“ Wet” ink recommendations- various pens!

[cougarking]

l

Looking for recommendations for a “wet” ink.

 

The pens I have ;

 

Lamy 2000 broad

Waterman Carene Stub

Lamy studio 1.5, 1.9  steel

parker 61 medium.

 

or any suggestions that suit these pens.

happy to try different inks for different pens.

 

cheers.

[yazeh]

What colour?

It's easier to say what inks to avoid:

Dry inks: Short version: Kyo no oto/ Pelikan/ Graf von Faber-Castell and almost all iron gall inks but KWZ...

In general Noodler's inks are on the wet side...

 

[A Smug Dill]

Sailor Shikiori yodaki. Colorverse Schrödinger.

[Karmachanic]

Orange-ish inks generally tend towards dryness.

[LizEF]

39 minutes ago, cougarking said:

Lamy 2000 broad

I thought this was a wet nib?  Wouldn't you want a non-wet ink for it?

 

Anywho, some wet inks from my experience:

• Colorverse Extra Dimension
• Colorverse Ham #65
• Colorverse Warped Passages
• De Atramentis Steel Blue
• Herbin Bleu des Profondeurs
• Pilot Iroshizuku (in general, but with exceptions) Yama-budo (in specific)

[djm1121]

Aurora Black is a very 'Wet Ink', it will leave puddles behind and take a little while to dry. Never did take a stop watch to it but I'd say it takes between 20 to 30 seconds to dry on quality paper. Another good choice which I just received today and inked up my Scribo Flex is Jacques Herbin Bleu de minuit which in my opinion is right up there with Aurora Black as for leaving puddles behind and the dwell time. A lot of folks might consider a negative trait and understandably so, in certain situations. I myself love it, ymmv...

[arcfide]

Are you looking for "wet" as in lubricated on the nib or "wet" as in exceptionally free flowing? If you lookup the ink reviews from "An Ink Guy" on Youtube he has a wide range of inks reviewed that includes viscosity measurements using a standardized model that can give you an idea of the flow of the ink in a relatively standardized way. Some inks that people term wet actually have a relatively high viscosity and are "dry" in that sense, but they have a high degree of lubrication, making them feel slippery. 

 

I'd put J. Herbin inks in the camp of high viscosity, high lubrication feel inks in general, and that might suit your pens well if you want that. The Sailor inks I'm familiar with have all measured fairly wet (low viscosity), and sometimes exceptionally so, and that leads to really good flow onto the page. 

 

And while they don't get a lot of love around here, don't discount some of the Parker and Waterman inks. They have a very good flow, and out of the right pens they can be really interesting inks that are quite affordable and serviceable. 

 

Many of the Noodler's inks that I've tried have had exceptionally high surfactant/lubrication loads with high dye content, meaning that they tended to be very penetrating and flowed almost too well from the pen, so i would give some of those a try, such as Legal Blue and 54th Mass. if you want. I haven't found Noodler's Black to have that same property of free flowing low viscosity, so I would discount that one. 

 

The Lamy inks get a reputation for being dry, but IME they've been middle of the road wetness, but without a super high lubrication level. The Platinum IG and pigmented inks are free flowing, but not heavily lubricated, so that might also be something you want to try, though Carbon black is very wet and the carbon particles are almost self-lubricating, giving a different feel. 

 

I've had pretty good flow from most of the Diamine inks that I've tried. I've found the R&K inks to be somewhat more dry. 

[CoolBreeze]

27 minutes ago, arcfide said:

Are you looking for "wet" as in lubricated on the nib or "wet" as in exceptionally free flowing? If you lookup the ink reviews from "An Ink Guy" on Youtube he has a wide range of inks reviewed that includes viscosity measurements using a standardized model that can give you an idea of the flow of the ink in a relatively standardized way. Some inks that people term wet actually have a relatively high viscosity and are "dry" in that sense, but they have a high degree of lubrication, making them feel slippery. 

 

I'd put J. Herbin inks in the camp of high viscosity, high lubrication feel inks in general, and that might suit your pens well if you want that. The Sailor inks I'm familiar with have all measured fairly wet (low viscosity), and sometimes exceptionally so, and that leads to really good flow onto the page. 

 

And while they don't get a lot of love around here, don't discount some of the Parker and Waterman inks. They have a very good flow, and out of the right pens they can be really interesting inks that are quite affordable and serviceable. 

