Inky T O D - What Are Wet Inks?

[dcwaites]

I'm not too sure about viscosity. Two examples of very dry inks --

 

1. Thistle Powdered ink - very dry but not very viscous at all
2. Susemai Blue Too Cashmere - same as above

Also --

1. Wancher Imari Blue - quite wet but relatively viscous
2. Noodler's Heart of Darkness - as above

Don't forget that one of the solutions to reducing the wetness of an ink is to dilute it with water, thereby reducing its viscosity.

 

As I said above, I think the main factor in wetness is surface tension, until viscosity gets to ridiculous levels. Think of honey.

At the sorts of levels found in FP inks, surface tension would be the dominant factor.

[Methanol]

I find most inks to be "wet" when I'm wearing a white shirt....

Ahaha, so true.

[Chettiar]

PR electric DC blue is one of the 'wetter' inks and my one of my most used inks.. Deatramentis Aubergine is another wetter ink which comes into rotation every other month.

 

My wet pens are

Bexley 802 cappuccino with Pendleton modified f nib - electric DC blue

Visconti HS xf by oxonian - aubergine

Collier edison EF tested by the writing desk - this one is still waiting for the right ink.. Tried Ellis island and it is a bit dry and colour is too blackish to me..

Edited March 12, 2015 by Chettiar

[stevesurf]

Hi FPNers, I'm bumping this thread as it seems to be one of the better "wet ink" threads around.

 

Since Ms AmberLea started it, this question seems appropriate:

 

What's the wettest amber colored ink you've used? I want to use it in a yellow demonstrator

[amberleadavis]

Rubinato Amber is quite pretty.

[stevesurf]

Rubinato Amber is quite pretty.

 

I hesitate to respond for fear of moderation, but here goes

 

It may be pretty, but I need a wet amber.

[pbk31]

Noodler's Apache Sunset? Not sure it passes for Amber but pretty close. Pretty wet. Well, just plain pretty!!!

[stevesurf]

Rubinato Amber is quite pretty.

 

Looks wonderful; where do I get it and is it wet?

 

Noodler's Apache Sunset? Not sure it passes for Amber but pretty close. Pretty wet. Well, just plain pretty!!!

 

Wonderful, many thanks; next order!

[amberleadavis]

Maybe your little inky friend will share some with you.

[ENewton]

I am another person who has had trouble with this concept, especially given that I wrote for twenty years with Pelikan 4001 Violet and couldn't imagine why anyone would characterize that ink as dry. It is more viscous than, say, a J Herbin ink, but it flows amply from the nib, with adequate lubrication.

 

Then there are people who describe J Herbin inks as dry or, even more confusingly, as watery AND dry.

 

To muddle my mind further, I have lately tried two inks with really meager flow--Graf von Faber-Castell Violet Blue and Robert Oster Barossa Grape. Pens that write smoothly with other inks drag along the page with these two, and presumably because so little ink is flowing from the nib, the resulting script is very pale. I am guessing that this is what dry means, but I am still unsure.

[DrDebG]

I am another person who has had trouble with this concept, especially given that I wrote for twenty years with Pelikan 4001 Violet and couldn't imagine why anyone would characterize that ink as dry. It is more viscous than, say, a J Herbin ink, but it flows amply from the nib, with adequate lubrication.

 

Then there are people who describe J Herbin inks as dry or, even more confusingly, as watery AND dry.

 

To muddle my mind further, I have lately tried two inks with really meager flow--Graf von Faber-Castell Violet Blue and Robert Oster Barossa Grape. Pens that write smoothly with other inks drag along the page with these two, and presumably because so little ink is flowing from the nib, the resulting script is very pale. I am guessing that this is what dry means, but I am still unsure.

 

Thank you for bringing this up again.

