The ‘Right’ Way To Do Ink Reviews To Serve One's Curiosity And Interests?

[TSherbs]

I use pens immediately after filling too. But I do not fill pens by dipping the nib into the ink bottle.

 

I use them immediately, too. Of course.

 

I waas writing about what kind of reviews most reflect my baseline writing experience and conditions.

 

I also don't really care about swatches, drops, splotches, etc. I don't do those myself and too often I have found that they don't reflect the look of the ink in a fine or medium nib (what I write with). Others may care about these a lot, which is okie-dokie with me.

[Cyber6]

Agree with both comments below. In summary, do whatever it feels good to you. If it feels good to use an oven mitt, then use it. .. We readers SHOULD appreciate the time and effort you put in it. (readers should not nitpick if you only use fine or broad nibs)

 

 

I myself (and many others) will be EXTREMELY grateful of anything you post in the shape of a review...

 

 

An early THANKS for your future contributions...

 

 

C.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, I think the "right balance" is just as subjective as anything else when it comes to reviews. My personal rules are: if it's something you strongly dislike, don't do it; if it's something you enjoy, do it.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that every review is a great review. I think if you simply write your own style of review with no thought given to others' desires, we readers would appreciate them nonetheless!

 

 

Do whatever you want, especially if it is creative.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Cyber6

[A Smug Dill]

In other words, it seems like you need to compare (either multiple pens or multiple inks) in order to draw meaningful conclusions beyond (this ink from this pen looks thusly).

 

Does that make sense? Is that in lines with your thinking? Am I missing something?

Please be assured what you wrote makes sense. This is my 'theory':

 

The pen, nib, paper, ambient temperature, humidity, air pressure, the age of the ink in the bottle, the length of time the ink has spent in the nib or converter or piston-filler barrel, and so on are all variables that could affect the flow, 'performance', and/or some other attribute of the ink in question. When it comes down to it, 'my' Diamine Oxblood could be different from 'your' or some other reader's Diamine Oxblood; for all you, I and anyone else know, I could have contaminated my bottle of it, or it could have been contaminated during the manufacturing or packing processes. All I can review is 'my' bottle of it, not anyone's or everyone else's, and I cannot (or simply will not) repeat the tests using N>1 separate bottles of that type of ink to eliminate or average over the effects due to variation between them.

 

For objective, rigorous testing, noting the test conditions and recording all the known variables (especially if they can be measured, e.g. temperature, air pressure) would be important, as would understanding how and by how much each variable would influence the specific attribute(s) of the subject the particular test is designed to elicit and/or assess. However, as amateurs and enthusiasts, I don't think we're really so scientific, so diligent, so patient, and so willing to invest effort and resources into doing everything we can to get to the unadulterated essence of something.

 

That's why what we produce are just user reviews – limited, one-eyed, loosely controlled, largely anecdotal information. Showing scans, photos and such will 'help' readers identify, isolate and/or filter out what are the reviewers' subjective perception biases, and supposedly present some representation of objective fact, but then scanners, cameras, monitors, ambient light can all introduce distortions.

 

So, at the end of the day, we just need to make a hell of a lot of assumptions about the other variables instead of controlling them (much less allowing prospective readers of a review to control them) all, and focus on how to observe and how to evaluate what is observed.

 

Without a metric or a scale, 'wet' or 'dry' is meaningless without comparing to something else in the same class as a 'known quantity', just as 'hot' or 'cold' would be if there is no temperature scale and no thermometer. In the worst case, the reviewer is comparing the observed ink flow against the (imagined, recalled) average of his/her own fuzzy aggregate of experiences with other inks and pens, then summarising the observation with a single adjectival word, but expect readers to already share his/her frame of reference. That's why I personally don't want to tell others whether an ink is 'wet' or 'dry', any more than I want to tell someone whether a particular bowl of curry is 'spicy' or 'mild'.

 

By showing the scale of multi-pass swabs against writing samples on the same piece or type of paper, we're simply allowing readers to see and assess for themselves the level of saturation produced by the combination of pen, nib, paper, handwriting style and technique, yadda yadda.

