Omas Turquoise

[Sandy1]

Kindly adjust the brightness & contrast of your monitor to accurately depict this Gray Scale.

As the patches are neutral gray, the colour on your monitor should also be neutral.

 

Figure 1.

Grey Scale.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/FPN049.jpg

Figure 2.

Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy.

Swabs: Waterman Florida Blue. Omas Turquoise.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK383.jpg

 

WRITTEN SAMPLES: Moby Dick

 

Nib-ishm

 

Note - Narrow Nibs:

I am tired of tiny writing and block printing. Instead I offer narrow nibs show-cased in their very own rows - 6mm high. If this does not suit the requirements of narrow nib aficionados, please let me know, and I'll see what can be done. (See Figures 10, 11 & 12.)

 

Figure 3.

Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK387.jpg

Figure 4.

Paper: Rhodia.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK390.jpg

Figure 5.

Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, White.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK392.jpg

Figure 6.

Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, Ivory.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK394.jpg

 

Figure 7.

Grocery List

Paper: Pulp - from a one-a-day cartoon calendar.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK396.jpg

 

Figure 8.

'Happy'

Paper: Glossy card stock.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK384.jpg

 

OTHER SAMPLES:

 

Figure 9.

Smear / Dry Time. Wet samples.

Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy.

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20Omas%20Turquoise/INK397.jpg

 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:

 

Type:

• Dye-based fountain pen ink.

Daily writer?

• Will do nicely for those who prefer a light shade.

Other:

• Sits lightly upon the page.
• Percent Coverage will determine if the ink claims the page or merely floats on the page.
• This ink has modest wetness, and was able to look good on all papers with confidence and sure-footedness.
• This might be a 'Must Have' for anyone with a leather jacket.

USES:

 

Business:

• A good alternative to pale true-blues.
• The ink is softer and lighter than most 'business blues', and the slight tint of green (readily seen in lighter tones) adds an interesting alt colour.
• Can be used without hesitation for internal correspondence; for extenal correspondence, it does not seem to have sufficient weight / gravitas. Then again, that depends on the nature of business, etc.
• Adequate for mark-up, editing, revision, etc.
• Signatures.

Illustrations / Graphics:

• It would appear that the colour could be used for such purposes - substituting for Pale Blue - but only if Aqua or Cyan are not used in the palette.
• Lack of feathering supports its use for tight narrow lines in drawings/diagrams, but longish dry time does not encourage rapid work & reworking.

Personal:

• Certainly.
• This is a fairly neutral colour, and even though it could be used in a business setting, this does have a light tone and feel within its scope that could see it being used as a personal ink. Perhaps a change of writing implement between home and office will suffice. (?)
• The ability to bring the green more to the fore seems necessary to make this a really 'personal' ink. (Do I hear an echo?)
• The shading is somewhat modest and understated, so use of a 'soft' Italic, maybe no more than a Stub, seems appropriate. Crisp Italic nibs may even be contrary to the nature of this ink.

PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS:

 

Flow:

• Somewhere between modest and wet - let us say 'willing'.
• OK with all sampled nibs & feeds.

Nib Dry-out:

• All but the Phileas started immediately after 10 minutes uncapped.

Start-up:

• Mostly OK.
• Good idea to cap pen when not in use, but not a severe problem.

Lubrication:

• Surprisingly good.

Nib Creep:

• None.

Staining:

• Not noticed in the short term.

Clogging:

• Unlikely.

Bleed Through:

• Not on any of the papers.

Show Though:

• Both sides of paper may be used without a problem.

Smell:

• Very faint; ink.

Hand oil sensitivity:

• Modest, but noticeable.

Archival:

• Makes no such claim.

Water Resistance: (Figure 9)

• You're joking, right?

Smear Results: (Figure 9)

• Dry within 22 seconds, which seems far too long.

Bulletproof:

• Makes no such claim.

Clean Up:

• Quick & thorough with plain water. :-)
• Except that darn Phileas again. Tsk. (Not as if it has rubber duckies to play with in the wash.)
• Looks very nice in the wash, so tedium is ameliorated.

Mixing:

• No stated prohibitions / limitations.