 

While I think I am beginning to understand (maybe) the differences between wet vs. dry and lubricating vs. non-lubricating ink, it can still seem a bit of a muddle. And some of it, I think, really depends on personal interpretation. For example, many of the DeAtramentis inks are well lubricating and flow very well, and some of these seem dryer than others. Some of the Pilot Iroshizuku inks are very wet, yet they are not as lubricating and feel as though they drag and that you are writing with water.

 

I agree with you that GvFC Violet Blue has poor flow. While I love the color, I really do not care for the flow. I haven't tried Robert Oster Barossa Grape.

[7is]

 

Thank you for bringing this up again.

 

While I think I am beginning to understand (maybe) the differences between wet vs. dry and lubricating vs. non-lubricating ink, it can still seem a bit of a muddle. And some of it, I think, really depends on personal interpretation. For example, many of the DeAtramentis inks are well lubricating and flow very well, and some of these seem dryer than others. Some of the Pilot Iroshizuku inks are very wet, yet they are not as lubricating and feel as though they drag and that you are writing with water...

My experience with Pelikan inks is similar to your with deAtramentis and Iroshizuku. Few seem dry like 4001 blue/black, few wet and the rest is somewhere in between. Certainly, I wouldn't call all of them dry or less lubricating than those of other brands. Edited September 3, 2017 by 7is

[Paul-in-SF]

I'm still confused (I suspect I'm not the only one). Trying to organize my thoughts, thusly: 

 

It seems there are three qualities in ink (sticking with dye-based ink for now) that affect what people perceive as wetness*: 1) viscosity, i.e. how rapidly the ink flows out of the pen and onto the paper, or put another way, how willing the ink is to leave the pen; 2) lubricity, i.e. how well lubricated the ink is, often or usually affected by the addition of ingredients other than dye and water (and which seems to me to track very closely with #1); and 3) dry time on the page, which apparently may sometimes be completely separate from actual "wetness" and sometimes closely associated with it. Perhaps there is 4) thickness or wateriness of the ink. I haven't seen much discussion of that, and the anecdotal evidence offered is far from even indicative. 

 

I presume that ink developers understand all of these factors and possibly others that we lay people don't even dream of, and how they relate to ink performance. Have any of them ever come forward with a primer on the topic? Or is it all closely held and industrially classified? 

 

*note: wetness in a pen seems to me to be entirely associated with #1, and can often be affected by adjusting the nib in various ways (not always). For me, I'd rather adjust a dry nib than have to hunt around for a suitably wet ink, but that's just me. When one person says "Ink W is very wet" and then a second person says "Really? It's always been quite dry for me" (or vice versa) then it's hard to know what ink to choose...

[A Smug Dill]

52 minutes ago, Paul-in-SF said:

note: wetness in a pen seems to me to be entirely associated with #1, and can often be affected by adjusting the nib in various ways (not always).

 

The ink flow rate from ink reservoir through to the page depends on many factors, and the viscosity (or some other physical or chemical attribute) of ink is just one. Is the tine gap too tight, too wide, or just right? How narrow is the ink channel? Is the feed made of ebonite, plastic, or some other material? How conformant is the feed's geometry with that of the nib body (or vice versa)? Are there issues with, or impediments to, air exchange/flow back into the reservoir? I know, from experience, that a saturated feed that can keep a pen writing for half a page or more (with the sort of fine nibs I favour) would produce ink marks of different wetness depending on whether a converter is attached to the ‘nipple’ on the feed or not; and so I'd expect, in an eyedropper-filled pen, near-fullness and near-emptiness of the pen barrel-as-reservoir would also affect the ink flow rate.

 

Thus, for and with hobbyists who are keen to discuss the wetness of an ink, I feel it's important to remove the focus from the writing outcomes they get from it, much less whether the outcomes suit their personal preferences, but to test and articulate the ‘wetness’ attribute in a way that is removed from the pens they like to use or typically use, such that the translation between the ink's ‘wetness’ and the ink marks' ‘wetness’ requires either some seriously involved mathematical calculations, or mental gymnastics and guesswork, and is prone to user error in that evaluation.

