Attached below is an image of a writing sample with Private Reserve Ebony Green, and below that, the review proper. Regarding the image, "lorem ipsum" is a nonsense language used by printers to showcase a font/color (ie: it takes focus away from content and puts it on aesthetics). The water test was performed by submerging and agitating a sample swatch of the given ink in reverse osmosis water for thirty seconds, then letting it drip dry.

A key has been added, written on Clairefontaine paper, with a number of different inks for reference.

Standard Disclaimer: Image provided only to give a general sense of the color. The vibrance and nuance are typically lost when an ink is digitized.



Review

When I write a review, I first focus on color, and award an ink 0 to 100 based upon that alone, separate from other considerations. I then deduct points from the color score for defects (ie: lack of flow, creep, etc), to arrive at an overall score.

Color

Out of all the writing/ink samples I've showed to friends, Private Reserve Ebony Green was consistently picked as a favorite. It has the same jump-off-the-page electricity of Noodler's Navy, but in a rich, dark green. Great shading. Overall a very good color.

Color Score = 89

Deductions

...ahh, how I tried to love this color. Green is my favorite, after all. But I just cannot come to terms with using an ink this blatantly green. Call me a traditionalist, or even conservative, but I think the predominant colors in any ink should be either blue or black.
-5 for practicality

Bonus Points

PR Ebony Green is, however, among the quickest drying inks I've dealt with to date, which I found rather surprising.
+2

Overall Score = 86 out of 100

Great Review!!!!

I am looking for a very bright emerald green
Could you suggest which is the best ink in EMERALD GREEN (starky bright) for PElikan m1000 and Sailor 1911.....also which ink would you recomend for a waterman charleston....as it seems the charleston is peculiar about "ink" and "paper type".....

Thanks,

I share your thoughts on practicability. I'd like to write more with green inks, but if you file in a document in a row where the others have written in blue or black, yours is the only one which stands out and you can never know which sort of impression this would leave to a potential reader. That's a pity, because this'll limit the usage of green inks extremely

The PR Ebony Green should be a great choice for any pen where a rich, vibrant green is desired. I've found that PR inks flow very well, and do not exhibit problems, even in picky pens.

I just bought a bunch of greens and I'm interested in trading samples. Check out the sticky message about the KCat Ink Exchange on the Inky Thoughts topic. I've got Caran d’Ache Amazon, Lamy geen, PR Sherwood Green and Spearmint, and Waterman green.

Also check out my scans of Levenger's Gemstone.

--John

Caran d'Ache Amazon is very bright, if you don't object to the fancy-looking and not very deep
bottle. Noodlers Gruene Cactus is also bright green.

Try Noodler's Gruene Cactus - it's a lighter green but kind of more like emerald, IMO.

Erick

Thanks all...will try some of them as my waterman charleston seems to be a very moody pen...i have tried Pelikan and waterman inks and both could not solve the "skipping" and "starting" problem of the nib

I have found Private Reserve inks, when viewed as a whole, to be the best in terms of lubrication.

Have you tried the dish washing liquid trick? Touch the end of a toothpick in dish washing liquid, such as Palmolive or Joy used to hand wash dishes, and put the tiniest bit on the end of your filled cartridge or converter. Giovanni Abrate also sells additives: Tryphon
Scroll down to the product - Ink Safe - it's only $2.00 and people have reported good results.

Or I'll give you some pure X-100 for free, or rather on equal terms as ink samples for Ink Exchange trade. That's the interesting ingredient in dish liquid: the surfactant.

--John

Just a minor correction of interest only to obsessive personalities like myself:

"Loren ipsum" is not nonsense, or was not originally nonsense. The passage is in Latin and was extracted from a treatise on ethics by Cicero. It has been altered over the years by purpose and accident so that many versions of the text are in fact no longer the original passage verbatim.

In the interest of furthering the obsessive-compulsive need to point out minutiae:

Lorem Ipsum was derived from the treatise by Cicero on ethics. However, the original text was purposely scrambled to derive a "nonsense" language; it didn't happen to -- organically, over time -- arrange itself in the way you see above.

In order to keep the reviews short, sweet, and to the point, I've saved the history lesson for those that were interested in looking "lorem ipsum" up, as I see you have.

Thanks for the review, I've been looking for a very dark green and thought this one might be what I was looking for. It is lighter and more green than I expected. I guess I'll keep looking or maybe try a mix.

