Invitation To Show Off Your Stuff...

[Stompie]

hear hear! I'll tell ya, I'm having a hard time with those pesky hairlines. I just can't make them fine, and certainly not smooth.

 

I think that your ink is not diluted enough B - from what I have seen from your letters to me. try a separate bottle an d water it down a bit more than you normally do and see how it goes - just a thought

[dhnz]

Here is a quick example I did last night. It's not great (I never claimed to be good!), but I did do it late at night when my eyes were tired and I did it on a book on my knee, hence the word running off the line. It was done with stick ink that was a day or two old and a well-used Leonardt Principal. The line running down the page is an actual hair, scanned in at the same time for comparison.

 

Re citing the look of Madarasz's work, I don't think anyone did. I mentioned Lupfer because I have some samples by him and am able to see first-hand the fineness of his lines. (They were done with iron gall ink and there are no "s" type illusions.) I think it's in the Madarasz book where it's said that he watered down his ink to defeat copying, but I'm not talking here about simply faint ink; I'm talking about the width of the lines.

 

Of course, everyone will have their own preference for how fine the lines should be compared to the shades. For me, I like the lines to be as fine as possible, because I like the contrast between the shades and the hairlines to be pronounced. And I love that Lupfer could get a strong contrast even when his shades were comparatively narrow, simply because his hairlines were so, so fine.

 

To be clear, I'm happy enough with the thickness of the lines in the top word and with the i and r of the second, but the l-i-n-e-s of the second are too thick for my taste.

 

 

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/9v3vm.jpg

[MusinkMan]

I did that, Stomperoo. I watered and watered and watered until I was afraid to dilute it any more. Probably ruined the ink, because now Jay tells me that if I am using any other ink that won't yield hairlines, he says, "Thicken the flippin' ink with gum arabic and be done with it." I was like...thicken it? heh. I've been thinning it. hahaha

My poor "current" bottle of Higgins is so full of additives that it could likely power a Nascar. I'm anxious to try this Private Reserve stuff. Although I really believe the problem with the hairlines is my inability to make them properly...not the ink. But man, I am hoping! hahaha Hoping against all hope.

[MusinkMan]

Here is a quick example I did last night. It's not great (I never claimed to be good!), but I did do it late at night when my eyes were tired and I did it on a book on my knee, hence the word running off the line. It was done with stick ink that was a day or two old and a well-used Leonardt Principal. The line running down the page is an actual hair, scanned in at the same time for comparison.

 

Re citing the look of Madarasz's work, I don't think anyone did. I mentioned Lupfer because I have some samples by him and am able to see first-hand the fineness of his lines. (They were done with iron gall ink and there are no "s" type illusions.) I think it's in the Madarasz book where it's said that he watered down his ink to defeat copying, but I'm not talking here about simply faint ink; I'm talking about the width of the lines.

 

Of course, everyone will have their own preference for how fine the lines should be compared to the shades. For me, I like the lines to be as fine as possible, because I like the contrast between the shades and the hairlines to be pronounced. And I love that Lupfer could get a strong contrast even when his shades were comparatively narrow, simply because his hairlines were so, so fine.

 

To be clear, I'm happy enough with the thickness of the lines in the top word and with the i and r of the second, but the l-i-n-e-s of the second are too thick for my taste.

 

 

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/9v3vm.jpg

Hey, good stuff!!! I've been curious about stick ink for a while. Can you tell me what you used and where you got it? and how to prepare it? and, and, and,...hahaha

See, you opened a big can of nasty worms now...I am always looking for any information that can help me. It's not easy to get "educated" on vintage writing techniques, especially in this age where schools have ceased teaching any form of cursive writing. Woe is me.

 

In all fairness...note the size of your letters as compared to Jay's. He is writing the whole width of the 3/8" lined paper (which is a b!tch to do). So I agree with Mickey that his hairlines had to be proportional. I really have no doubt that he could match you and would have done so if he were writing 1/8" lower case. Even so, great job bro. I wish I could get that thin!

