Rouge Hematite 1670 Through The Years

[mhphoto]

Since J. Herbin released the beautiful Rouge Hematite as the first in their the-new 1670 Anniversary line it has been through several iterations.

The first release was, in my eyes, as close to perfection as Rouge Hematite could ever be; deep and rich without being dark or dull, shimmery and sparkly without being garish or gaudy. The ink's sheen was not simply caused by what we're all familiar with, which is sheen induced by (according to Nathan Tardif) drying ink crystalizing. Rouge Hematite had its sheeny component resting at the bottom of the gorgeous bottle waiting to be shaken—a minutes-long process with the bottom new and full. It looked not gold or red, but almost like a maroon-tinted wax (until shaken).

And then, from the inky shadows (see what I did there?), came the whiners. The ones who know not how to maintain a good hygiene schedule for their pens.

And with their ignorance came the clogging. With the clogging, complaints.

So J. Herbin, listening to their customers (which is usually a good thing), took a good portion of the heavily-sheening component out.

The second formulation still has the same type of sheeny bits, but just way less than the original. But since haters gonna hate hate hate, the third iteration of the once-perfect ink came soon after, with barely any of the gold-inducing sediment at all.

This, as Henry Hill once said, is the bad time.

The third iteration was sheen-less. The third iteration was boring. The third iteration was wrong. And thankfully, J. Herbin heard RH's faithfuls' complaints. They made the announcement that they re-instituted the sheening component to match the good ol' days.

Or did they?…

Yes. Well, sort of. But first, I'll backtrack. When the company released the second ink in the Anniversary series, Bleu Ocean, a lot of people, including myself, were disappointed that the ink lacked any sort of sheen. Many had wished it would be given a similar, but silver-colored, sheen component. When I tried it I couldn't even coax any good old crystal-based sheen from it. It was a nice shade of blue, but without the signature sheen, and coupled with the fact that it wasn't half as well behaved as Rouge Hematite—RH can be used with a flex nib on cheap paper and still retain its sheen and shading—it was a bust for many.

More recently, us sheenoholics have praised the release of J. Herbin's Stormy Grey 1670. In contrast to the earlier Rouge Hematite, Stormy Grey has a blatantly golden pigment component to impart its sheen. With the original RH, once the sediment was shaken and integrated into the ink the only difference was that the ink took on a bit of a chalky look in the bottle; it also took quite a while for the sheen component to settle back down to the bottom of the bottle. Stormy Grey's golden component, whatever it really is, is very consistent and exceedingly easy to see as it swirls around in the ink after shaking it. It also settles back to the bottom MUCH quicker.

Now, back to the most recently released Rouge Hematite version (what I dub the fourth version). The fourth version of RH seems to have the same sheening component in it as Stormy Grey. It's obviously metallic when it's at the bottom of the bottle (not waxy looking, like the original), and it settles very quickly like Stormy Grey. Instead of the original formulation's smooth "fog" of gold/green sheen that would settle over the red ink when spread with a q-tip, the newest version has star-like "pinpoints" of gold spread fairly evenly over the entire q-tip sample.

I'm not going to say it's inferior to the original version (mainly because I haven't even done a writing sample with it yet), but it is different, and I think people buying it with the understanding from the company that the original formula is back need to know the differences.

I'll be doing a new review of the most recent version in the next few days. When it's out I'll link to it from this thread.

Now for the comparison pictures!

Left to right: Original version, Second version, Fourth version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/1GzS1a.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/7vDUYL.jpg

Original Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/2RoPFk.jpg

Second Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/ujBGrt.jpg

Fourth Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/ovuTGg.jpg

Left to right: Original version, Second version, Fourth version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/rorNxl.jpg

Original Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/dZq7Ha.jpg

Second Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/4iJYeo.jpg

Fourth Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/xs7Eq2.jpg

Original Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/8O3cbM.jpg

Fourth Version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/q6ILau.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/XSNAOZ.jpg

Here's what Stormy Grey's sediment looks like:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/746/ofYoGc.jpg

And now on the page:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/908/GYZE0R.jpg

Left to right: Fourth version, Second version, Original version:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/I7UZzn.jpg

Again, this comparison is just about the inks' properties in general; I still haven't filled a pen with the newest version yet. I'll post back when I have some more to say about the most recent version.