As far as a bright green, one that I like and is often overlooked is Private Reserve Spearmint. I'm not sure if it is "Emerald" green - to me that implies a more bluish tint - but it is a nice ink if you are looking for a bright, saturated green color. My only complaint is that it is too much of a bright color for "serious" writing (thus my quest for a darker, more subdued green).

You may want to look into Montblanc British Racing Green. I can't decide if I like MB Racing Green or R&K Alt Goldgrün more (although if you're looking for dark, the MB is probably the way to go).

Oh joy and rapture! What a fabulous colour green. Thank you Private Reserve.

This is very nearly my favourite green ink, very nearly but not quite. I just have to have any trivial excuse to go on searching for that non-existent 'just right' colour green.
46 bottles of different green ink and still searching. Now, if only I could get my hands on a bottle of ............

The scan of the PR Ebony Green reminds me very much of PR Sherwood Green. Anyone done a side by side comparison?

Much darker. I don't know if the scan above was written with a dry writer but this ink is very close to Penman Emerald. Easily as dark. Also, even if in your pen it comes out similar to Sherwood, it doesn't smear!!! Yay! I've found drying time of this ink to be surprisingly quick for a PR color - for any highly saturated ink. But no feathering. I can't recommend this ink enough if you want a very dark green that is still green v. black with a green tint.

My scanner has a tendency to lighten up the inks a bit.

I gotta say - it seems very odd to me to review a green ink and deduct points because it isn't blue or black.

I'm not defending the ink just because I like it a lot. Just a tad boggled by this quirk. X ink is red. I'm going to deduct points because it's red and not black even though the bottle says it's red.

Now, if you want to do a separate category for "practicality" then call it that. X ink is red and as reds go, it's good/bad/boring/orangish/pinkish/blueish. For editing it would be practical/impractical because of x/y/z. For daily writing it would be practical/impractical because of x/y/z.

Just a thought. They're your reviews. Just that from a rationality POV, it doesn't quit jibe. It gives a false impression in the final tally if you don't separate the two very different concepts.

KCat the Picky.

I love this color, but why am I not buying more of it? Because it's not practical for me to use it. Thus, I've tried to distill that impracticality into a numerical deficit. The deduction note pretty much spells out the fact that this is my personal opinion.

Note that I didn't say every ink should be blue or black. Rather, I feel that every practical, daily ink should be predominantly blue or black. Would I use a dark green regularly? Sure. Would I use this dark green regularly? No.

EDIT:


Isn't that almost exactly what I did, by providing a color score, then deductions?

KC: Now, if you want to do a separate category for "practicality" then call it that.

JJB: Isn't that almost exactly what I did, by providing a color score, then deductions?

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

No, JJB, you did not do that.

When you assign a score, there has to be some criteria against which you are scoring. Not personal preference, either. If you earned a 'C' in Geometry 101, it was because you did not meet the criteria: you slept in class, you couldn't tell the difference between a right angle and the Back Street Boys, or something. When you did science projects, you were given the criteria first, and told how to earn a perfect score.

Like KCat, I understand these are your personal opinions of the inks, but tell me, how does an ink earn a score of 100%?

JJB: I use blue, blue black, black, and brown inks exclusively. However, I recognize that others like orange, purple, red, green, and turquoise inks, and I accept, in principle, that some green inks are better than others, just as some blue inks are better than otheres. I think that's all we're asking: that you accept that principle and come up with a criteria that acknowledges it. Otherwise, you should never review an ink in a color outside your personal boundaries of acceptability.

Not trying to start a fight here, JJ. Just pointing out, since you're a writer, that you have combined two concepts. Something you can't get away with in an analysis that includes numerical values.

your words: "But I just cannot come to terms with using an ink this blatantly green. Call me a traditionalist, or even conservative, but I think the predominant colors in any ink should be either blue or black.
-5 for practicality"

In terms of color only, you should be comparing a green to other greens. Use those as your way to set criteria.

Then, if you wish to state that you don't think green is practical compared to blue and black, nothing wrong with that. But it shouldn't enter into the numerical value. It should just be a statement of opinion within the review. Otherwise, people might skip to the bottom of that review and see a low number based on your dislike of green as a "practical" color and think "well, gee, as greens go, this one must not be very good."

Basically, you've bought a pair of pants and said "These pants are not practical because they're not a shirt."