 

Many of the Noodler's inks that I've tried have had exceptionally high surfactant/lubrication loads with high dye content, meaning that they tended to be very penetrating and flowed almost too well from the pen, so i would give some of those a try, such as Legal Blue and 54th Mass. if you want. I haven't found Noodler's Black to have that same property of free flowing low viscosity, so I would discount that one. 

 

The Lamy inks get a reputation for being dry, but IME they've been middle of the road wetness, but without a super high lubrication level. The Platinum IG and pigmented inks are free flowing, but not heavily lubricated, so that might also be something you want to try, though Carbon black is very wet and the carbon particles are almost self-lubricating, giving a different feel. 

 

I've had pretty good flow from most of the Diamine inks that I've tried. I've found the R&K inks to be somewhat more dry. 

I just discovered an ink guy on youtube and at first I thought I discovered a pot of gold with his "viscosity" tests. However, as you mention it really doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Lamy Turquoise is driest inks possible according to his tests and feels like a normal ink to me. I agree - lubrication is a thing. Also, some inks that are considered "wet" by him, don't necessarily mean saturated - They may flow but still might be pale.

 

OP - I am not sure your definition of wet but I will answer according to flow rate. Every DeAtramentis ink I tried flows very freely. Monteverde Sapphire, Diamine Asa Blue (most Diamine seem average to dry to me), J. Herbin Bleu Perverche are wet inks that also flow well to me. Iroshizuku inks are hit and miss for me. Robert Oster are hit and miss for me. Most GVFC are dry to me.

[arcfide]

17 minutes ago, CoolBreeze said:

I just discovered an ink guy on youtube and at first I thought I discovered a pot of gold with his "viscosity" tests. However, as you mention it really doesn't tell the whole story.

 

I do think it's a pot of gold, but perhaps in a different way. Specifically, we have used terms like "wet" too loosely in the FP community and it doesn't actually help communicate desire or intent. The work that An Ink Guy does on YT establishes two measurements that are much easier to actually standardize on, which is viscosity/flow and dry time. That's a great start, because we can now identify inks on those basis, rather than using a nebulous "wetness" concept. I am in favor of restricting my use of the term wet to refer specifically to the flow rate/viscosity of inks. I think this is a "good thing" because what we really care about when we are discussing "wetness" most of the time is a combination of factors which is flow rate, lubrication, and saturation. If we spoke more precisely about the attributes of an ink in these three terms rather than lumping them all under "wet" then we would all improve our ability to communicate, and it would help to improve how others could help us, too. If I want a non-lubricated or low-lubrication wet ink, that's a big difference than a dry, lubricated ink. The dry, lubricated ink in a "wet" pen may give me more of that "glass smooth" feeling that I want, whereas the wet flowing ink that is low/no lubrication may enable me to have a better line and write faster while retaining feedback that I want to keep on the nib. It's so much easier and more precise to speak about inks in terms of flow rate, saturation, and lubrication than to try to lump them all together. 

 

And, for someone who wants a "wet" ink, it's helpful to be able to split this out, as this affects the "type" of ink puddle you get on the page. J. Herbin Black compared to Sailor Black is a great example. Both give "ink puddles" on the page, but in very different ways, with very different results. 

[A Smug Dill]

9 hours ago, arcfide said:

If we spoke more precisely about the attributes of an ink in these three terms rather than lumping them all under "wet" then we would all improve our ability to communicate, and it would help to improve how others could help us, too.

 

I agree; but, sadly, most pen users simply don't have the appetite — irrespective of whether they have the learned capacity — to distance themselves from the (sometimes only imagined) writing experience and/or outcomes in discussion with fellow fountain pen hobbyists/nerds, and focus clinically on the process of writing and physical characteristics of products (including but not limited to the ink and nib used), to communicate or obtain information regarding what to try next in the hope of realising for themselves (as it is nobody else's business) the desired writing experience and/or outcomes.

[ENewton]

9 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

I think this is a "good thing" because what we really care about when we are discussing "wetness" most of the time is a combination of factors which is flow rate, lubrication, and saturation. If we spoke more precisely about the attributes of an ink in these three terms rather than lumping them all under "wet" then we would all improve our ability to communicate, and it would help to improve how others could help us, too.

 

Indeed!  Thank you for articulating your points so clearly.

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, A Smug Dill said:

I agree; but, sadly, most pen users simply don't have the appetite — irrespective of whether they have the learned capacity — to distance themselves from the (sometimes only imagined) writing experience and/or outcomes in discussion with fellow fountain pen hobbyists/nerds, and focus clinically on the process of writing and physical characteristics of products (including but not limited to the ink and nib used), to communicate or obtain information regarding what to try next in the hope of realising for themselves (as it is nobody else's business) the desired writing experience and/or outcomes.

