An alternative look at ink wetness

[LizEF]

I've always taken "supports" as meaning that it "leads to", "allows", "increases".  @InesF's conclusions make sense to me - experientially and logically.  @mtcn77's statements here (and in my Diamine Registrar's Ink thread) just confuse me.  I'm thinking something is getting lost in the translation.  @mtcn77, have you done measurements?  If so, do you have a thread where you've reported your methods and results, like @InesF does in this thread?

[mtcn77]

7 minutes ago, LizEF said:

I've always taken "supports" as meaning that it "leads to", "allows", "increases".  @InesF's conclusions make sense to me - experientially and logically.  @mtcn77's statements here (and in my Diamine Registrar's Ink thread) just confuse me.  I'm thinking something is getting lost in the translation.  @mtcn77, have you done measurements?  If so, do you have a thread where you've reported your methods and results, like @InesF does in this thread?

I think it would be best if I start a thread on Pelikan 4001 Black and Parker Quink Black. Need some time for this.

[RJS]

It's certainly a very complex and nuanced subject. The whole concept of using "wet" inks in dry pens is turned on its head when surface tension determines that Waterman Serenity Blue is not "wet", when to a laymen it is subjectively "wet" in that it gets plenty of ink out of the pen and onto the paper, and turns dry pens into "wet" ones. 🙃

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

It's certainly a very complex and nuanced subject. The whole concept of using "wet" inks in dry pens is turned on its head when surface tension determines that Waterman Serenity Blue is not "wet", when to a laymen it is subjectively "wet" in that it gets plenty of ink out of the pen and onto the paper, and turns dry pens into "wet" ones. 🙃

Don't forget that each individual is unique in the pens, papers, handwriting techniques, even environmental factors they're using.  What @InesF is doing here is making actual measurements and reaching fact-based conclusions.  Just because one person says an ink is "wet" doesn't mean that compared to the average of all inks in the galaxy that it actually is wet.  For that matter, the person making that claim may not actually know what they're talking about (flow vs lubrication vs dry time vs other visual factors).  Their version of a dry pen may be someone else's version of an average pen. Etc., etc., etc.

 

IMO, you have to look at the basis for anecdotal or subjective claims / observations and take them with a grain of salt, as they say.  Even after doing 161 ink reviews, I don't trust my subjective evaluation all that much.  I wish I could go back in time, take more science classes, and start out using methods that I now think would be factual rather than subjective, but it's a bit late for that, and I can't justify the cost or the time to change or start over...

 

Anywho, just my two cents.  Yes, it's complex, and the most complex part of it is the human's perception.

[RJS]

Nice post, Liz 👍 
 

Should the term wetness be linked to surface tension? There doesn't appear to be a clear definition of the meaning of the word. We (mostly) all perceive poorly lubricated inks to be dry, and probably inks that skip on coated paper might feel dry too. Viscosity across inks, from the excellent testing carried out here, are mostly much of a muchness. 
 

Playing around with a few inks I have loaded up- the fact that the Serenity Blue sits on top the paper glistening away rather than drying on impact as others do, makes me perceive it as wet too. It flowed smoothly, and lots of ink is evidently sitting on the paper. I don't know how we'd measure flow rate out of a nib onto paper, but it's surly a component of wetness. Lubrication, flow and viscosity combine to make a wet feeling ink, but the wetting ability/spread/surface tension of ink is also a facet of wetness too.  
 

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

[LizEF]

39 minutes ago, RJS said:

Should the term wetness be linked to surface tension?

Apparently it should be linked to three things (surface tension, viscosity, and pH).  The difficulty is that we don't all have training and instruments to measure these things.  Better would be if we called it what it is - flow or flow rate or rate of ink flow.

 

41 minutes ago, RJS said:

We (mostly) all perceive poorly lubricated inks to be dry, and probably inks that skip on coated paper might feel dry too.

Yes, and I've learned the difference between flow and lubrication, and how hard it is to learn to distinguish them.  Not sure about the inks that skip on coated paper - I don't have enough experience there - I wonder if it's more the nibs that are causing the inks to skip.