 

I am also a fan of EA Lupfer, in case you did not know. :-)

Edited September 20, 2013 by MusinkMan

[Mickey]

Here is a quick example I did last night. It's not great (I never claimed to be good!), but I did do it late at night when my eyes were tired and I did it on a book on my knee, hence the word running off the line. It was done with stick ink that was a day or two old and a well-used Leonardt Principal. The line running down the page is an actual hair, scanned in at the same time for comparison.

 

Re citing the look of Madarasz's work, I don't think anyone did. I mentioned Lupfer because I have some samples by him and am able to see first-hand the fineness of his lines. (They were done with iron gall ink and there are no "s" type illusions.) I think it's in the Madarasz book where it's said that he watered down his ink to defeat copying, but I'm not talking here about simply faint ink; I'm talking about the width of the lines.

 

Of course, everyone will have their own preference for how fine the lines should be compared to the shades. For me, I like the lines to be as fine as possible, because I like the contrast between the shades and the hairlines to be pronounced. And I love that Lupfer could get a strong contrast even when his shades were comparatively narrow, simply because his hairlines were so, so fine.

 

To be clear, I'm happy enough with the thickness of the lines in the top word and with the i and r of the second, but the l-i-n-e-s of the second are too thick for my taste.

 

 

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/9v3vm.jpg

Madarasz, Lupfer potato / potato, there is a point where the fineness of the hairline is only a distraction. The penmanship displayed above is pretty impressive, (I wish my hands were nearly as talented) but the broken, discontinuous line detracts from whole. Even the smaller swells on the r and n in hairline suffer from ink that doesn't flow properly. Yes the hairlines are fine, but they're also broken and sketchy.

 

To Musinkman: Stick ink is available from usual suspects (JohnNeal, PIA). You have the choice of grinding it yourself on an ink stone or buying Sumi ink, which is prepared from stick ink. If you're really serious about gaining the ultimate control of the medium, go the stick and ink stone route. I've tried both and usually use IG ink instead. BTW, I ordered a new bottle of Higgins Eternal (I tossed the old one a long while ago) to supply a base line for comparison to the other inks I use.

[Uncle Bulgaria]

I've only just realized that the three photos in Musinkman's .sig are *not* of fly-fishing rods!

[smk]

Madarasz, Lupfer potato / potato, there is a point where the fineness of the hairline is only a distraction. The penmanship displayed above is pretty impressive, (I wish my hands were nearly as talented) but the broken, discontinuous line detracts from whole. Even the smaller swells on the r and n in hairline suffer from ink that doesn't flow properly. Yes the hairlines are fine, but they're also broken and sketchy.

 

>> snip <<

 

I think the hairlines are broken more due to the ink not flowing properly than the fineness of the line though. These hairlines would be sublime if unbroken.

 

That is some really nice writing dhnz.

 

S.

[hzsimms]

I've only just realized that the three photos in Musinkman's .sig are *not* of fly-fishing rods!

 

That's hysterical! Maybe he could make one of those too! LOL!

[dhnz]

Thanks for the nice comments.

 

Yes, as I noted, the stick ink was already at least a day old (probably more likely two), and it's at its best when first ground, which would make a difference to its flow, as would me sitting at a desk and adopting the correct posture. I also didn't follow the optimum procedure for grinding, which makes for a more uneven mix of particles. Even so, at normal viewing distance the lines don't appear broken up.

 

Like you, Musink, I am always interested in what others find works best for them. I've tried a number of different gouaches (Winsor & Newton, Schminke, Royal Talens) and I've not been able to find one that gives the same degree of fineness as iron gall or a good stick ink. Same with Higgins. I know it's long been recommended for Spencerian and copperplate, but even diluted it's too thick for me. I suspect its formulation has changed a lot since its early days.

 

I've tried a lot of stick inks over the years and in my opinion Boku Undo makes the best ones available now. (Apparently, the soot comes from Germany.) I was horrified when I learnt that some Chinese sticks reputedly contain bear bile, which put me right off buying any more of them, just in case. My main inkstone came from a place called Acorn Planet, which used to sell stones and sticks at very good prices, but it's no longer in business. However, the Shakyo-Ken stone sold by John Neal is a good quality, albeit small, Ogatsu stone. Alternatively, you can get a nice quality piece of glass and roughen it up with 120 grit sandpaper – this was the method used to test particle size in a scientific paper on Chinese sticks I read. (Not nearly as nice as a well carved insktone, though.)