 

For me, it really took the process I've been doing for my reviews (one nib, same papers, 4-5 days per ink, paying attention for review purposes) to figure out the differences between flow (wetness) and lubrication, and how those might relate (and not relate) to dry time and saturation.  For the vast majority of us, flow and lubrication can only be measured by comparison to other inks.  And it requires intentional observation, and note-taking.

 

Prior to doing this, one of my hesitations to starting ink reviews was the forms including flow, lubrication, and saturation, and me not being sure how to rate those - I really couldn't figure out objectively how I would know those things without instrumentation.  It occurs to me that the stickies that include those review forms should be updated to explain these terms in detail and how the "average human" can use comparison and observation to rate them.

 

Perhaps I will start a thread and those of us who feel comfortable can provide commentary on these various terms, so that newbie reviewers, or foiks getting more serious about ink, can learn.  Once we have sufficient data, a summary could be written and maybe one of the moderators will sticky it.

 

Thoughts?

[knarflj]

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

 

Perhaps I will start a thread and those of us who feel comfortable can provide commentary on these various terms, so that newbie reviewers, or foiks getting more serious about ink, can learn.  Once we have sufficient data, a summary could be written and maybe one of the moderators will sticky it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Oh, please do!  Such a resource would be very helpful.  I've been reading ink reviews for years, but still don't quite understand the difference between "flow" and "lubrication".

[LizEF]

3 minutes ago, knarflj said:

Oh, please do!  Such a resource would be very helpful.  I've been reading ink reviews for years, but still don't quite understand the difference between "flow" and "lubrication".

 Working on it now.

[LizEF]

47 minutes ago, LizEF said:

 Working on it now.

OK, it can be found here:

 

[knarflj]

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

OK, it can be found here:

 

 

Thank you!  Running over there right now.

[Runnin_Ute]

9 hours ago, LizEF said:

 

For me, it really took the process I've been doing for my reviews (one nib, same papers, 4-5 days per ink, paying attention for review purposes) to figure out the differences between flow (wetness) and lubrication, and how those might relate (and not relate) to dry time and saturation.  For the vast majority of us, flow and lubrication can only be measured by comparison to other inks.  And it requires intentional observation, and note-taking.

 

Prior to doing this, one of my hesitations to starting ink reviews was the forms including flow, lubrication, and saturation, and me not being sure how to rate those - I really couldn't figure out objectively how I would know those things without instrumentation.  It occurs to me that the stickies that include those review forms should be updated to explain these terms in detail and how the "average human" can use comparison and observation to rate them.

 

Perhaps I will start a thread and those of us who feel comfortable can provide commentary on these various terms, so that newbie reviewers, or foiks getting more serious about ink, can learn.  Once we have sufficient data, a summary could be written and maybe one of the moderators will sticky it.

 

Thoughts?

The thread exists already. It is one of Amberleadavis' TOD threads. There are ones on dry, wet and lubricated. Just as a start...

[LizEF]

26 minutes ago, Runnin_Ute said:

The thread exists already. It is one of Amberleadavis' TOD threads. There are ones on dry, wet and lubricated. Just as a start...

Went and looked again.  Unless I'm missing something, these threads are lists of inks with the desired attributes.  They don't include a definition of the term and instructions to potential reviewers on how to go about measuring it.  Please let me know if I'm missing something.  No need to reinvent the wheel.

[A Smug Dill]

11 hours ago, LizEF said:

OK, it can be found here:

 

 “Good job.”  “You guys are the real heroes.”

 

5 hours ago, LizEF said:

Unless I'm missing something, these threads are lists of inks with the desired attributes.  They don't include a definition of the term and instructions to potential reviewers on how to go about measuring it.

 

Well, I'd say it's more than a list of lubricating inks, but you're right, there is no definition of what they are, or any discussion of how — physically and/or chemically — lubricating inks (by virtue of what they are as substances) do what they do. Moreover, “reduce wear on the parts around them” is not even what they do, but merely a most likely consequence of what they do; and so that is two logical steps away from what lubricating inks are.

 

More here:

 

[ENewton]

48 minutes ago, noahenholm said:

Winsor & Newton is good ink, I like this ink because of its vibrant color. You can refer to this article. 

 

However, the original poster was asking about inks to use in fountain pens.