 

42 minutes ago, RJS said:

the fact that the Serenity Blue sits on top the paper glistening away rather than drying on impact as others do, makes me perceive it as wet too

Yes, this is the problem with not having instruments other than our eyes.

 

43 minutes ago, RJS said:

It flowed smoothly, and lots of ink is evidently sitting on the paper. I don't know how we'd measure flow rate out of a nib onto paper, but it's surly a component of wetness.

See above.  Rate of flow is wetness (at least, it's what I've always understood it to mean).  I think the only way to measure the actual rate is scientifically, like InesF is, reducing as many variables as possible.  I think one of those machines that write (can't remember the name right now), consistent paper, and measuring the volume of ink (by weight) that comes out in a fixed length of time - or perhaps how many mm you can get from a given volume might be other options.  Again, difficulty here is time, training, and money.  (As if that weren't always the problem with everything.)

 

47 minutes ago, RJS said:

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

Looks interesting, but not something I have access to, and I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for access - at least, not right now. But thank you.

[InesF]

Thank you all for the discussion and for sharing your experiences.

You have my attention, I continue to read with great interest!

[InesF]

18 hours ago, mtcn77 said:

We can test it out, I'd just ask you to write the same summary for high surface tension inks

@mtcn77, I did my job. Looking forward to your measurement results!

[arcfide]

3 hours ago, RJS said:

the fact that the Serenity Blue sits on top the paper glistening away rather than drying on impact as others do, makes me perceive it as wet too

 

Remember that the width of your pen can have a big difference here. In finer nibs, inks with a higher surface tension will be able to bead on the paper easily enough along the entire line that the line will appear glistening for longer. However, take that same ink (in fact a dry ink) and put it into a nib that spreads the ink out, such as a Music nib or a wide 1.5mm stub nib. Now, that same ink will actually be putting *more* ink down on the page, but will appear drier, will not glisten, and will feel as dry as the ratings suggest. As long as you keep your nibs small enough to not break the surface tension too much, then the inks will appear glistening on the page, but once you break that, you'll need less surface tension to get the same feeling of wetness. In the case of the stub, the pen has a larger bead of ink, but that bead of ink is stuck to the nib until the nib is lifted, and only what is left remains as the line for most of a stroke. 

 

Serenity Blue is considered a solid performing ink, but its use by some famous nibmeisters and the like is more about consistency and lack of crazy properties than being a wet ink. It's a standard, good ink that is very reliable and that's why it has a good reputation. It's reputation for wetness is actually middle of the road if you read up on what a lot of people think. 

 

However, you can readily see the difference in a wet ink vs a dry ink if you take something like a dry IG ink with a high surface tension and then introduce something like White Lightning, which contains surfactants that lower the surface tension. You won't notice as much difference in narrow nibs, because even when dry, you can still get that bead effect from the ink, but in a wide stub nib, the difference is massive. 

 

So, if you take a dry writing 1.5mm stub (or even larger) and compare the wet vs. dry inks, I think you'll notice the difference much more. Then you'll see how Serenity Blue or Parker Black can be thought of as more dry. 

 

The reason this might be confusing is that with narrower nibs, a dry ink may bead up on the paper more than a wet ink, even though less ink may actually be flowing out of the pen. This means that the dry ink will "glisten" a little bit more than some of the wetter inks on some paper and some nibs. Some ultra-wet inks are so wet that they instantly penetrate the paper and leave no glistening at all. Two great inks to see this difference would be Parker Quink Black and Sailor Black. Parker Quink is quite dry, but in narrow nibs it can bead up in wet pens. Whereas Sailor Black has a distinctly different surface tension, which might not bead as much on some papers, but if you widen out that nib, the Parker quickly reaches a point where it lays down a much less saturated line because the ink isn't sticking to that area of the page as much, while the Sailor Black can just flow and spread out evenly even with relatively large nibs. Jacques Herbin Noir Inspiration is an example of an ink that is almost too wet, because it begins penetrating the paper and feathering more easily. 