[ENewton]

I think that when one person says an ink is wet and another says it is dry, they are likely to be focused on different qualities.  For example, one person is talking about whether the ink flows so liberally from a pen as to produce a wider line, with perhaps more risk of bleeding through the paper, than some other ink in the same nib.  Another is talking about whether the writing experience is smoother than what some other ink would produce in the same nib.  These characteristics are somewhat related in that an ink that flows generously is likely to have smoother feel than does an ink with a more abstemious flow.

 

I think some people also conflate wetness with saturation, so that an ink that flows liberally but produces a relatively pale line is described as dry.

 

A good example of how varied the usage is is the review of Rohrer & Klingner Scabiosa on the blog of Goulet pens, in which Scabiosa is characterized as "a pretty wet writing ink."  

[Paul-in-SF]

11 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

The ink flow rate from ink reservoir through to the page depends on many factors, and the viscosity (or some other physical or chemical attribute) of ink is just one. Is the tine gap too tight, too wide, or just right? How narrow is the ink channel? Is the feed made of ebonite, plastic, or some other material? How conformant is the feed's geometry with that of the nib body (or vice versa)? Are there issues with, or impediments to, air exchange/flow back into the reservoir? I know, from experience, that a saturated feed that can keep a pen writing for half a page or more (with the sort of fine nibs I favour) would produce ink marks of different wetness depending on whether a converter is attached to the ‘nipple’ on the feed or not; and so I'd expect, in an eyedropper-filled pen, near-fullness and near-emptiness of the pen barrel-as-reservoir would also affect the ink flow rate.

 

Thus, for and with hobbyists who are keen to discuss the wetness of an ink, I feel it's important to remove the focus from the writing outcomes they get from it, much less whether the outcomes suit their personal preferences, but to test and articulate the ‘wetness’ attribute in a way that is removed from the pens they like to use or typically use, such that the translation between the ink's ‘wetness’ and the ink marks' ‘wetness’ requires either some seriously involved mathematical calculations, or mental gymnastics and guesswork, and is prone to user error in that evaluation.

Your first paragraph adds some useful details to my broad description of "how rapidly the ink flows out of the pen and onto the paper, or put another way, how willing the ink is to leave the pen." I have affected the ink flow by cleaning or adjusting or changing the feed, but most often it has been by adjusting the tines. I believe this is because tines are the most likely to change over time, either through the writing habits of the user, or accident, or abuse; also more likely than the other pen parts to come from the manufacturer with some individual problem due to careless QC on their part. 

 

I quite agree with the premise of your second paragraph, although you express it better. That is, ink wetness should be considered objectively and separately from the writing instrument. I'm not sure I'm understanding the last part of that paragraph, are you saying that doing so makes it easier or more difficult to assess ink wetness? Sorry for my confusion.

 

3 hours ago, ENewton said:

I think that when one person says an ink is wet and another says it is dry, they are likely to be focused on different qualities.  For example, one person is talking about whether the ink flows so liberally from a pen as to produce a wider line, with perhaps more risk of bleeding through the paper, than some other ink in the same nib.  Another is talking about whether the writing experience is smoother than what some other ink would produce in the same nib.  These characteristics are somewhat related in that an ink that flows generously is likely to have smoother feel than does an ink with a more abstemious flow.

 

I think some people also conflate wetness with saturation, so that an ink that flows liberally but produces a relatively pale line is described as dry.

 

A good example of how varied the usage is is the review of Rohrer & Klingner Scabiosa on the blog of Goulet pens, in which Scabiosa is characterized as "a pretty wet writing ink."  

Ah, another factor to consider, or possibly two, smoothness of writing, and saturation. Smoothness of writing is as much a factor of the pen as of the ink, which is why it is a good idea to consider them separately (I believe this was your point as well). Saturation in a dye ink is surely a matter of the concentration of the dye vs. the thinning agent. Whether this affects wetness should, logically, depend on whether the dye or the thinning agent(s) have more of qualities like viscosity or lubricity than the other; if they are the same or nearly so, it shouldn't make a difference to wetness. 

