An alternative look at ink wetness

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

I'm happy to return to calling Clairefontiane-esque paper as "smooth" paper, which I called it before I saw the word 'coating' banded about. Haha. 😊

(I do understand why people use that term - first, most of us have no idea about the technical meaning, nor how papers are made; and second, it does seem, in the generic, non-technical use of the term, as if those papers are coated with something to make them so very smooth.)

 

1 hour ago, RJS said:

To clarify, I'm not knocking the tremendous research that has been conducted, and I admire it. I'm just enjoying the conversation around the terminology/definitions and the subjective nature of our take on the descriptive words we use.

Speaking for myself, I didn't think you were knocking anything.

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

I'm sorry that link I posted bumped up against a pay wall- it doesn't for me.

I went back and looked again - it wasn't, and I've downloaded the PDF.  It was just that I had to enable javascript for a different server to get the PDF.   Will read another day, when I have more time.

[RJS]

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

If I said something that might lead you to believe I'm equating the two, it was unintentional.  I'm not (equating the two).  Yes, I commented on both and on how the EF nib might impact one's perception of them, but I didn't think I was equating them.

 

Yes, like your nib's been oiled, or protected, or cushioned from the texture of the paper.

 

I haven't found iron galls to necessarily be poorly lubricated.  And I wouldn't call it a chalky feeling, but simply scratchy - which is how a poorly lubricated Japanese EF feels - scratchy.  Maybe larger nibs feel gritty, not sure - don't have as much experience paying attention...

Chalky is probably the wrong word. Iron gall inks have a weird feeling (usually) for me. Not smooth. Like trying to massage your arm with nothing but water. It seems most irritating to me with a Western medium nib (I prefer fine Japanese nibs, though I also collect EF and M nibs.

[RJS]

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

Interesting.  I went back and looked at the numbers for Waterman inks, and you're right, the numbers say they should be dry, but they don't seem that way.  But Waterman were the first inks I reviewed (not Serenity Blue), so my perception was likely influenced by good (or at least good enough) lubrication.

 

I've only used Serenity Blue once (the cartridge that came with my Kultur) and it was pale and boring (nothing like what other people seem to get).  Perhaps because the nib was really dry and so was the ink.  I've since altered the nib to write wet, and I now have a short cartridge of this ink for review purposes.  It'll be interesting to see what I think of it whenever it gets voted to the top.

I'm not convinced the carts and the bottles are filled with the same inks, plus Waterman do loving tweaking a formula unannounced. It might be an ink best known for testing pens, but I really like the look of the ink, especially laid down heavily on smooth paper. A very attractive colour.  Far better than the Parker equivalent, to my eyes.

[RJS]

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

Speaking for myself, I didn't think you were knocking anything.

Glad to hear it. I've followed this thread since its inception.

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

I'm not convinced the carts and the bottles are filled with the same inks, plus Waterman do loving tweaking a formula unannounced. It might be an ink best known for testing pens, but I really like the look of the ink, especially laid down heavily on smooth paper. A very attractive colour.  Far better than the Parker equivalent, to my eyes.

That could be.  There are lots of rumors running around about various brands doing that.  I have no way to know (and can't afford to send samples off for some sort of instrument chemistry tests to determine it ).  And so my little sample cartridge will have to do.  (The color is too close to ballpoints and rollerballs for me.)

[arcfide]

7 hours ago, RJS said:

High surface tension inks will always struggle with broad nibs do you suspect?

 

Struggle is probably the wrong word. That combination of a high surface tension dry ink with a broad nib can deliver absolutely terrific shading. With a nice chroma-shading ink or an ink with a distinct shading profile, that combination can bring out more shading and make the writing more suited to someone's tastes. If you look at Platinum's literature around their Classic Ink line and their Blue-Black inks, all of which are relatively dry by absolute surface tension standards, you'll see they specifically highlight shading and the color variation as a desired feature in their development (or reason for retaining the ink as-is, in the case of their Blue-Black). Compare Noodler's super shading inks against their very permanently, highly saturated inks that use a lot of surfactant to keep those inks going (like Legal Blue). Legal Blue is insane in this respect, but then look at the results many people get from Apache Sunset. Legal Blue goes down exceptionally wet, so wet that it basically soaks into the paper and instantly leaves a solid, even line. Likewise, Sailor's Blue inks like Ink Studio 740 and standard blue that I've tested write fairly wet, but in so doing they show less shading in many of my pens. 

[arcfide]

4 hours ago, RJS said:

I'm not convinced the carts and the bottles are filled with the same inks, plus Waterman do loving tweaking a formula unannounced. It might be an ink best known for testing pens, but I really like the look of the ink, especially laid down heavily on smooth paper. A very attractive colour.  Far better than the Parker equivalent, to my eyes.