I actually really like the way the review clearly gave us a specific amount for the deduction rather than saying that the reviewer doesn't like green inks in the review and then giving us an number with no indication how much the anti-green bias counts for. I imagine we can expect the same treatment for all greens from this reviewer, so it becomes easy enough to either take the numbers for what they are (essentially starting any green at 95) or to add 5 points to every green review in order to cancel out the anti-green bias. I think the quantitative aspect of the review actually makes it easier and not harder to get a grasp on the opinion offered in this particular case.

heh - well, I guess once you know the standard that has been set, you can do that.

I'm saying, eliminate the anti-green (or anything other than blue or black) bias altogether (as would be done in a careful analysis) and there's no need to do any adding or subtracting.

Granted, bias will always show up in any analysis. Even in the strictest labaratory setting. I'm reading several books on Narrative Theory right now and am finding that the rationale behind much analysis is hardly quantitative. Interesting, but nothing you can pin a number on.

But, we're getting way off topic. Ebony green is a pretty green but it's a horrible blue or black. At the moment, I have a 1:1 mix of EG and Penman Emerald in my pen - will report at some later date on the results of that experiment. And go to my review and update with a new observation about EG so as not to further derail JJ's review which is otherwise of value (the scans are nice and the water test is always a good thing for those who need to know that.)

I've caught so much flak for my reviews -- which are well-meaning, and in my eyes unprovocative -- that I'm going to provide a response to all of it, here and now, and in the future ignore any format critiques that don't arrive via PM, which is the proper and appropriate vehicle for such personal and off-topic concerns. This is not an attempt at "fighting," or passive-aggressive forum nonsense, but a level-headed reaction to the page worth of comments this thread has accumulated concerning my review format. To those of you that have provided genuine and well thought out critiques, CharlieB, among others, my thanks. To the rest, this response is directed at the arguments and opinions I've received in general, and as such isn't directed at any one person. Like the deductions in my review, if you feel these comments apply to you, then so be it, but if not, ignore them.

Now, let me make something very clear: I would never have bought a bottle of green ink if I didn't think I would use it. I'm not randomly picking inks off the shelf so that I can review them for the benefit of the FPN community. Nor am I reviewing inks just so that I can say how much I hate them. I'm buying inks that I actually might use, and if you look through the inks I've reviewed lately, a good percentage fall outside the strict confines of blue and/or black.

Now then, when I buy an ink called "Ebony Green," I'm thinking, "Hey, ebony, that means black, right, or a very, very dark brown?" Sure it does. So then, one might logically and rationally assume that said ink is a very dark green, yes? This isn't combining two concepts. It's buying an ink labeled as black green, and finding out that it is not black green. Again, I said blue or black should be the predominate color...so for a green, what would that be? Black green? Ebony green?

Out of my pen, Ebony Green is not what I would consider a very dark green, or a "black green." I can't use a green that isn't very dark. Therefore, I can't use Ebony Green.

Lets see that in Logic 101 format:

Example 1
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
--
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Example 2
JJBlanche can only use green inks that he considers very dark.
Ebony Green is not very dark by JJBlanche's reckoning.
--
Therefore, JJBlanche cannot use Ebony Green.

I fail to see how pointing out this fact in my review serves to highlight my flawed and irrational approach to ink reviews. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone wants to come in and say "Hey JJ, you're full of it, Ebony Green is as dark as they come!" then fine, I'm all for it. But to argue my format and say nothing of the ink itself?

Just to emphasize this, here is my exact quote from the review:



I say I can't use an ink this green, but nowhere do I mention or intimate the exclusion or docking of inks right off the bat just because they're green. In the same vein, what if someone doesn't like X ink because they find it too red, or too pink, or whatever. Are they supposed to give it an overwhelmingly positive review to avoid stepping on the toes of those who disagree with them?

Furthermore, I, me, or my appears in every sentence of the quote listed above. Only the quickest of quick glances would fail to see this as my opinion, and if someone is breezing the reviews that fast, they can't be gleaning very much useful information anyhow.

And really, the most important bit of all: I deducted five points for this...five out of 100. Is it really that big of a deal, to the extent that it became necessary to derail this entire thread, and indeed go so far as to question my abilities as an analytical writer? Was it so important, in fact, that a casual PM couldn't have solved the problem? Granted, just because I started this thread doesn't mean I'm dictator and overlord of it, but I at least thought we could get beyond the trees and see the forest.