 

For my own purposes, I intend to settle on one or more of the desk pens I recently bought, as my 'standard' test equipment, thus helping eliminate or at least reduce some of the variables. The instrument will still be subject to the effects of contamination (from remnants of other inks, or greasy fingertips), effects of aging, wear and tear, and so on. Essentially, it's up to me to 'know' the tool and the condition it is in when a test is conducted. I'm not testing five or ten different inks on the same day with the same pen so that there is some calibration, and it would be pointless anyway when each flush and each fill can introduce yet more variation into the condition of the tool.

 

Better that than to just state, "I wrote it with a Pilot Vanishing Point F nib." Between my fiancée and I, we have maybe ten of those here accumulated over several years, and they don't all write identically. What does that really tell any reader who has a single Pilot VP pen (with an F nib), or none?

 

Ideally, once I have produced a number of ink reviews using my 'standard' test equipment, some semblance of a frame of reference can be arrived at by readers of those.

Edited September 26, 2018 by A Smug Dill

[LizEF]

Thanks, Smug Dill. That all makes sense.

[A Smug Dill]

But I do not fill pens by dipping the nib into the ink bottle.

I figured you don't. I don't generally like to do so either, whether that's just after I've spent time and effort flushing, drying and polishing the nib and the section on a pen, or just refilling a pen with more of the same ink.

 

However, I don't recall ever coming across a set of pen manufacturer's published instructions (or owner's guide, or user manual) that tell users to remove the converter from the nib/feed and fill the former directly (from the ink bottle or ink well, or by syringe), then replacing it. I must therefore assume avoiding the mess created by dipping the nib into the bottle to fill is not the norm among fountain pen users, and not proper procedure as far as pen makers are concerned – not the least because it then takes time for the ink to flow down into the feed, thus indefinitely delaying the point in time when the pen becomes usable. Not being able to write immediately after plugging an independently filled converter onto a clean, dry feed is not an attribute of the ink; and, the time it takes for the nib to start making legible marks on paper could have more to do with how dry the feed and nib are after being cleaned. Personally I think that has no place in an ink review.

 

I certainly don't think following pen manufacturers' instructions for filling the pen, which implicitly primes the feed and makes the pen ready to write immediately after filling, is "cheating" any way you cut it.

 

I thought that this thread was asking us to state what kinds of things we value in reviews. Maybe I am mistaken.

Sorry, that wasn't what I was asking at all when I started this thread. I was asking other (experienced or prospective) reviewers about methodology and procedure, how to be more systematic, more objective and more efficient in performing tests and producing ink reviews. It took me a long while to figure out (just last night) that I need to produce a visual saturation scale for each ink against which to assess 'wetness'; previously I was leaning towards using "an F nib" (but what is the standard for that, when I have 50 or 60 pens mostly with F nibs?) and just looking at how thick a line it lays down when the feed is properly saturated.

 

That was the sort of guidance and/or discussion I was after; I was asking for tips from 'old hands' at conducting reviews, even if their experience is transferred knowledge from a different domain (e.g. chemistry labs). It's not about the reader of the reviews, and I'm getting resentful of some people seemingly trying to change the narrative to how ink reviewers could (or should) better serve readers of reviews such as themselves. Producing (as well as copiously reading) ink reviews is a hobby to me, not a community service.

[TSherbs]

I had thought that the reviews were for general consumption and comment. Nevermind.

[A Smug Dill]

I had thought that the reviews were for general consumption and comment.

Once the reviews are published, they are available for general consumption by Internet users at large and comment by registered FPN forum members, certainly. However, that is different from saying the reviews are 'for' them, in the sense of they are the clients and the reviewers are there to provide a service (out of community obligation, or for personal reward of some sort, or whatever).

 

Sorry, but the review subject (i.e. the ink), the reviewer himself/herself, or even the manufacturer and/or retailer all have higher priority as foci than the prospective reader who may come across the review in a week's, or a month's, or a few years' time. User reviews, especially those offered on a volunteer basis, are not primarily about the audience's concerns, much less what they would think are a good use of their time. When was the last time you read an independent, unsponsored book review that was focussed on whether you would enjoy reading the book as a prospective reader/purchaser?

[TSherbs]

Dill, I am just a casual consumer of reviews. My opinion is not what you are looking for. Peace out.

[minddance]

I figured you don't. I don't generally like to do so either, whether that's just after I've spent time and effort flushing, drying and polishing the nib and the section on a pen, or just refilling a pen with more of the same ink.

