that is largely untouched, I find it to smear on harder papers like Rhodia long after it's put down on the paper, talking hours rather than minutes. It's a shame because I like the dark, rich colour.

 

To little time, to many inks to go back to it. It will be gifted away at some point.

 

Thanks for the review S1

[JeanManuel]

I have a big 110ml bottle (The Writing Desk £6 special) of Majestic Blue that is largely untouched, I find it to smear on harder papers like Rhodia long after it's put down on the paper, talking hours rather than minutes. It's a shame because I like the dark, rich colour.

 

To little time, to many inks to go back to it. It will be gifted away at some point.

 

Thanks for the review S1

 

You can send it to me!

[JeanManuel]

<double post bug>

Edited September 20, 2012 by JeanManuel

[Sandy1]

A couple images taken in the daylight. Diamine Majestic blue written with Sheaffer no nonsense M used as eyedropper. Paper 80g/m2 UPM office.

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue3.jpg

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue2.jpg

Hi,

 

Many thanks for posting even more samples! And for including a drawing!!

 

Bye,

S1

[Sandy1]

I have a big 110ml bottle (The Writing Desk £6 special) of Majestic Blue that is largely untouched, I find it to smear on harder papers like Rhodia long after it's put down on the paper, talking hours rather than minutes. It's a shame because I like the dark, rich colour.

 

To little time, to many inks to go back to it. It will be gifted away at some point.

 

Thanks for the review S1

Hi,

 

You're welcome!

 

How unfortunate that you've also encountered unacceptable dry times.

 

As mentioned somewhere, I'm a right handed under writer, who uses individual sheets for the vast majority of my writing, so in the normal course of events I rarely have a practical issue with Smear/Dry Times; and have been surprised that some inks I've used for years without incident have such a 'problem'.

 

In my world, the deal breaker would be if an ink did not become truly dry within a few minutes - which may cause smudging and [offset] transfer to whatever it happens to contact. (I would not be amused if an ink transferred to facing pages, envelopes, bindings, etc. over an extended time.)

 

The coated 'vellum' papers / wet pens are often tied to such behaviour, with the near-term work-around being to use uncoated more absorbent papers / drier pens with narrow nibs.

 

The ink mixes I've tried carry forward the properties of all ingredients, so one might find faster S/DTs in a mix, but such a mix may well have the underlying slow-dry / smudge tendency to some degree.

And my attempts at diluting inks to significantly lower S/DTs have failed, though I reckon it is worth giving it a go. e.g. Dilution of Bilberry.

 

Bye,

S1

[Alexandra]

Your reviews are always excellent, Sandy1. What I like about this ink is not only the sheen but it looks the same whatever the nib. Some inks lose quite a bit of depth when coming from a fine, dry nib but not this one.

[Sandy1]

Your reviews are always excellent, Sandy1. What I like about this ink is not only the sheen but it looks the same whatever the nib. Some inks lose quite a bit of depth when coming from a fine, dry nib but not this one.

Hi,

 

Thanks for your kind words!

 

I very much agree with your observations about this ink keeping its character across a range of nib widths.

 

It seems the ink is of high chroma, (colour intensity/purity); and its high opacity doesn't allow the paper to show-through the ink (as it does in an ink with higher shading potential.)

 

Even when we do have variation in density, as seen from the flexi Waterman 502, the appearance remains vibrant.

 

Bye,

S1

[idazle]

A couple images taken in the daylight. Diamine Majestic blue written with Sheaffer no nonsense M used as eyedropper. Paper 80g/m2 UPM office.

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue3.jpg

 

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh540/PhotonicDrop/DiamineMajesticBlue2.jpg

 

Nice pics that reflect very well the hue of this magnificent ink. Thus far I haven't experienced smudging problems with this ink on the papers I'm using lately. I haven't tried it on Clairefontaine, but a good many ink smears badly on that coated paper. Maybe the problem is not the ink but the paper. That's why I normally think in terms of paper-ink combos rather than inks only. Some papers work well only with some inks/pens and the other way round.

 

Carlos

Edited September 21, 2012 by idazle

[de_pen_dent]

My n=1 experience: the ink has behaved well on Rhodoa with a Japanese medium (a Sailor 1911). In a Hero 616, it wrote very well on all sorts of cheap paper. I haven't noticed any problems with bleedthrough or feathering or smudging with these 2 pens.

 

I was using a sample from Goulets, but will probably get a bottle At some point.