Regarding my point system: I use a numerical format to objectify my opinion concerning these inks. I'm not claiming gospel truth. I just feel a numerical system is much more organized, and easier to understand, when compared to a review that goes something like "This ink is totally radical and I recommend it."

Movie critics often use a 0-100 (or 0-10, or 0-5 stars, etc) scale to rate movies. Most people intuitively understand that these numbers correspond to the reviewer's opinion. The reviewer uses a number to make his opinion tangible, and easily understood by many people at quick glance. It's just silly to assume that because someone is using a number, that automatically means there must be a maxim at work beyond "more points are better and less points are worse." In my mind, the perfect ink is 100, and mud is 0. Everything else falls somewhere in between.

Now at this point, I'm sure some of you may be asking why I'm taking this so seriously -- why I'm not just letting these comments, from a forum no less, roll off (my girlfriend just asked that very question). I'll tell you why: I spent a good deal of my time and thought developing what I consider to be a well-crafted review. I submit it to the community, thinking I've done some good. A fair number of people compliment my efforts, which I appreciate (but don't expect), and still others ask questions concerning the ink, which I gladly answer.

However, about half the people that contribute to my reviews fixate on one bit of minutiae, and, because of it, reject my work outright. If that isn't bad enough, they feel the need to air their opinions in public, essentially saying "thanks for the scans, but you should just delete everything else."

What irks me most about this is that, from my perspective, the ink reviews section exists for people to provide their unadulterated experiences regarding a given ink. If someone disagrees that badly, they should post a review of the ink in question, rather than ask someone to change their honest opinions.

And here I sit wondering, what is it about me or my reviews that warrants such a reaction, the need for people to request censorship? I've never gone around needling people about the shortcomings of their reviews, because that's not the type of person I am. Indeed, I was just discussing freedom of ideas and expression with another member, in another one of my reviews. It seems as though people that don't agree with my methods or opinions aren't interested in debating them casually in private, or letting them go, but would rather see them publicly squashed.

Now, you could respond to this post with a generic and reductionist "Oh my, you took it totally the wrong way!" or you could genuinely think about what I've said, and what you've said, and go from there.

Out of my pen, Ebony Green is not what I would consider a very dark green, or a "black green." I can't use a green that isn't very dark. Therefore, I can't use Ebony Green.

You will not find a cure for a disease by studying only yourself, there must a control group involved

Lets see that in Logic 101 format:

Example 1
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
--
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.


Does Socrates lose points for being dead?

Example 2
JJBlanche can only use green inks that he considers very dark.
Ebony Green is not very dark by JJBlanche's reckoning.
--
Therefore, JJBlanche cannot use Ebony Green.

Example 1 is fact; #2 is opinion.

[snip]


And really, the most important bit of all: I deducted five points for this...five out of 100. Is it really that big of a deal, to the extent that it became necessary to derail this entire thread, and indeed go so far as to question my abilities as an analytical writer? Was it so important, in fact, that a casual PM couldn't have solved the problem? Granted, just because I started this thread doesn't mean I'm dictator and overlord of it, but I at least thought we could get beyond the trees and see the forest.

Regarding my point system: I use a numerical format to objectify my opinion concerning these inks. I'm not claiming gospel truth. I just feel a numerical system is much more organized, and easier to understand, when compared to a review that goes something like "This ink is totally radical and I recommend it."


When you use a point system, you are indeed claiming some hard-core truth. There are 20 spelling words in each unit. Each correctly spelled word is worth 5 points. "Antidisestablishmentarian", "photosynthesis", and "KCat" were not spelled correctly. Your score= 85.

[snipped because I hate onions]

In my mind, the perfect ink is 100, and mud is 0. Everything else falls somewhere in between.

How does an ink earn that score?

Now at this point, I'm sure some of you may be asking why I'm taking this so seriously -- why I'm not just letting these comments, from a forum no less, roll off (my girlfriend just asked that very question). I'll tell you why: I spent a good deal of my time and thought developing what I consider to be a well-crafted review. I submit it to the community, thinking I've done some good. A fair number of people compliment my efforts, which I appreciate (but don't expect), and still others ask questions concerning the ink, which I gladly answer.

You want to be liked, like everyone else. You are human. And, since you are an artist/writer, you are very sensitive.
[snipped, because I love sweet potatoes]

And here I sit wondering, what is it about me or my reviews that warrants such a reaction, the need for people to request censorship?
fut the whuck? Censorship?