 

However, I don't recall ever coming across a set of pen manufacturer's published instructions (or owner's guide, or user manual) that tell users to remove the converter from the nib/feed and fill the former directly (from the ink bottle or ink well, or by syringe), then replacing it. I must therefore assume avoiding the mess created by dipping the nib into the bottle to fill is not the norm among fountain pen users, and not proper procedure as far as pen makers are concerned not the least because it then takes time for the ink to flow down into the feed, thus indefinitely delaying the point in time when the pen becomes usable. Not being able to write immediately after plugging an independently filled converter onto a clean, dry feed is not an attribute of the ink; and, the time it takes for the nib to start making legible marks on paper could have more to do with how dry the feed and nib are after being cleaned. Personally I think that has no place in an ink review.

 

I certainly don't think following pen manufacturers' instructions for filling the pen, which implicitly primes the feed and makes the pen ready to write immediately after filling, is "cheating" any way you cut it.

 

 

Sorry, that wasn't what I was asking at all when I started this thread. I was asking other (experienced or prospective) reviewers about methodology and procedure, how to be more systematic, more objective and more efficient in performing tests and producing ink reviews. It took me a long while to figure out (just last night) that I need to produce a visual saturation scale for each ink against which to assess 'wetness'; previously I was leaning towards using "an F nib" (but what is the standard for that, when I have 50 or 60 pens mostly with F nibs?) and just looking at how thick a line it lays down when the feed is properly saturated.

 

That was the sort of guidance and/or discussion I was after; I was asking for tips from 'old hands' at conducting reviews, even if their experience is transferred knowledge from a different domain (e.g. chemistry labs). It's not about the reader of the reviews, and I'm getting resentful of some people seemingly trying to change the narrative to how ink reviewers could (or should) better serve readers of reviews such as themselves. Producing (as well as copiously reading) ink reviews is a hobby to me, not a community service.

If you were to follow every manufacturers' published instructions, you would be feeding Mont Blanc pens only with Mont Blanc inks. And very possibly the same manufacturers' inks with the same manufacturers' pens, which narrows down a reviewer's scope.

 

Have yourself a nice day and enjoy your inks

[A Smug Dill]

[A dip pen] might just do a better job of eliciting shading and sheen from an ink, even with single-pass writing only, than any of my 'everyday carry' fountain pens.

A new fountain pen just arrived in the mail, so while it isn't one of my EDC pens, I may as well just test it anyway:

 

[Cyber6]

Evita?

 

[amberleadavis]

I had thought that the reviews were for general consumption and comment. Nevermind.

 

 

Personally, I have been doing reviews the WRONG way for years.

 

We now have a whole forum dedicated to doing reviews the WRONG way - the Co-Razy-View forum. (I think you may have been the victim of a CRV in the past).

 

The goal of CRVs was to allow people to compare - inks, pens, paper - We even have a CRV where two FPNers used the same pen on the same paper with the same ink and had radically different results.

 

The Ink Review Forum rules are: 1 person, 1 ink and the published guidelines Reviews of commercially available inks, conforming to the ink review guidelines

 

Co-Razy-View Forum is the Forum for TESTS, Comparisons, and all the other reviews.

[A Smug Dill]

Evita?

Who else?

 

In other words, it seems like you need to compare (either multiple pens or multiple inks) in order to draw meaningful conclusions beyond (this ink from this pen looks thusly).

 

Then there's the issue of holding one's writing style and technique constant between tests. Same pen, same ink, same session, but if I vary the speed and/or pressure in applying the pen strokes, I could make a 'wet' writer seem dry:

 

 

The Ink Review Forum rules are: 1 person, 1 ink and the published guidelines Reviews of commercially available inks, conforming to the ink review guidelines

 

Co-Razy-View Forum is the Forum for TESTS, Comparisons, and all the other reviews.

Sorry, Amber, I forget… I thought I started this discussion thread in Inky Thoughts. Did it get moved to Ink Reviews, or did I make a mistake and put it there myself in the first place?

Edited September 27, 2018 by A Smug Dill

[amberleadavis]

Who else?

 

 

 

Then there's the issue of holding one's writing style and technique constant between tests. Same pen, same ink, same session, but if I vary the speed and/or pressure in applying the pen strokes, I could make a 'wet' writer seem dry:

 

 

 

Sorry, Amber, I forget… I thought I started this discussion thread in Inky Thoughts. Did it get moved to Ink Reviews, or did I make a mistake and put it there myself in the first place?