THE LOOK:

 

Ciao bella

 

Saturation:

• Has good density, but without a 'hard' look. (Cd'A CS being a 'hard' look.)
• A wet-ish writer may be welcome.
• Saturation_Link

Shading:

• Subdued but impressive.
• Shading_Link

Feathering:

• None noticed.
• Impressive manners, even on Pulp.
• 

Variance depending on pen+nib combos used:

• Maintains 'The Look' across the sampled pens & papers.
• IMHO, it looks ill-at-ease from the narrow nibs used above, and comes into its own in the Medium nibs and wider. Perhaps plump (Pelikan) Fine nibs, and the Pilot Soft Fine-Medium nibs would be a as narrow as I'd like to see - certainly from my hand. A fair hand may convey completely different impressions.
• So, the OCD got the better of me, so we have three more Written Samples from narrow nibs, using 5, 6 & 7mm row heights. So sorry that these are linked only - one does need to leave enough bandwidth for others.

Figure 10.

Pelikan M-Series Fine nib.

Pelikan_F

 

Figure 11.

Esterbrook 9550 XF Posting nib.

Estie_9550

 

Figure 12.

Sheaffer Prelude Cursive Italic Fine nib.

Sheaffer_CI_F

 

FIDELITY:

 

Is colour name appropriate / accurate?

• Yes. (Let's not quibble, OK?)
• The colour shown on the box is reasonably accurate; the dot on the bottle's bumpy bottom is quite far off as to be useless/misleading, so is justifiably hidden from view.
• I have the impression this ink would be hard to accurately depict in a typical online "Vendor's Swatch".

PAPERS:

 

Lovely papers:

• This ink should look good on most white papers.
• Could handle paper with optical brighteners.

Trip-wire papers:

• This ink could withstand the humiliation of off- dirty-white paper.

Tinted Papers:

• I like this colour on warm Ivory papers - but not a buff or anything too brown.
• Otherwise, no - stick to the white paper.

Is high-end paper 'worth it'?

• Hmm. Not really; not immediately.
• The ink has such impeccable manners that it does very well on the HPJ1124. A bit more is wrung-out on the Rhodia, but I'm not sure if that would be so visible as to be appreciated.
• Narrow nibs seem to demand a high-end paper. (?)

OTHER THAN INK:

 

Presentation :

• 62ml. bottle.

Country of origin:

• Italy.

Container:

• A clear glass bottle, with eight 'facets'. Shape_Link
• The bottle may be tipped and rested at approx 45^o to facilitate ease of filling pen if bottle's ink level is low. Limbo_Link
• The centred round opening is 23mm in diameter.
• The cap has adequate grippy bits.
• The cap is not child-proof.
• The cap seal is plastic foam.
• Single tank, no filling aids, no sediment collector. Oh well then, 'Tsk'.
• The bottle does not have the word 'ink', and the colour is not stated! (Perché?)
• The only ink-colour indicator is a dot on the BOTTOM of the bottle. (Perché i miei amici?)

Box:

• Box is 65x75x75mm.
• A foam insert cossets the bottle.
• Exceptionally nicely designed & deco-decorated coated card stock.
• Identifies contents as FP ink in five European languages, and has Omas contact details.
• Brings the 'A' Game to ink boxes.

Eco-Green:

• Not so good: the foam box insert is unlikely to be recycled.

Availability:

• Spotty.

ETC:

 

Majik:

• Seems quite likely.
• It would be worth the effort to match the pen+paper to this ink to get a personal look.

Personal Pen & Paper Pick:

• Oh my! I do like the Pelikan M200+M nib on the Rhodia. Partly for the greater density of the ink and the plump nib width.

Yickity Yackity:

• As mentioned above, I think this ink offers more than I have been able to show here.
• The samples in this review encourage me to get a 'match' to truly exploit this ink's potential.
• So, this ink won't show-off in all pens with all papers, but I am tickled pink that it performs so well from a wide range of pens on a great range of papers.
• Ah kushbaby, could this be the ink that keeps you company when you're awake at night?

I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+O+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I

 

MATERIEL USED:

 

These pen+nib combos:

For Written Samples:

A. Pilot 78G + g-p F nib.

B. Kreuzer + g-p steel? F? nib.

 

C. Sheaffer Imperial + steel M nib.

D. Pelikan M200 + M200 series g-p steel M nib.

E. Waterman Phileas + steel B nib.

F. Parker UK Duofold + 14K Stub B nib.

 

+-=0=-+

• Pelikan M200 + *M600-series 18C F.
• Esterbrook J + 9550 steel Posting XF.
• Sheaffer Prelude + Cursive Italic steel F.

For lines & labels:

• Pilot Plumix + steel XF nib; inked with Visconti Bordeaux.