 

Frankly, I'd ditch the Higgins and try the iron gall inks again. They're more convenient than ink sticks and in my opinion run rings around gouache and liquid carbon inks like Higgins. I make my own using the old US Government formula, but I recommend Brian Walker's Copperplate Ink. There's a good reason why the old masters all used iron gall (or stick ink).

[Scribe_Not]

 

That's hysterical! Maybe he could make one of those too! LOL!

 

 

 

That's hysterical! Maybe he could make one of those too! LOL!

No doubt... and I'll bet he can put on "some of those crazy little circle thingeys" too!

[Mickey]

 

I think the hairlines are broken more due to the ink not flowing properly than the fineness of the line though. These hairlines would be sublime if unbroken.

But that's kind of my point. If the flow had been better (proper), the lines would have had more visual weight, still sublime, but more substantial.

[mvarela]

 

 

Frankly, I'd ditch the Higgins and try the iron gall inks again. They're more convenient than ink sticks and in my opinion run rings around gouache and liquid carbon inks like Higgins. I make my own using the old US Government formula, but I recommend Brian Walker's Copperplate Ink. There's a good reason why the old masters all used iron gall (or stick ink).

 

I'm still a newbie in all this, but I'd second that recommendation for Walker's Copperplate Ink.

Very nice penmanship, btw!

[dhnz]

But that's kind of my point. If the flow had been better (proper), the lines would have had more visual weight, still sublime, but more substantial.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that – with less clumping of the ink particles, you would have had less total carbon covering the same area. In any case, I'm pretty sure that when I examined Lupfer's work under a loupe, some of his lines also weren't 100 per cent smooth. When you're trying for the finest lines you can get, you're just not going to have the flow of ink to smooth out all the interruptions caused by a not perfect ink flow off the nib, a not perfect nib, and the slight imperfections in the paper.

Edited September 20, 2013 by dhnz

[MusinkMan]

I know that super thin hairlines are important, but I feel I have more pressing matters in the learning protocol. Such as consistent slant, and proper spacing and ascender/descender/capital letter height. I don't feel the need need to be obsessing over spider web hairlines, even though I would love to have them. But truthfully, at my level, crazy-thin hairlines would not improve the overall appearance of my work nearly as much as the aforementioned. I'm hoping that they will develop gradually as I learn the other things?

[Mickey]

 

I don't necessarily agree with that – with less clumping of the ink particles, you would have had less total carbon covering the same area. In any case, I'm pretty sure that when I examined Lupfer's work under a loupe, some of his lines also weren't 100 per cent smooth. When you're trying for the finest lines you can get, you're just not going to have the flow of ink to smooth out all the interruptions caused by a not perfect ink flow off the nib, a not perfect nib, and the slight imperfections in the paper.

(Emphasis mine) Again, you make my point. Nothing comes without a price. If the pursuit of the ultimate hairline negatively effect the over all quality of the work, one needs to question whether it (the ultimate hairline) is a sensible first priority. (As this is a pedagogical subforum, I think emphasis is important.) As much as I appreciate good hairlines (check my posts, I do) and that I agree with you most heartily that conservative, telling shades are to be preferred (again, check my posts), I don't believe the ultimate hairline is the be all and end all. (It is not even desirable for work intended for reproduction.)

 

I don't doubt, if inspected under heavy magnification, that Lupfer's hairlines would show breaks (I confirm that they do), but would I see the voids with the good old Mark I eyeball (and my normal, corrective lens)? Probably not. (On the other hand, I have a piece written by a Master Penman with exquisitely fine hairline that also exhibits nib stuttering Helen Keller could have felt from across the room. Yes the hairlines are fine. Are the good? Maybe not.)

