Hi everyone,

I am starting to use more of my FP in signing cheques. However, today I noticed that a drop of water has somehow erased my signature. What would you recommend as a better ink and at the same time is kind enough not to clog the pen. I am currently using Waterman inks.

Thanks in advance

Noodlers Bullet Proof Black is what I use, but I hope you have a better bank then mine!!!

Regards
NIGEL

Noodlers Legal Lapis is also a good choice.

-Bruce

I generally rotate between Noodler's Legal Lapis and Eternal Brown, both Pendemonium exclusives. I also use Noodler's Iraqi Indigo (or whatever it is being called these days). No problems with any of the three.

Any Noodler's bulletproof ink. Or Noodler's Borealis Black - not bulletproof, but very water-resistant.

What about Diamine Registrar's? I have no experience with it; I'm asking.
I too am looking for something, what? Archival? Tamper-proof?

I have heard the occasional rumble of discontent with Noodler's.
What I've picked up, I believe, is that it is not well-behaved in your pen?
What, maybe it takes ultrasonics to clean your pen?

Sorry to answer my own post, but I found this short review of the Registrar's.
It was suggested that this is iron-gall ink, which might not be all that kind to your pen.
-j

Noodler's is the brand you want to explore, and any of their "bulletproof" inks are perfect for you- They are water, bleach and UV proof. Not all of the inks are "bulletproof" though- some are "near-bulletproof" and others are regular, removable inks. Among the bulletproof inks, Bulletproof Black, Polar Blue, Legal Lapis (Pendemonium exclusive), and eternal blue are good to peruse.



Noodler's Baystate Blue is the king of temperamental inks, but it is the exception and their other inks are fine. Their inks are very saturated, which means that you get some nib creep, but this is harmless and is just aesthetically unpleasing. Occasionally, an older ink or one that has been in a pen and has partially evaporated can deposit sediment in a pen. I have only heard about this, and have never experienced it. All of the inks are water-based and fountain-pen safe.

For checks and document safety, I can't find anything that beats Noodler's. I second Philip 1209's notes about Noodler's. The other good news is that dried-up waterproof Noodler's can be cleaned out of a pen (with detergent, diluted household ammonia, or an ultrasonic machine) and doesn't need to be used almost every day for the pen's sake, unlike the older waterproof formulae for fountain pens.

The carbon-particle inks for fountain pens: These are waterproof and fairly document-secure as long as the particles really do stay stuck between paper fibers (I've seen water tests on them but not chemical tests or abrasion tests). They are difficult or impossible to clean out of a pen if they dry up in the feed, and the pens need to be written with almost every day and flushed fairly often. Sailor's Kiwaguro (which means "extreme black") is the best-behaved of these on paper and in pens, allowing the longest flush interval. Platinum Carbon needs to be flushed more often, and Pelikan Fount India needs to be flushed every day or at least every week. Danger: Pilot's Ink for Security is not for fountain pens.

The iron gall inks for fountain pens (Diamine Registrar's, Lamy and Montblanc Blue-Black in bottles not cartridges, Rohrer & Klingner Salix and Scabiosa) are waterproof (the blue or purple can wash out, but the iron gall stays in the paper) and last for a few centuries (before they eat through the paper), but they not completely forgery-proof. These inks are safe for a pen as long as you write with them most days, flush the pen every two to four weeks, and never ever let the stuff dry up in the feed. Pens in which solid gold (not something else plated with gold) is the only metal that touches the ink will suffer almost no long-term damage from these inks.

Another thought about document safety: Many people including me complain about inks that show through or bleed through, but perhaps show-through or bleed-through by a forgery-resistant ink could give evidence of authenticity. If you're in situations like that, I suppose you should use a permanent Noodler's that is not the standard Black or X-Feather (all the others are more aggressive in paper).

I love my Hearts of Darkness.

My Waterman 52V is always loaded with Noodler's Legal Lapis for the sole purpose of signing cheques, cards, autographs, what have you.

And again, here we go.....modern iron gall inks are safe .They are. What do I base my affirmation on? Personal and family use for many decades. Not a problem, including steel nibs. Not to mention in most EU countries is the ink to be used by notars and registrars... which I don't think any Noodler's has the honor so far....

...which by itself doesn't mean much. For political reasons alone I can't imagine any circumstance which would result in a European legislature overturning a very long-standing requirement to use .eu iron gall ink in favor of a .us ink, regardless of the merits.

Yes, off course, the reason must be political......what else could it be.. that iron gall is actually better? Proven for centuries? Nah, can't be, right? Anything US made is automatically better, no question. What I was thinking of....By the way, is there any appointee ink in prospect concerning this same issue? Will the House pass a bill on it? I wonder if there is a reason for that....Hum........