[______Zaphod_Beeblebrox]

I have the original version my self, and while it did have nib creep and crud if not maintained, it was worth it.

 

It is currently my favorite red!

[minthe]

Lovely post! Thank you very much for these pretty photo comparisons. I adore the greenish sheen on the red in this one, looks like the original ink has most of it? Also, I'm curious about the brown-gray ink you were using to write on your comparison paper.

Such a perfect match!

[mhphoto]

Lovely post! Thank you very much for these pretty photo comparisons. I adore the greenish sheen on the red in this one, looks like the original ink has most of it? Also, I'm curious about the brown-gray ink you were using to write on your comparison paper.

Such a perfect match!

 

J. Herbin Stormy Grey, of course!

[lgsoltek]

An elaborate description of its history! Thank you.

I still don't know what version mine is though... It has a lot of sheen but doesn't seem like the latest version.

[amberleadavis]

Thank you for this wonderful comparison. I love my first version. You make me consider getting version four just for the differences.

[amberleadavis]

If you have a chance, you may want to see how or if they differ if exposed to a drop of water. I suspect they will wash differently.

[mhphoto]

Thank you for this wonderful comparison. I love my first version. You make me consider getting version four just for the differences.

 

I'm ashamed to say that I haven't even inked the newest version up yet, just swab tests…

[amberleadavis]

Life happens!

[visvamitra]

Stunning photos, thank you

[jandrese]

wow, thanks for a very interesting comparison! I feel so bad for myself :-). I have version one, purchased three bottles actually (gave one away, another is still in plastic), you know, the bottle with the flaky wax tops, and there is no sediment and only an imaginary sheen component. Still a lovely red that I adore and some formidable nib creep and crust to go with long dry times. I've always felt like the only person not to get RH with very noticeable sheen.

[stevesurf]

This is a wonderful thread; it would be great to sticky the posts with the comparison pictures as I am sure different members will prefer each of the different formulations. I'm really enjoying the latest version. It would be great if Herbin added flakes to Blue Ocean, and then we would have three inks with a little bit 'o gold.

[amberleadavis]

This is a wonderful thread; it would be great to sticky the posts with the comparison pictures as I am sure different members will prefer each of the different formulations. I'm really enjoying the latest version. It would be great if Herbin added flakes to Blue Ocean, and then we would have three inks with a little bit 'o gold.

 

The index should have it.

[DonLeone]

I'm receiving a bottle of it pretty soon. It'll be fresh from Herbin (via retailer) so most likely v4. I'm somewhat easily amused when it comes to FP inks so I'm cool with any of the formulations. I keep my stuff clean enough.

 

Anyway, any chance we could get a picture of what the swab samples look like after drying? I see massive differences between my old notes and my new freshly written notes, due to drying. How much of the sheen is visible after say, a day?

[amberleadavis]

in my bottle (ver 1) sheen is still visible year x. (I bought it right of the bat).

[jmccarty3]

I believe my bottle is Version 1. It takes a good bit of shaking to dislodge the shiny stuff from the bottom of the bottle. I prefer the sheen to show where the ink dries, not all the way through, as in Stormy Grey. It would be very nice if they added something to Bleu Ocean.

[Veltri]

These detailed explanations of the differences are just what I was hoping to see. Thanks for posting.

 

I find the green and sheen in the first version often shows up as an outline to the red which is a very special quality.

Looking forward to seeing if this is the case with the 4th version or if the sheen or sparkles have an even saturation like Stormy Grey.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Veltri

[oshizemi]

I own the first formulation. It's good to see them compared... Now I know what the fuss is about.

[swanjun]

Very useful post! Thanks. Alas, I pretty much have no hope of getting a v1 bottle.

[Red Dragon]

Glad to know that Rouge Hematite does have a good amount of sparkly bits. I'll buy this ink when I have a pen for it...