 

 

As IT moderator, I moved it because it actually belongs in IR thread in the how to do reviews, but I left it in IT for so long so that the topic got some traction. I meant to leave a link, but I may have missed that. Everyone who is still following will still be following.

[A Smug Dill]

As IT moderator, I moved it because it actually belongs in IR thread in the how to do reviews,

I think this may partly be the reason we (or just I?) seem to be getting into all these arguments over the purpose of this discussion thread, because it seems the “how to do reviews” is more of a prescription (or at least set of guidelines) for the information requirements of ink reviews that comply with the rules of the Ink Reviews forum section – thus more aligned with the review consumer's concerns and expectations – than the actual tools, equipment, instrumentation, hands-on procedures, etc. from the perspective of the reviewer.

[Cyber6]

So, we have EVITA and now MAN OF LA MANCHA ... what's next?... HAMILTON ??

[Cyber6]

Just realize you are in Australia... You should do LesMiz next... .Philip Quast is my ALL TIME FAVORITE !!!

[amberleadavis]

I think this may partly be the reason we (or just I?) seem to be getting into all these arguments over the purpose of this discussion thread, because it seems the “how to do reviews” is more of a prescription (or at least set of guidelines) for the information requirements of ink reviews that comply with the rules of the Ink Reviews forum section – thus more aligned with the review consumer's concerns and expectations – than the actual tools, equipment, instrumentation, hands-on procedures, etc. from the perspective of the reviewer.

 

I redid the move and left links. It will throw off the "# of views" but it will appear in both forums.

 

Also, The ORIGINAL IR MOD had these rules:

 

Posted 18 September 2007 - 14:39

There has been a lot of confusion about how to do a formal review here on FPN. Ultimately, I'm pretty lenient on this issue. All I ask is this:

- a photo

- some sort of comment on dry time, flow, bleed through, and shading

I'll leave the original note below for those interested on how to do a more in depth review, but as long as you've got the stuff above, however you present that information being entirely up to you, I'll consider it a formal review and index it as such.

Thanks!

==========================================================================================

You may not have all of the info listed, so just include what you can. The guidelines suggest various questions that members often have about an ink when trying to determine if they would like to add it to their collection. If you have any further suggestions for what would be helpful to you in a review, please let us know.

 

Reviews that are posted directly here on FPN (as opposed to posting a link to the review), with one ink reviewed per topic, and that contain at least the starred info indicated below, will be included in our Index of Ink Reviews.

 

Please post only ONE review per topic!

 

Pen(s) & paper used for review, as well as the ink brand & color name*

(Folks like to know how an ink will act with a fountain pen, thus the use of an FP(s) as opposed to a dip pen is preferable for reviews.)

A photo/scan if possible is most helpful...*

Does the ink dry quickly? (i.e. in 3 or 4 seconds if rubbed lightly with your finger)* It's helpful if you show this smear test on your review.*

Does it seem to flow particularly fast or slow? *

Does it tend to dry up in pens quickly if the cap is off for awhile?

Any start-up problems with the pen, either in a short time or if not used for a few days? *

How does it lubricate the nib? (sufficiently, or like "skating on the paper")

Is it highly saturated?

Does it feather and/or bleed through the paper? *

Does it shade? *

Is there a phenomenal difference in appearance coming from different pens?

Is it particularly sensitive to hand oils?

Is it considered archival? (pH neutral & lightfast per manufacturer)

Is it waterproof/bulletproof? *

Are there some papers that it works especially well on? Or doesn't work well on?

Are there other ink colors that you know of that are very close to this color?

Is it sold in both bottles and cartridges?

Is the bottle designed to be "user friendly" and/or does it have an ink well?

If it isn't widely available, where did you purchase it?

 

*At a minimum, please try to cover these points that make a review relevant for most members. Thanks!

Edited by saskia_madding, 04 December 2014 - 08:49.

[A Smug Dill]

Thanks, Amber.

 

 

A photo/scan if possible is most helpful...*

Does the ink dry quickly? (i.e. in 3 or 4 seconds if rubbed lightly with your finger)* It's helpful if you show this smear test on your review.*

 

So, just to provide an example of the sort of advice and/or discussion I am after when I started this thread, to address the point(s) of review quoted immediately above, it could be something along the lines of,

 

Testing for drying time can be a time-consuming exercise, and some esteemed reviewers have stated they don't include it because they don't have the patience. Here's one way you could cut down on the end-to-end duration of the testing.