 

BTW, I'm also a big fan of Lupfer and his hairlines do show small breaks, but not at a granularity often visible to the naked eye or even under moderate magnification, e.g., http://www.iampeth.com/artwork/Lupfer4Rose0001.jpg As beautiful as the hairlines are, it is still the composition that 'sells' the piece to me. <Does he seem to be suffering a misbehaving point? Ignoring the jpeg noise, take a look at the C in Carmen, which shows not only the most obvious line break (still probably invisible to the naked eye), but also some right tine chatter on the lower shade (gorgeous shape, though). Stuff happens, even to the masters.>

[Stompie]

I look at some of the work of these old 'masters' and whilst it is pleasing to the eye, I often think "What the heck have they written?"
Hairlines are great but if you can not make out what is written without pulling out a magnifying glass, what's the use?

[GClef]

I look at some of the work of these old 'masters' and whilst it is pleasing to the eye, I often think "What the heck have they written?"

Hairlines are great but if you can not make out what is written without pulling out a magnifying glass, what's the use?

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Tutuguans/IMAG0224-1_zps1ceca6db.jpg

[caliken]

I don't believe the ultimate hairline is the be all and end all. (It is not even desirable for work intended for reproduction.)

 

+1

 

The reproductions in the otherwise excellent "Spencerian Script vol. 2" by Michael Sull, have been produced at very low contrast in an effort to show the hairlines. This is largely successful but at the price of dull, brown reproductions which detract considerably from the beauty of the writing.

A downloaded printout of "The Madarasz Book" from the Iampeth site, fares even worse. As the reproductions are in normal black and white, many are useless as the hairlines have disappeared completely and it's impossible to assess or enjoy the writing.

 

Properly executed, very fine hairlines can certainly add to the beauty of writing but should be applied with care if reproduction is to be the end product..

 

Ken

Edited September 22, 2013 by caliken

[hzsimms]

I'm just about ready to give up on this whole Spencerian thing and go back to Copperplate! I keep reading that you're supposed to do this stuff relatively quickly and the videos I've seen show folks just whizzing away, pen in hand, flourishes flying and great looking script going down. Me, I can't get a line that doesn't "squiggle" and when I try to go fast it devolves into something not unlike the results you get when you give a four year old an Etch A Sketch. I'm working on a pen with a slightly larger grip to see if that helps with the crooked lines at all. Yeah, blame the equipment!

 

http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p743/hzsimms/Scan_zps5cd83989.jpeg

 

Howard

[dhnz]

Howard, don't worry about how fast others are writing, just write at your won speed. As you get better and develop the muscle memory, you will be able to speed up. Also, are you using arm movement or finger movement? You'll get much smoother lines if you're not moving your fingers.

 

Musink, I agree that you shouldn't be obsessing over hairlines at the expense of the basics, but, that said, developing a light touch is important for Spencerian. I do what some of the old masters did and crumple up a sheet of newspaper into a ball, then smooth it out again and use that as the cushion sheet. This gives you a really nice, slightly springy, surface to develop a light touch on.

 

I raised the issue of hairlines in the first place simply because a lot of what I see described as hairlines these days is not close to the exquisitely fine lines produced by penman such as Louis Madarasz, Earl Lupfer and the like, and I just wanted people to be aware of that. I'm not saying that everyone has to try to achieve that level, but that delicacy is one of the things that drew me to Spencerian in the first place, so it is one of my personal goals. As far as too fine for publication goes, this is not a consideration for me, because, apart from maybe putting something in my local calligraphy newsletter every now and then, I'm not writing for reproduction. (And even if I were, trying to do very fine lines doesn't mean I can't do thicker lines when I need to!)

 

I also forgot to mention Ziller's glossy black ink. It's still made to the same formula as it was back at the end of the 1800s, and it may be the only Spencerian-suitable ink that we can say that of. It is capable of producing very fine lines indeed, and I'd put it with stick ink in that regard. Its downsides for me are its gloss finish (I prefer a matt or semigloss) and its tendency to stop flowing if you leave it on the nib for too long. (I suspect that's down to the gum arabic or sugar or whatever is used to give it the gloss, which has the side effect of making it sticky.)