I think mstone is making a reasonable point. Modern iron gall ink may well be the best on the planet, or the worst, but political considerations could make its quality irrelevant. Some people do seem to think that Americans automatically think everything made in the USA is better, despite the interest shown on FPN for products of other countries.

In my youth I largely felt that to be true! It may still be - if I could just FIND something made in America.

Yes, looking around my office and home leads me to think we here in the USA have been pretty enthusiastic in adopting the products of other countries.

"Other countries"? Oh, so, is FPN an American Forum? Silly me I thought it was an international community of Fp users....and here I find is a forum were we magnanimously descent to speak about those other places that have been producing and using inks an quills long before America was discovered! The only political view is to affirm that there is a political reason for choosing a centuries old proven ink towards one made since others made from yesterday and that have a long, long way to be problem free, not to mention foot the bill on what their label says. My background is science so I tend to stick to facts, not promises and to observe rather than blindly believe....a personality problem these days, yes.



Before you throw out of the window all your fpens and ink, let me say the biros and rollers should follow them in good logic....you can keep the markers, though.

Is archival ink truly necessary on checks? Or is something like Noodler's Borealis Black sufficient?

Huh? Chill!

Is pretty chilly here right now -wet, too-, thank you. Actually, I could use some heating, but given the price of gas, we'll wait till Halloween.

What an interesting discourse on inks for cheque/checks
There was a wet test on Sailor Carbon Black I read here recently.
Has anyone ever performed such tests on their inks I wonder - if so, would appreciate if you share your findings here.

A quick drying ink will be preferred - as I sometimes sign a lot of documents in one sitting.

Last but not least, thank you for all your precious inputs.

Some inks do bleed through, but Noodler's Bulletproof Black is actually my fountain pen with the least bleed-through. I use it mainly in my Lamy 2000, which lays down a very thick line, and it does not bleed through even cheap notebook paper. I find Noodler's Black to be my best-behaved ink and highly suggest it.

The website isellpens has a great description of the ink: http://isellpens.com/noodlersink.htm (scroll to the very bottom!)
The ink is somewhat waterproof, but if someone wanted to tamper with your check, it would still be fairly easy to do. Also, the Borealis ink may fade over time from UV exposure, while the bulletproof inks are partially protected against fading from UV. It is your decision, but keep in mind that bulletproof inks are Noodler's specialty and this ink is not the culmination of the manufacturer's talents.

While the rumble of discontent has always been around (as it is for other inks), it has increased by an order of magnitude or two since the introduction of the controversial Baystate series (which is not bulletproof).



People have had both positive and negative experiences, depending on the pens they own and their writing and maintenance habits. In my case, while I do not perform frequent maintenance like some people do, I tune my pens to work properly and I write regularly with any pen that is inked, and my experience since adopting these practices has been all positive.

Admittedly, when I first got started, some of my pens tended to skip or stop writing after a while, which was caused by ink drying out on the nib either because so little was present in a tight nib slit or the cap had an air leak. Highly saturated inks such as Noodler's and some others are naturally more prone to clog pens (although I've had pens that clogged with conservative inks such as Skrip and Waterman), but since I learned how to make minor repairs and adjustments, I haven't had any problems with any ink. The real problem seems to be small manufacturing imperfections in individual fountain pens that can cause them to be more finicky than they should be. Imperfections can also be found in other types of pens, which is why some write better than others, but the nice thing about fountain pens is that they're fixable and can last a long, long time.



It's good enough and requires no additional effort and cost to prove. That said, just because it is used in certain government documents does not necessarily make it better than the alternative. As the saying goes, "Nobody ever got fired for buying [IBM/Microsoft/anything that's not necessarily the best but is the old standard]."



It's proven to fade badly in comparison to other types of ink that have withstood the test of time much better. Unfortunately, these other inks cannot be used safely in fountain pens, but iron gall is good enough and traditional. There's no pressing need to explore newer alternatives, whether or not they are better.



Nobody made such a claim--this looks like a straw man argument.



Curiously, most of the major components of my home theater system are made in America: the TV (a Sony designed and manufactured in the USA), the speakers, the subwoofer, and most of the wiring. Shocking!



Well, there is that, but in some cases, it's the products of the USA that used to be manufactured here and are now being manufactured in other countries (specifically China) for us because that saves companies about 10-15% in cost when all is said and done (the cost savings has been steadily declining, but since we can no longer manufacture many items, things will stay this way indefinitely).

By the way, I recently read a report that claimed that China is set to overtake the USA in the total amount of goods manufactured by next year. I was utterly shocked because I had assumed that they already manufactured ten times more than we did, but I guess with all of the automobiles, furniture, appliances, and military products still being manufactured here, this is not the case.



That this interest is shown by Americans who are on FPN was implied, and does not imply that FPN is an American forum.



And I'll miss you most of all, straw man!



Iron gall inks have historically been inconsistent and problematic, except perhaps for the latest formulations, and even then it's not like using a standard ink. But it's traditional, easy to accept, and sufficiently proven. Nothing else is implied whatsoever.