 

First, choose a timeline containing all the milestones at which you want to test whether the ink is dry. For example, 3 seconds after laying down a mark, and 5s, 10s, 15s, 20s, 30s, 45s, 60s.

Next, practice writing distinct groups of marks you're going to try to smear with your finger, so that you can complete each group of marks and move on to the next within one second. Just the number of seconds corresponding with the testing times is probably as good a choice of marks as any other.

Next, acquire [some particular app], which allows you to set a series of timed alerts. For the example timeline above, you'll want to be able to be first alerted at t=3 (3 seconds after you hit Start at t=0), then at t=4, t=8, t=12, t=16, t=25, t=39, and finally t=53.

Then, for the main event:

Decide where you want to lay out the scale, or series of marks, on the test page.

✍ At t=-8, write "60".

✍ At t=-7, write "45".

✍ At t=-6, write "30".

✍ At t=-5, write "20".

✍ At t=-4, write "15".

✍ At t=-3, write "10".

✍ At t=-2, write "5".

✍ At t=-1, write "3".

☞ At t=0, hit Start in the app.

☟ At t=3, rub where you wrote "3".

☟ At t=4, rub where you wrote "5".

☟At t=8, rub where you wrote "10".

☟At t=12, rub where you wrote "15".

☟At t=16, rub where you wrote "20".

☟At t=25, rub where you wrote "30".

☟At t=39, rub where you wrote "45".

☟At t=53, rub where you wrote "60".

All done in under one-and-a-half minutes! You'll get away with not even adding any more commentary about drying time, if you're already showing the results of the test in a scan or photo.

 

Obviously, drying time could be significantly different on various types of paper, as well as being influenced by ambient temperature and humidity, and exposure to air flow and sunshine. Also, don't forget the amount of moisture on your fingertip at each rub will have something to do with it. Then there is the question of whether you used a 'wet' pen or a 'dry' one to make those marks.

 

Personally, I'd only bother testing on the paper type I use for journalling. If I have to sign a form, in all likelihood I won't have strict control over the type of paper on which the form is printed but will have the luxury of setting the form aside for a minute or two after signing.

To me, that would be far more relevant than some consumer of reviews suggesting, "But I want to see whether an ink will be smear-proof at 25 seconds after writing, because that is the point at which I'm most likely to unwittingly touch what I wrote!" or, "You have to test drying time on Tomoe River paper writing copperplate using a stub nib, because that's what I do to elicit oh-oh-oh-so-much sheen that I live for from inks, so my primary concern is about accidentally marring my lovely artwork. Who cares if a few words in my journal get smeared?"

[A Smug Dill]

Another question for reviewers to ponder:

 

How best to be resource-efficient in conducting ink reviews, minimise ink wastage and material costs, while still ticking all the boxes and containing the risk of contamination? How best to strike the balance between all that?

 

It's probably easier for reviewers who can order 2ml sample vials at negligible postage costs, especially if the philosophy of an individual reviewer is that 2ml samples are consumables (and at worst, write-offs) in the review process; even if none of the ink remains for real world applications or use cases afterwards, he/she still would not consider it wasted or wasteful, because it can be cheaply replaced or readily replenished.

 

As I've noted upfront in this thread, acquiring ink samples by retail – especially piecemeal – is not viable as a low-cost approach. In that way, I suppose using a few drops too many for this test or that is not such a big issue, even though I still wouldn't frivolously waste the Sailor Jentle inks that now only come in 20ml bottles by retail, and I had shipped here directly from Japan.

 

To prevent contamination (at which I haven't been particularly fastidious), I supposed transferring 1ml or so from the main bottle into a separate vial or inkwell should be adopted as part of standard operating procedure. I do tend to just dip the nibs (or naked converters) into the large bottle, to minimise cleaning (medical eye-droppers) and wastage (of plastic pipettes; oddly neither of my eBay orders of such have arrived, and it's been over a month of waiting).

 

Using q-tips as single-use swabbing tools is cheap enough, but they do have a tendency of soaking up far more ink than is necessarily to properly conduct testing or produce a visual saturation scale. Perhaps someone knows of a reliable, washable and reusable tool with a flat edge that is not so affected by whether an ink is 'wet' or 'dry'?