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, Paul-in-SF said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding the last part of that paragraph, are you saying that doing so makes it easier or more difficult to assess ink wetness?

 

I meant fountain pen users and hobbyists too frequently insist on using outcome-based (e.g. “How much shading will I get writing with this in my Hobonichi planner?”), subjective (e.g. “Will it feel smooth [to me]?”) and/or relative (”How does it compare to [this ink colour, that nib make and width, a particular pen model, et cetera]…”) frames of reference, when discussing attributes of a product or thing.

 

Whereas I'm always keen to pry the discussion away from that premise, and take a more geeky or academic approach, ‘forcing’ everyone (including myself) to first assess and/or express personal frames of reference against the same (as close as possible to) objective framework of measurement as the product in question is being assessed and expressed.

 

That is particularly difficult to do for ink wetness, which is why I generally don't like to talk about wetness in my ink reviews; when I do, it tends to be extremely anecdotal, and even then I try not to talk about it in the context of writing outcomes on the page. Like you, I believe in leaving it to the user (which could be me) to find the ‘right’ pen, or some other tactic such as adjusting the nib or changing the feed, to control or work well with an ink, even if that may be the more expensive or risky approach than to simply scout out for, and then limited oneself to, inks that work well with one's ‘precious’ pens as-is.

[shostakovich]

What are people's opinions on the De Atramentis permanent document inks (Blue and dark blue) which I like to use, as they are fade proof and water resistant? Are they wet inks or dry?

[mizgeorge]

I only have the De Atramentis document in green grey and like a lot. I'd describe it as medium rather than particularly wet or dry - I certainly haven't had any problem with it in any of my pens. It does dry very quickly, so can feel perhaps a little under-lubricated in a very broad nib, and I have had the occasional hard start in an EF, but I suspect that's more to do with poor storage on my part (and the quick drying properties) than anything else. I keep meaning to get more of these.

[XYZZY]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:02 AM, shostakovich said:

What are people's opinions on the De Atramentis permanent document inks (Blue and dark blue) which I like to use, as they are fade proof and water resistant? Are they wet inks or dry?

 

The pigment inks?  I like them in Japanese EF nibs, but I don't use them much any more. In a wider/wetter pen they spread when they hit the paper, giving a line one size greater, and I don't like that.  It's not feathering, just a spread.  I don't recall looking at them under a loupe, so I can't comment as to whether it's a 100% even spread, or if there's some amount of wooliness in there.

 

One of the nice things of the Document inks is that DeAtramentis says it's ok to mix them, so you can make your own colors.  In addition they sell Ink Dilution Solution which you can use to dilute the ink to make it less saturated.  Better than water because it maintains all the other properties of the ink.  My guess is that it's the base "ink" fluid simply lacking any pigments, but I don't know that for sure.  Anyhow, because you can mix it and thin it it seems to have a bit of a following in art circles.

 

I'm embarrassed to say that there was one time that I forgot to clean a pen after writing it empty.  AFAIK just one time.  It was a Pilot 743 with FA nib and a CON-70 converter, and had been used with DeA Document Turquoise.  I was shocked when I a few months later I pulled out the pen to ink it up to find turquoise on the nib...of all the ways to learn that lesson first hand why did I have to do it with a permanent pigment ink?  I did just a moderate cleaning at that point, inked the pen, and it worked fine.  Once I wrote it dry again I pulled the nib & feed and found some turquoise pigment still in there, which cleaned up with a small amount of dish detergent in water.  It needed a little more elbow grease than usual to clean up, but it wasn't a nightmare, and I didn't need any ammonia-based pen flush.  But to be clear, I pulled the previous journal and found that I really did write the pen dry so it's not like it was set aside full of ink.  So it could have been worse, but I was surprised that it wasn't a nightmare.