On these papers:

• HPJ1124 24 lb. Laser Copy. Note: This is the current replacement for the HP1124. I notice no difference. (??)
• Rhodia, Bloc No. 18.
• G Lalo 'Verge de France', White
• G Lalo 'Verge de France', Ivory: Sheaffer Imperial + M, and Parker UK Duofold + Stub B.
• Pulp - one-a-day cartoon calendar page: Pilot 78G + F.
• Glossy card stock: Waterman Phileas + B.
• Rhodia, Bloc No. 16: Pelikan M200 + F, Esterbrook + XF, and Sheaffer Prelude + CI F.

NOTES:

 

I use only papers, pens & nibs that are readily available, not too pricey and 'stock' - not customised.

• If some pens/nibs are not currently produced, I'll use them if there are NOS or restored pieces readily available at OK prices.
• As appropriate, I'll include an implement outside of those guidelines, which will be ID-ed as a *Dealer's Choice.

Figures were produced on an Epson V600 scanner; factory defaults were accepted.

• Originals scanned at 150 dpi & 24 bit colour to produce .jpg files.
• Close-ups (linked) were scanned at 300 dpi & 24 bit colour to produce .jpg files.
• The images were not adjusted other than cropping and straightening using iPhoto on a MacBook.

Scanner Densitometer Readings were generated from the 'N' in 'Ink Review' in Figure 2: Red 33; Green 134; Blue 210; Luminosity 129.

 

-30-

EDIT - Expletives deleted.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Sandy1

[vlada]

This is a great review

 

Thank you for your time and effort

[acolythe]

Wow

What an informative review. I can only imagine how long it must have taken to produce this masterpiece. I cannot think of anything else I would want to know about this ink. I thought that I had enough turquoise inks but your review makes me want to purchase this one also.

b

[Sandy1]

This is a great review

 

Thank you for your time and effort

 

Hi,

 

I'm glad the T&E are appreciated.

 

I noticed that no one had done an Ink Review, so I thought that I should do one; and because the ink is not so widely available, I should do a "Plus Size" review.

 

Bye,

S1

[Sandy1]

Wow

What an informative review. I can only imagine how long it must have taken to produce this masterpiece. I cannot think of anything else I would want to know about this ink. I thought that I had enough turquoise inks but your review makes me want to purchase this one also.

b

Hi,

 

The time to do up the Review samples etc. is really very short. That's partly because I have a good outline/template that guides my work. And I'm glad you don't think that anything more needs to be added / clarified. And if it did, then I may well add that to my template. (I added 'Scent', so that people could tell by smell if their pot of ink had gone bad.)

 

What does take the time is figuring-out how to express what the ink is up to. The objective stuff - like feathering, etc are dead easy, but the rest isn't so easy. Reckon I'll spend more time just looking at swabs & the Written Samples over a period of days before I write about the subjective stuff.

 

I have been known to stick unlabeled swabs & swatches to my office wall across from my desk. My staff steer clear - they don't know what I'm doing, but it looks like work to them. :-)

 

Bye,

S1

[SamCapote]

One of these days, I want to do a shootout of all the Turquoises (not sure what the correct plural form is) I have. This is a pretty one.

[iroshizuku]

What a great review!! thanks for sharing

[Sandy1]

One of these days, I want to do a shootout of all the Turquoises (not sure what the correct plural form is) I have. This is a pretty one.

Hi,

 

Fly at it!!

 

One thing that I've found is the subtleties are very hard to convey. I previously described this as being akin to taking a photo of an oil painting, then putting that online. A tremendous amount of the subtleties in the original are lost.

 

Perhaps the compromise would be to have the scans/photos available for download, so the whole set of compromises of posting on the 'Net are removed from the process.

 

I am also tempted to go to a pro shop to have them generate some scans of written samples, just for comparison to what I get from my consumer-grade scanner. (Likely not the scanner - but the operator, in my case.)

 

Bye,

S1

[SamCapote]

One of these days, I want to do a shootout of all the Turquoises (not sure what the correct plural form is) I have. This is a pretty one.

Hi,

 

Fly at it!!

 

One thing that I've found is the subtleties are very hard to convey. I previously described this as being akin to taking a photo of an oil painting, then putting that online. A tremendous amount of the subtleties in the original are lost.

 

Perhaps the compromise would be to have the scans/photos available for download, so the whole set of compromises of posting on the 'Net are removed from the process.