[snipped, because Shakespeare and Socrates are dead]

Now, you could respond to this post with a generic and reductionist "Oh my, you took it totally the wrong way!"

yeah but what fun would that be?
[snipped, because I am almost out of black font ink]

Edited, because I don't have any mushroom pizza.

Satrap, I'm growing very tired of your sarcasm and disdain. PM me if you have an issue, as you're obviously missing the boat entirely on this one.

Let's step back a little bit.

First of all, as I hate hearing others say "It's just ink" and "they're just pens".

Second, no one is calling for censorship. It is not censorship to try to have a discussion about the rationale being used in a review. No one is telling you what you can and cannot write.

Moving on:

I agree, from here it should be taken backchannel and folks should be allowed to enjoy the reviews and take their own measure of their value.

None of us wants to lose ink reviews and all of as are intelligent enough to know what we should personally take or leave from a review/opinion of any sort.

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

I'll resist the urge to accept this challenge, but I AM Satrap of the Ruby Yacht.

I am not sure if others have just another perception than I have, but I don't see an objective claim in the score (and the deductions especially on the colour) - I see it more as a recommendation. JJBlance doesn't deduct points because he thinks this colour is stupid because it's green and not dark enough green and neither blue nor black which shall be the predominant colour - he just doesn't fully recommend to buy this ink because it is such a large bottle and he thinks it can't be used to get the bottle empty, on the scale of 0 (meaning to me don't buy this ink) and 100 (giving 100% recommendation). He's giving a review like if you have asked him as he's tried the ink, it's like asking him "JJBlance, if I ask you shall I buy Ebony Green" and he tells you "Be careful you can't write your exams or letters to your lawyer with this ink and I think this is a disadvantage." So maybe someone thinks "I don't write exams and I don't write letters to my lawyer with a fountain pen." so basically there is no problem with him. I don't see more than that in deductions. But perhaps I'm viewing everything much too simple

Thanks for the review of the PR Ebony Green. I need to get a bottle of this one - it may be the green I'm looking for - sort of a dark forest green that is green enough to be identifiable as green.

JJBlanche,

Dumb Question, if you are not much a fan of green ink for reasons of practicality, then why write a review on Ebony Green?

Bill

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

Hey Bill, where ya been?

satrap
who never gets in trouble

Interesting - seems a lot greener than Ebony Purple is purple. Have you tried Ebony Purple with the same nib, out of curiosity? It comes out very subtle in my Lamy M.

Here's the link to KCat's review and
Ebony Green scan

Color perception is very subjective and I suspect that we all have variations in how we perceive colors. The Ebony Green I have seems very dark indeed, and more black than green. Not, however, as dark as Noodler Sequoia or Zhivago. The latter are, to my eye, more black than green; in fact I have trouble seeing the green tinge except in very bright and direct sunlight. When I write Ebony Green with a fine nib it also looks black at a casual glance; a close examination under bright light reveals its green character.

I doubt that I could ever evaluate inks on a digital scale, but I certainly have no objection if others try. The only way to be sure if you like a color is to try the ink with your pen on your paper and judge whether it is appropriate for the purpose you have in mind. With the Pear Tree sampler program and the K-Cat exchange, that should not be too difficult to arrange.

Of course, if we write with yellow Lamy Safaris, it is well to be warned if a particular ink can stain it! Also, reviews are invaluable for giving us at least an approximate idea of what the ink looks like, since it often varies greatly from the swatches.

from the point of view of numerical assignment, i would find any score in the 90th percentile very suspicious, almost useless. i am equally inclined to suspect jj's high score. no ink, however good, ought to score more than 80%. there is always room for improvement: it could feather less, dry faster, bleed never, come out interesting looking from a boring nib, look like stained glass on vellum when held up to diffuse light. . the list of desirable ink properties exceeds what you can desire from gasoline additives to make a third hand toyota perform like a cadillac.

therefore, for those interested in having their reviews taken seriously: try keeping the scores between 40 and 80 percent. i cannot take jj's point system seriously because despite the loss of 5 points for its not being blackish, the overall score is too high.

i once gave penman emerald a 70%, sherwood a 65 and noodlers original green (not fast dry) a 75. no other green i have encountered has gone higher than original noodlers green.