Laid down heavily on good paper, Waterman inks don't get nearly the credit they deserve. For instance, the multi-tonal aspects of Waterman Black, when written heavy on the page, gives a subtlety and dynamism that a more uniformly dyed ink like Sailor Black can't give. 

[arcfide]

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

(The color is too close to ballpoints and rollerballs for me.)

 

I mean, it's not the standard for nothing, right? 🙂 It may be near universal, but there's something about that color. 😉 

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, arcfide said:

there's something about that color. 😉 

Yeah, the "something" is called "boring".  

 

I respect everyone's right to love whatever colors they wish.  Me, I'm sticking with "weird" colors, like Robert Oster Bronze, and blue-black-ish colors, like Akkerman #09 Laan van Nieuw Oost-Indigo (which I can't give up now because I spent weeks learning to type that name correctly without looking it up every time! - or just because it's absolutely perfect in my VP fine nib).

[InesF]

On 1/18/2022 at 4:14 AM, RJS said:

This article discusses wetness as a perceived concept, and was quite an interesting read. 

Thank you @RJS - this was an interesting read.

 

However, as the title tells, the author is on the way to define a tactual, not a visual impression of viscosity and wetness.

I learned from this article that the author likes to develop artificial sensors for perception of those (and maybe more) properties. In real world, touching water results in the perception of "this is wet" while touching edible oil has the perception "this is a fluid" and not "this is wet". The author tries to quantify both these tactual perceptions and his discussion convinces me about viscosity but does not about wetness - I see an overlap with viscosity, the author does intentionally relay on but doesn't distinguish for the definition of gradual wetness. This may be unimportant for the development of an artificial sensor but does not reflect the tactual sensory impression of a real person.

 

Coming back to inks. If you put your finger into the inkbottle or if you spoil ink over your skin, you always end up with the tactual impression of "this is wet". Looking at a freshly laid line of ink on paper, you visually (not tactically) perceive "there is a liquid" and in this context you qualify, as an experienced fountain pen user, different grades of visual appearance into "wet" or "less wet" or "dry", although all those variants are liquid and the ink line is tactically wet.

 

That's what we are dealing with and something like that was the starting point of my experiments. It was only close to my present point of view, as I had to revise my former subjective classification.

 

Not in the least do I want to convince anyone, after all writing with fountain pen and ink is not a religion, but as I understand it and can explain it to myself, the terms "wet" and "dry" correlate quite well with the amount of ink actually put on the paper. And this amount is quantifiable!

 

Please be assured, I enjoy the fruitful and well thought discussion we have here - it is exactly what I'm looking for and it is commonly called "open discussion to progress a topic". Thank you so much!

[InesF]

5 hours ago, arcfide said:

Waterman inks don't get nearly the credit they deserve

Indeed, @arcfide, so do I think as well. Although, I don't like the colours of Waterman Serenity and Mysterious Blue, those are still well behaving inks. The basic inks of Waterman and Pelikan 4001 are almost all something like a standard for behaviour and performance. There are some exceptions, rarely cited and never used as benchmarks: some red, pink and purple inks, which excel with lower viscosity and some tendency to feathering and bleed through.

To make the list complete: Waterman, Pelikan 4001 and Rohrer & Klingner inks almost never (consider exceptions) disappoint and are, at least in Europe, among the best affordable (almost cheap).

[InesF]

10 hours ago, RJS said:

Chalky is probably the wrong word. Iron gall inks have a weird feeling (usually) for me. Not smooth.

Exactly that, @RJS.

The original formulations, containing a sort of gallic acid and iron(II) ions, should be called pigmented inks. The iron will precipitate in a form like rust - not exactly, as it is more a mixture of iron(II) and iron(III) oxide and hydroxide and chloride - which are of irregular shape (not round like many organic pigments are) and are the opposite of a lubricant, more like an abrasive. In other words: you will need to add sooo much more lubricant to come back to "normal", if possible at all.

An iron gall ink can have a low surface tension and can cause "wet" (=rich, floody) lines and does not feel lubricated at the same time, resulting in this chalky or otherwise weird sensual feeling during writing.

 

Modern iron gall inks are a bit different in composition (there are less amounts of impurities and the chelating substance doesn't need to be gallic acid) and, most important, the iron particles are smaller and less abrasive.

 

However, the final oxidation from the residual iron(II) into iron(III) shifts the colour of the particles from grey-brown towards black.

[InesF]

On 1/17/2022 at 4:22 PM, LizEF said:

I've always taken "supports" as meaning that it "leads to", "allows", "increases". 

Hi @LizEF.

 

Heavily coated paper, like Tomoe River, do not expose the cellulose fibre structure to the ink. There will not be any feathering and, therefore, an ink with low surface tension will not cause feathering. Such low surface tension inks support or increase feathering in those cases, where feathering is possible at all.