[InesF]

Thank you all, @LizEF, @RJS, @arcfide, @mtcn77 for your recent contributions! I appreciate a lot!

 

Not directly replying, please allow me a more general statement.

The title of this thread has the word "alternative" in it. I choose it in late March 2020, some weeks before posting anything about ink wetness.

 

The results of the first five measured inks did point me towards a probable cause for more or less ink laid down by a fountain pen. To my surprise, and proofed by meanwhile 49 inks measured, the cause was not supporting former theories and impressions. At all honesty, I do not know an alternative term for the word alternative.

 

The summary posted at November 28th 2021 is the literal description (transcription?) of the statistics results obtained from physical and chemical measurements.

 

It helped me (yes, me!) a lot in understanding fountain pen ink behaviour. Based on those data, I'm meanwhile able to predict the writing behaviour of a certain ink if I know its key properties.

 

I'm totally fine and I encourage other findings and, especially, fully acknowledge other opinions and subjective impressions! Never ever had I, nor will I ever claim somebodies impression wrong. If a certain ink is a runny, wet liquid for you and your fountain pen draws floodlines on paper, although it has high surface tension - if you are happy, I'm as well.

 

 

And once again: the AnInkGuy did an enormous job in measuring so many ink with his method. As I understand his method (he explains it in one of his videos) it measures a combination of surface tension and viscosity. He compares any one ink with the mathematical key numbers of mean value and distribution among all measured. Totally fine, nothing wrong, great job done! A perfect relative classification!

 

A short data update:

I'm in the finalisation of the manuscript after having measured some more inks for delivery/consumption adding to a total of 49. Now I ran out of the absorbent paper and used up all the reserve sheets. No more measurements and no more repetitions possible.

In the preliminary acknowledgement I listed all contributors to this thread, as of date December 31st 2021, with their forum identifier. Please let me know if you do not like to appear in the manuscript.

 

Have a good time, stay healthy!

 

[Karmachanic]

4 hours ago, LizEF said:

Not sure about the inks that skip on coated paper

 

Just for clarity in terminology regarding paper.  

Coated paper is glossy; think magazines/brochures.

In writing paper, Clairefontain, for instance, has more internal sizing than copy paper, and/or may also be surface sized.  Sizing can reduce absorbency and increases smoothness depending upon amount included in the slurry.

[LizEF]

5 hours ago, Karmachanic said:

Just for clarity in terminology regarding paper.  

Coated paper is glossy; think magazines/brochures.

In writing paper, Clairefontain, for instance, has more internal sizing than copy paper, and/or may also be surface sized.  Sizing can reduce absorbency and increases smoothness depending upon amount included in the slurry.

Thank you.  I always let the term "coated" go past, assuming people mean what I call "hard" papers like Clairefontaine, Rhodia, Maruman Mnemosyne, and Oxford Optik.  Some people describe these papers as having a waxy surface.  I don't find it so, but I understand the idea.  So I was assuming that's the kind of paper @RJS was referencing.  But I appreciate the clarification / explanation of the difference as once we start getting technical, it's important to know these details.

 

(Meanwhile, I have a bunch of inkjet brochure paper that's coated with a nice glossy finish and utterly useless to me - my husband bought a boat-load years ago - and I can't find anyone to take it off my hands! Perhaps a thrift store would take it...)

[LizEF]

8 hours ago, arcfide said:

Remember that the width of your pen can have a big difference here. In finer nibs, inks with a higher surface tension will be able to bead on the paper easily enough along the entire line that the line will appear glistening for longer. However, take that same ink (in fact a dry ink) and put it into a nib that spreads the ink out, such as a Music nib or a wide 1.5mm stub nib. Now, that same ink will actually be putting *more* ink down on the page, but will appear drier, will not glisten, and will feel as dry as the ratings suggest. As long as you keep your nibs small enough to not break the surface tension too much, then the inks will appear glistening on the page, but once you break that, you'll need less surface tension to get the same feeling of wetness. In the case of the stub, the pen has a larger bead of ink, but that bead of ink is stuck to the nib until the nib is lifted, and only what is left remains as the line for most of a stroke. 