 

I am also tempted to go to a pro shop to have them generate some scans of written samples, just for comparison to what I get from my consumer-grade scanner. (Likely not the scanner - but the operator, in my case.)

 

Bye,

S1

 

I'm hoping to get a bottle of Montblanc Turquoise, then I could do a nice job. I totally agree with you, and see a lot of merit to taking photos with different lighting & white balance settings. In this case, I REALLY love what Margana did matching the colors up to REAL Turquoise, which I'm sure we have some around the house. Since we all know what the stone looks like, that gives a great frame of reference.

[Sandy1]

One of these days, I want to do a shootout of all the Turquoises (not sure what the correct plural form is) I have. This is a pretty one.

Hi,

 

Fly at it!!

 

One thing that I've found is the subtleties are very hard to convey. I previously described this as being akin to taking a photo of an oil painting, then putting that online. A tremendous amount of the subtleties in the original are lost.

 

Perhaps the compromise would be to have the scans/photos available for download, so the whole set of compromises of posting on the 'Net are removed from the process.

 

I am also tempted to go to a pro shop to have them generate some scans of written samples, just for comparison to what I get from my consumer-grade scanner. (Likely not the scanner - but the operator, in my case.)

 

Bye,

S1

 

I'm hoping to get a bottle of Montblanc Turquoise, then I could do a nice job. I totally agree with you, and see a lot of merit to taking photos with different lighting & white balance settings. In this case, I REALLY love what Margana did matching the colors up to REAL Turquoise, which I'm sure we have some around the house. Since we all know what the stone looks like, that gives a great frame of reference.

 

Hi -- I don't know that much about photography, except I hardly take photos; and still use an old film camera - rollei 35. No flash or close-up stuff. ... Not sure about using stones as a reference: they're likely more variable than the inks! OOPSIE? And likely have odd little pigments - definitely not dyes.

 

Well, no matter, just ignore my chatter.

 

Bye,

S1

[moldero]

n my opinion, this paint is one of the best I've ever used, along with sepia and violet of the same brand. Unfortunately here in Brazil we do not have representatives from Omas, making it virtually impossible frequent use of this ink, since the end, we have no where to buy ...

 

It is an ink that works well in any pen and paper ...

 

In my opinion, is better than Montblanc or Parker

 

But congratulations on review, it is very enlightening!

 

regards,

 

Moldero

[Sandy1]

What a great review!! thanks for sharing

Hi,

 

Glad you appreciate the Review.

And an ink like this is certain a pleasure to share!

 

Bye,

S1

[Sandy1]

n my opinion, this paint is one of the best I've ever used, along with sepia and violet of the same brand. Unfortunately here in Brazil we do not have representatives from Omas, making it virtually impossible frequent use of this ink, since the end, we have no where to buy ...

 

It is an ink that works well in any pen and paper ...

 

In my opinion, is better than Montblanc or Parker

 

But congratulations on review, it is very enlightening!

 

regards,

 

Moldero

Hello,

 

Thank-you for adding info about the availability of this ink in Brazil. Too bad that it is not so well distributed as the Montblanc and Parker which you mention. Have you, or any other reader, tried ordering directly from OMAS?

 

Bye,

Sandy1

[moldero]

n my opinion, this paint is one of the best I've ever used, along with sepia and violet of the same brand. Unfortunately here in Brazil we do not have representatives from Omas, making it virtually impossible frequent use of this ink, since the end, we have no where to buy ...

 

It is an ink that works well in any pen and paper ...

 

In my opinion, is better than Montblanc or Parker

 

But congratulations on review, it is very enlightening!

 

regards,

 

Moldero

Hello,

 

Thank-you for adding info about the availability of this ink in Brazil. Too bad that it is not so well distributed as the Montblanc and Parker which you mention. Have you, or any other reader, tried ordering directly from OMAS?

 

Bye,

Sandy1

 

Hello,

 

Unfortunately I tried to direct contact OMAS but I believe there is no economic and strategic interest in distributing the ink OMAS here ... and they must be right because the price of ink arrives here in Brazil is very expensive!

 

Sheaffer is vedida here, equaling about $ 15.00, very expensive! Counting the minimum wage here is around $ 350.00 - $ 400.00 Very, very costly indeed!

 

Sadly!

 

I personally usually buy ink when I travel, especially to France.

 

Sincerely,

 

Moldero

[SamCapote]

One of these days, I want to do a shootout of all the Turquoises (not sure what the correct plural form is) I have. This is a pretty one.