Maybe the word "increase" would had been the better choice?

[LizEF]

8 hours ago, InesF said:

Hi @LizEF.

 

Heavily coated paper, like Tomoe River, do not expose the cellulose fibre structure to the ink. There will not be any feathering and, therefore, an ink with low surface tension will not cause feathering. Such low surface tension inks support or increase feathering in those cases, where feathering is possible at all.

Maybe the word "increase" would had been the better choice?

I had to go back and see what I was responding to, which was someone asking whether "supports" in this statement of yours:

Quote

- Lower surface tension supports spreading and feathering of inks on absorbent paper

...meant increase or decrease.  Your addition clarifies much better than my attempt at synonyms.   I thought "supports" was a good word, but obviously at least one person wasn't sure whether it meant "supporting me against these evil villains" or "aiding and abetting those inky thugs".  "Increases" is accurate, and probably less likely to be misunderstood (though some may misinterpret that to mean "causes" rather than "increases it when it happens" or "makes it worse, when it happens" - that is, they may miss the nuance (that paper plays the larger part), whereas "supports" kind of forces one to consider the nuance).

 

Let's face it, human language is often less than clear.   Shall we make up a new one when you're done with your next project?   (Alternately, we could set out on a mission to rid the world of absorbent paper.... We'll call it "Project Quixote"!)

[RJS]

13 hours ago, InesF said:

Hi @LizEF.

 

Heavily coated paper, like Tomoe River, do not expose the cellulose fibre structure to the ink. There will not be any feathering and, therefore, an ink with low surface tension will not cause feathering. Such low surface tension inks support or increase feathering in those cases, where feathering is possible at all.

Maybe the word "increase" would had been the better choice?

I thought it was coated....

[RJS]

13 hours ago, InesF said:

Exactly that, @RJS.

The original formulations, containing a sort of gallic acid and iron(II) ions, should be called pigmented inks. The iron will precipitate in a form like rust - not exactly, as it is more a mixture of iron(II) and iron(III) oxide and hydroxide and chloride - which are of irregular shape (not round like many organic pigments are) and are the opposite of a lubricant, more like an abrasive. In other words: you will need to add sooo much more lubricant to come back to "normal", if possible at all.

An iron gall ink can have a low surface tension and can cause "wet" (=rich, floody) lines and does not feel lubricated at the same time, resulting in this chalky or otherwise weird sensual feeling during writing.

I'll go back to saying chalky, then.  Thanks for the details! 

[RJS]

14 hours ago, InesF said:

Indeed, @arcfide, so do I think as well. Although, I don't like the colours of Waterman Serenity and Mysterious Blue, those are still well behaving inks. The basic inks of Waterman and Pelikan 4001 are almost all something like a standard for behaviour and performance.

Agreed, regarding Waterman. Most of us find a few of them boring, but they're top drawer quality, overwhelmingly- up there with the fanciest inks. I only own one 4001 ink, so I can't generalise there either way.

[RJS]

14 hours ago, InesF said:

Thank you @RJS - this was an interesting read.

 

However, as the title tells, the author is on the way to define a tactual, not a visual impression of viscosity and wetness.

I learned from this article that the author likes to develop artificial sensors for perception of those (and maybe more) properties. In real world, touching water results in the perception of "this is wet" while touching edible oil has the perception "this is a fluid" and not "this is wet". The author tries to quantify both these tactual perceptions and his discussion convinces me about viscosity but does not about wetness - I see an overlap with viscosity, the author does intentionally relay on but doesn't distinguish for the definition of gradual wetness. This may be unimportant for the development of an artificial sensor but does not reflect the tactual sensory impression of a real person.

 

Coming back to inks. If you put your finger into the inkbottle or if you spoil ink over your skin, you always end up with the tactual impression of "this is wet". Looking at a freshly laid line of ink on paper, you visually (not tactically) perceive "there is a liquid" and in this context you qualify, as an experienced fountain pen user, different grades of visual appearance into "wet" or "less wet" or "dry", although all those variants are liquid and the ink line is tactically wet.

 

That's what we are dealing with and something like that was the starting point of my experiments. It was only close to my present point of view, as I had to revise my former subjective classification.

 

Not in the least do I want to convince anyone, after all writing with fountain pen and ink is not a religion, but as I understand it and can explain it to myself, the terms "wet" and "dry" correlate quite well with the amount of ink actually put on the paper. And this amount is quantifiable!

 

Please be assured, I enjoy the fruitful and well thought discussion we have here - it is exactly what I'm looking for and it is commonly called "open discussion to progress a topic". Thank you so much!

A very good post. Thank you. I'll be more thoughtful with my analysis and descriptions of inks I share on this board, as a result of this thread.

[LizEF]

55 minutes ago, RJS said:

I thought it was coated....