Thank you for this post!  It matches some thoughts that occasionally come to the forefront of my mind as I ponder my ink reviews and the differences in my experience with inks vs those of other reviewers.  I've had these same thoughts regarding flow - that the ink flows just fine (or even wet) in my pen, and dry as the desert in other pens because of how much ink we're trying to put down in the same length of stroke - the one stroke being super thin and the other fat(ter).

 

Those differences are one of the reasons I appreciate the more scientific approaches, like InesF's and An Ink Guy's.  The more I learn and experience, the more I think my review content is applicable only to other users of really fine nibs - which was my goal anyway - so it's all good.  I suppose two ways my reviews could be of use to users of broader nibs is that if I find an ink to be dry, everyone is going to find it to be dry; and if I find an ink to be well-lubricated, everyone is going to find it so (at least in theory).  But wet for me won't necessarily be wet for others, and poorly lubricated for me may be just fine for those with larger, smoother nibs.

[LizEF]

7 hours ago, InesF said:

A short data update:

I'm in the finalisation of the manuscript after having measured some more inks for delivery/consumption adding to a total of 49. Now I ran out of the absorbent paper and used up all the reserve sheets. No more measurements and no more repetitions possible.

Thanks for the update. I'm looking forward to your paper, and hope it appears somewhere I'll be able to gain access (some professional publications tend to be hard for outsiders to get at).

 

7 hours ago, InesF said:

In the preliminary acknowledgement I listed all contributors to this thread, as of date December 31st 2021, with their forum identifier. Please let me know if you do not like to appear in the manuscript.

This is very generous, InesF.  Pretty sure I've only contributed curiosity and encouragement.  Thank you again for all the careful work you put into this project!

[RJS]

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

Thank you for this post!  It matches some thoughts that occasionally come to the forefront of my mind as I ponder my ink reviews and the differences in my experience with inks vs those of other reviewers.  I've had these same thoughts regarding flow - that the ink flows just fine (or even wet) in my pen, and dry as the desert in other pens because of how much ink we're trying to put down in the same length of stroke - the one stroke being super thin and the other fat(ter).

 

Those differences are one of the reasons I appreciate the more scientific approaches, like InesF's and An Ink Guy's.  The more I learn and experience, the more I think my review content is applicable only to other users of really fine nibs - which was my goal anyway - so it's all good.  I suppose two ways my reviews could be of use to users of broader nibs is that if I find an ink to be dry, everyone is going to find it to be dry; and if I find an ink to be well-lubricated, everyone is going to find it so (at least in theory).  But wet for me won't necessarily be wet for others, and poorly lubricated for me may be just fine for those with larger, smoother nibs.

Crikey, am I misunderstanding or are we new equating wetness and lubrication? 😅 I thought when discussing inks, lubrication was used to denote the smooth gliding feeling that, uh, 'well lubricated' inks bring. E.g. Pilot Iroshizuku inks, as opened to the opposite of lubricated, aka chalky feeling inks, such as iron galls.

[RJS]

12 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

Remember that the width of your pen can have a big difference here. In finer nibs, inks with a higher surface tension will be able to bead on the paper easily enough along the entire line that the line will appear glistening for longer. However, take that same ink (in fact a dry ink) and put it into a nib that spreads the ink out, such as a Music nib or a wide 1.5mm stub nib. Now, that same ink will actually be putting *more* ink down on the page, but will appear drier, will not glisten, and will feel as dry as the ratings suggest. As long as you keep your nibs small enough to not break the surface tension too much, then the inks will appear glistening on the page, but once you break that, you'll need less surface tension to get the same feeling of wetness. In the case of the stub, the pen has a larger bead of ink, but that bead of ink is stuck to the nib until the nib is lifted, and only what is left remains as the line for most of a stroke. 

