Aurora's New Blue-Black

[Sandy1]

An update: I got a sample from the seller, and it worked extremely well- in line with what most are experiencing. So, I'm going to try a new bottle (thanks to the seller) and see how it goes.

 

greg

 

 

Bingo !

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sandy1

[atomic_doug]

I got a sample of it and I don't mind it.

 

It's an Aurora ink, meaning it flows well, lubricates well, doesn't feather or bleed on anything but the cheapest paper, dries quickly, and cleans up easy. Aurora definitely knows how to make a good ink.

 

The problem that I have with it is that it's not really a blue-black. Like Pilot blue-black or Diamine blue-black etc., it's just a color that is basically just a flat dark blue.

 

Once you've tried a real blue-black, though (an iron gall blue black), everything else just becomes a pale imitator. Real iron-gall blue-black has a look and a feel that cannot be duplicated. (Or, if it can, hasn't yet.)

[ErrantSmudge]

The problem that I have with it is that it's not really a blue-black. Like Pilot blue-black or Diamine blue-black etc., it's just a color that is basically just a flat dark blue.

 

Once you've tried a real blue-black, though (an iron gall blue black), everything else just becomes a pale imitator. Real iron-gall blue-black has a look and a feel that cannot be duplicated. (Or, if it can, hasn't yet.)

Aurora makes no claims its blue-black is an IG ink. It doesn't make any sense to judge it as such. Doing so is comparing apples to oranges and isn't particularly helpful, especially to those who are not interested in IG inks.

[atomic_doug]

Aurora makes no claims its blue-black is an IG ink. It doesn't make any sense to judge it as such. Doing so is comparing apples to oranges and isn't particularly helpful, especially to those who are not interested in IG inks.

 

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any non-IG blue-black is simply trying to recreate the look of IG blue-black without the (mostly-imagined) hassles of IG ink.

 

My comment is intended as a reminder that, while Aurora's Blue-black may be technically excellent, the color is uninspiring and does not achieve the magic formula of a non-IG blue-black that looks like IG Blue-black.

[TSherbs]

Aurora makes no claims its blue-black is an IG ink. It doesn't make any sense to judge it as such. Doing so is comparing apples to oranges and isn't particularly helpful, especially to those who are not interested in IG inks.

Then the first part of the review should satisfy you, where the precise "apples" you mention are named. Did you miss that?

 

Sometimes some people don't mind hearing comparisons to other fruit: we have wide palates. Fruit salad, anyone?

[Erik Dalton]

One man's passion is another man's poison. It's our differences that make life interesting. It's really ok.

[ErrantSmudge]

Then the first part of the review should satisfy you, where the precise "apples" you mention are named. Did you miss that?

 

The first part of the review is substantially useful.

 

In furthering goodwill on the forum, I won't say any more on the topic.

Edited April 9, 2017 by ErrantSmudge

[Erik Dalton]

The first part of the review is substantially useful.

 

In furthering goodwill on the forum, I won't say any more on the topic.

 

Well done.👍

[pepsiplease69]

 

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any non-IG blue-black is simply trying to recreate the look of IG blue-black without the (mostly-imagined) hassles of IG ink.

 

My comment is intended as a reminder that, while Aurora's Blue-black may be technically excellent, the color is uninspiring and does not achieve the magic formula of a non-IG blue-black that looks like IG Blue-black.

Not everyone thinks that all Blue Blacks are trying to emulate IG inks.

 

You believe that about all blue blacks and when it doesn't adequately emulate IG you are left disappointed.

 

Honestly this is the first time I'm hearing that all blue black inks are supposed to emulate IG inks.

[The Good Captain]

Not everyone thinks that all Blue Blacks are trying to emulate IG inks.

 

You believe that about all blue blacks and when it doesn't adequately emulate IG you are left disappointed.

 

Honestly this is the first time I'm hearing that all blue black inks are supposed to emulate IG inks.

IG is IG - pure and simple. Blue-Black is 'just' a colour/shade/hue or whatever. I just enjoy ink for what it is - a coloured liquid - and if I want something for a particular purpose, then I'll choose that particular bottle of coloured liquid.

I certainly wouldn't complain about one, just because it didn't behave the way I perceived it should, based on its name.

And if it came to the crunch, I'd use Pelikan 4001 Blue-Black every time.

Now; there's a starting point...

[lapis]

That's right on. If you want an IG BB then you have to say IG BB. A BB doesn't have to be an IG. Most BBs aren't IGs anyhow. Just like a beer or wine. You have to specify and can't expect that everybody always knows what you think or mean.

 

Man!

[Erik Dalton]

Well done.

Smudge, Just so there is no misunderstanding, "well done" Was a compliment.

It takes a bigger person to walk away when strong opinions clash..

Again, well done.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Old Salt

[TSherbs]

 

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any non-IG blue-black is simply trying to recreate the look of IG blue-black without the (mostly-imagined) hassles of IG ink.

 

Doug, I understand your preference for the look and performance of IG blue-blacks. I like their looks, too, but some are too chalky and dry for me, which I do not prefer. In other words, my liking for IG offerings is limited.

 

However, I can't see the truth of your assertion that all non-IG blblks seek to emulate IG blblks. A quick look at the variety of non-IG offerings in a wider range of hues shows that this is not true. Parker Blue-Black, for example, is clearly not an attempt to look or be like a traditional IG blue black (other than in the name--but that is marketing deceit, in this case: the color is turquoise, and the ink ain't permanent).

Edited April 9, 2017 by TSherbs

[kronos77]

Now this was a point I made a while back: That blue-black is NOT a color but a color change that happens to iron gall inks when they go on the paper blue and dry to black.

[TSherbs]

Now this was a point I made a while back: That blue-black is NOT a color but a color change that happens to iron gall inks when they go on the paper blue and dry to black.

 

sometimes

[Erik Dalton]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Enough. I'm done with this.

[The Good Captain]

T

 

That's right on. If you want an IG BB then you have to say IG BB. A BB doesn't have to be an IG. Most BBs aren't IGs anyhow. Just like a beer or wine. You have to specify and can't expect that everybody always knows what you think or mean.

 

Man!

That's right, The Mascara Snake; 'Fast & Bulbous'. Bulbous also tapered...

[kronos77]

 

sometimes

Sometimes? I think originally this is what blue-black meant: color change not color. If by sometimes, you are including the present time, where the term is misused, then yes.

 

Manufacturers nowadays are trying to emulate the classic color of blue-black IG inks. The masses of fountain pen users seem to apply the term incorrectly to any dark blue ink.

[praxim]

Manufacturers nowadays are trying to emulate the classic color of blue-black IG inks.

and your reference for this assertion is...?

 

If that is what they are doing then I wish they would stop it to get on with making inks that look like interesting blue - black blends, which on casual inspection of ink examples one might think is exactly what most of them are doing.

[TSherbs]

Whatever

 

Old Salt has it right