Hi,

 

Fly at it!!

 

One thing that I've found is the subtleties are very hard to convey. I previously described this as being akin to taking a photo of an oil painting, then putting that online. A tremendous amount of the subtleties in the original are lost.

 

Perhaps the compromise would be to have the scans/photos available for download, so the whole set of compromises of posting on the 'Net are removed from the process.

 

I am also tempted to go to a pro shop to have them generate some scans of written samples, just for comparison to what I get from my consumer-grade scanner. (Likely not the scanner - but the operator, in my case.)

 

Bye,

S1

 

I'm hoping to get a bottle of Montblanc Turquoise, then I could do a nice job. I totally agree with you, and see a lot of merit to taking photos with different lighting & white balance settings. In this case, I REALLY love what Margana did matching the colors up to REAL Turquoise, which I'm sure we have some around the house. Since we all know what the stone looks like, that gives a great frame of reference.

 

Hi -- I don't know that much about photography, except I hardly take photos; and still use an old film camera - rollei 35. No flash or close-up stuff. ... Not sure about using stones as a reference: they're likely more variable than the inks! OOPSIE? And likely have odd little pigments - definitely not dyes.

 

Well, no matter, just ignore my chatter.

 

Bye,

S1

 

I got my Montblanc Turquoise, so I have no more excuses.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Sandy your ink reviews are very well done.

 

If one uses them right, one also can apply some of your methods to grading of paper types, also.

[Sandy1]

Sandy your ink reviews are very well done.

 

If one uses them right, one also can apply some of your methods to grading of paper types, also.

 

Hello,

 

I'm glad you appreciate the Reviews.

 

The Written Samples are my attempt to show how the ink might look from a reader's pen on their paper. That requires writers with different nib widths and shapes and dryness; and various readily available papers that both show how nice the ink can look, and show any faults.

 

By using widely available papers, a reader can acquire a small amount of that paper, and compare that paper to the paper they use most often. Same for the pens: if the reader has a wet pen, then they can see how one of the wet sample pens looks on the papers I use.

 

I have received some PMs asking for 'the cheapest paper possible'. Well, I won't use a paper that does not have certain 'green' criteria. Also, if one needs to economise on paper, then it seems that a more expensive ink is required that can overcome inadequacies of the paper. And what can be less expensive than the Pulp I often use? and usually with the $10 Pilot 78G? It seems that using the ink on a poor paper with an inexpensive pen, the ink has been 'torture tested' briefly but sufficiently.

 

Best Regards,

Sandy1

[tanalasta]

Beautiful, comprehensive review as always.

 

How does this compare with some classics in term of colour - e.g. Waterman SSB, J'Herbin bleu pervenche? In particular, is it significantly lighter and less saturated than Waterman SSB?

[Sandy1]

Beautiful, comprehensive review as always.

 

How does this compare with some classics in term of colour - e.g. Waterman SSB, J'Herbin bleu pervenche? In particular, is it significantly lighter and less saturated than Waterman SSB?

Hi,

 

To be brief:

• Colour:
  • WSSBl is far more Blue than OT - just barely a Turquoise to me. (Peacock Blue anyone?)
  • Herbins's BP is not tremendously different in colour, but has a 'tingle' in there.

  [*]Tone:

  • WSSBl is darker than OT; and will definitely wander into the Blue territory when darker. (I know there's one [1] colour in the bottle, OK?)
    

  [*]Saturation:

  • I would say the saturation of OT is about the same as WSSBl.
  • With OT & WSSBl, the native tendency for shading may be suppressed by using wet writers / absorbent papers, but at the risk of woolly & plump lines (Eeeewe!).

Bye,

S1

[Sandy1]

Nota Bene:

• Time out of mind some OMAS inks were reported to have low pH levels, LINK
• Not wishing to carry-forward old information, I contacted OMAS regarding the pH levels of their current production inks. I received a kind reply from Raffaele Rispo, Operations Manager at OMAS, stating that OMAS Sepia has a pH of 7,1 ± 1.0.
• There are numerous threads on FPN and other sources on the topic of pH of inks, so I invite dear readers to address that issue outside of this Ink Review, where a wider audience may read & contribute.
  
• I have created a Topic for such posts: FPN Inky Thoughts Topic for OMAS Ink pH Levels: LINK

Ciao,

S1

 

Edited June 17, 2011 by Sandy1