 

Serenity Blue is considered a solid performing ink, but its use by some famous nibmeisters and the like is more about consistency and lack of crazy properties than being a wet ink. It's a standard, good ink that is very reliable and that's why it has a good reputation. It's reputation for wetness is actually middle of the road if you read up on what a lot of people think. 

 

However, you can readily see the difference in a wet ink vs a dry ink if you take something like a dry IG ink with a high surface tension and then introduce something like White Lightning, which contains surfactants that lower the surface tension. You won't notice as much difference in narrow nibs, because even when dry, you can still get that bead effect from the ink, but in a wide stub nib, the difference is massive. 

 

So, if you take a dry writing 1.5mm stub (or even larger) and compare the wet vs. dry inks, I think you'll notice the difference much more. Then you'll see how Serenity Blue or Parker Black can be thought of as more dry. 

 

The reason this might be confusing is that with narrower nibs, a dry ink may bead up on the paper more than a wet ink, even though less ink may actually be flowing out of the pen. This means that the dry ink will "glisten" a little bit more than some of the wetter inks on some paper and some nibs. Some ultra-wet inks are so wet that they instantly penetrate the paper and leave no glistening at all. Two great inks to see this difference would be Parker Quink Black and Sailor Black. Parker Quink is quite dry, but in narrow nibs it can bead up in wet pens. Whereas Sailor Black has a distinctly different surface tension, which might not bead as much on some papers, but if you widen out that nib, the Parker quickly reaches a point where it lays down a much less saturated line because the ink isn't sticking to that area of the page as much, while the Sailor Black can just flow and spread out evenly even with relatively large nibs. Jacques Herbin Noir Inspiration is an example of an ink that is almost too wet, because it begins penetrating the paper and feathering more easily. 

Thanks for the interesting post. I don't currently own any broad nibbed pens, so I didn't consider that factor. High surface tension inks will always struggle with broad nibs do you suspect?

 

I'm not sure I've ever read a review of Serenity Blue, to be honest, as I know it well. I did a quick Google just now on reviews of the ink: it's described as "moderately wet", "wet", "fairly wet" and "neither wet nor dry". If anyone described it as dry, Google and I can't find it, yet by surface tension alone it should be considered about as dry as an ink could possibly be.

 

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

[RJS]

4 hours ago, LizEF said:

Thank you.  I always let the term "coated" go past, assuming people mean what I call "hard" papers like Clairefontaine, Rhodia, Maruman Mnemosyne, and Oxford Optik.  Some people describe these papers as having a waxy surface.  I don't find it so, but I understand the idea.  So I was assuming that's the kind of paper @RJS was referencing.  But I appreciate the clarification / explanation of the difference as once we start getting technical, it's important to know these details.

 

(Meanwhile, I have a bunch of inkjet brochure paper that's coated with a nice glossy finish and utterly useless to me - my husband bought a boat-load years ago - and I can't find anyone to take it off my hands! Perhaps a thrift store would take it...)

You assumed correctly, that is the kind of paper I was talking about. I referred to the hard/smooth/not-very-absorbent paper as "coated", as that's how I've seen it categorised on here and on Amazon. I ever read an explanation that a coating/additive is used to prevent inks soaking in too fast and too deeply on some writing papers.

 

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. 😊

[RJS]

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.

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

Crikey, am I misunderstanding or are we new equating wetness and lubrication? 😅

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.

 

1 hour ago, RJS said:

I thought when discussing inks, lubrication was used to denote the smooth gliding feeling that, uh, 'well lubricated' inks bring. E.g. Pilot Iroshizuku inks, ...

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

 

1 hour ago, RJS said:

...as opened to the opposite of lubricated, aka chalky feeling inks, such as iron galls.

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...

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, RJS said:

I'm not sure I've ever read a review of Serenity Blue, to be honest, as I know it well. I did a quick Google just now on reviews of the ink: it's described as "moderately wet", "wet", "fairly wet" and "neither wet nor dry". If anyone described it as dry, Google and I can't find it, yet by surface tension alone it should be considered about as dry as an ink could possibly be.

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.