As for the suggestion of Not-Invented-Here syndrome, while there is no way for anybody to prove it one way or the other, it would not be hard to believe where governments are concerned--it happens sometimes in the USA as well as every other country, I'm sure.



The fact is that you don't know whether iron gall ink is better than Noodler's bulletproof inks, only that it has had more time to be proven and that it's good enough as far as the EU is concerned.



What point are you trying to make? What stereotype are you trying to impose? This is counterproductive, in my opinion.

Keep in mind that at least for checks in today's environment, the check images are digitized as they're cleared. The physical check no longer has a life like it did years ago for all practical purposes. So, fading isn't really the issue. Tamper-proof remains a concern, as does a color that scans effectively during processing.

It depends how nervous you are, and how suspicious are the characters you write checks to. In modern check clearing, you don't get your check back, so forgery resistance is more important than whether the ink fades over time (years or decades) or damages the paper.

I have written probably 10,000 checks in my lifetime, many in non-waterproof ink, and no one has "washed" or forged one (my bank returns them, or did until recently. With electronic clearing, most are no longer returned)

On the other hand, I have Noodlers Black available now as I use it for other things. As most of my checks go to pay standing accounts, and are handled by faceless employees of those companies, no one cares how beautiful the ink on the check is, and it seems silly NOT to use my Noodlers. I suppose if I disliked black, I could equally well use Legal Lapis or one of the other bulletproof inks.

Besides Noodler's, you could use iron-gall inks (in suitable pens, whatever that means) or even use India ink in a technical pen (they are lousy for writing). For me, using Noodlers (black) for this as well as the other reasons I use it is the most practical, and avoids "one purpose" inks. But other choices can be made.

Dude, you really need to relax. Maybe I'm wrong, and the old european requirements to use iron gall ink are based on a rigorous scientific evaluation of all current alternatives and are not simply inertia. I'm willing to be convinced that european politicians would be willing to sponser such research, even though it could lead to a requirement to replace or supplement .eu manufactured ink with non-.eu manufactured ink (I'm not aware of any non-.eu source for iron gall ink, and I can't offhand think of any other candidate, such as noodler's or pilot's carbon ink, which is sourced in .eu). It would take a lot of convincing, though, since I have yet to see a politician anywhere in the world make decisions on obscure, esoteric issues without "input" from constituents. If the idea that laws and regulations are often divorced from reality, and depend more on influence than science, offends you, well...

As for whether noodler's is more permanent than iron gall, I have no idea. But to use as the criteria whether or not some bureaucrat--with no incentive to do so--has recognized it? Get real.

And for those hypersentive individuals among us, this has nothing to do with the nationality of the politicians, and more to do with their essence. Every country in the world has protectionist laws, they do a good job of getting politicians reelected.

By the way, your last couple of sentences went completely incomprehensible. Irrational American nationalism may be annoying (though you'd be hard pressed to find any here, outside your own strawman) but irrational anti-Americanism isn't particularly pleasant.

Sometimes the best pen isn't a FP. Maybe a Gel pen in a nice color would be more appropriate?

K

Mike Shea has done some ink tests on a few gel pens and ballpoints as well as Noodler's black in a fountain pen, (cf. http://flickr.com/photos/77078001@N00/sets/174647/ and http://flickr.com/photos/mikeshea/sets/72057594132628713/ ). I had never even worried about the security of ballpoints or rollerballs, but his photos indicate that they can be less tamper-resistant than fountain pens. (Or more. It depends).

I knew I'd seen something similar for iron gall inks. I finally found it here, and I mean here, (cf. http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=11804 ). This link, ( http://www.confidentialresource.com/2008/0...shing-and-pens/ ), also suggests that iron gall inks are not tamper-proof.

I don't remember seeing comparable tests for Lamy or Mont Blanc blue-black, Sailor Nano kiwagura, Platinum carbon ink, Pilot security ink, or Diamine Registrar ink.

If this is the case, the gel pen has to be a Uniball Signo 207, Sakura Gelly Roll, or some other gel pen that is proven to be resistant to forgery techniques. That said, using Noodler's bulletproof ink in a fountain pen for writing checks is as secure as any ink/pen combination.



Like I said earlier, it depends on the specific ink used, not the type of pen (even ballpoints can vary in this regard). It's common sense, really. The Signo 207's ink was intended specifically to thwart forgery, the Gelly Roll's ink was designed to be archival in the strictest sense of the term and has similar properties (it's just as indelible in my torture tests), and Noodler's bulletproof inks were designed with both purposes in mind. All other inks are questionable with regard to check security (until proven otherwise) because they were not designed to be as indestructible as possible (at least as indelible as the printing on checks).



This doesn't surprise me because there is nothing to suggest chemically that iron gall ink is particularly resistant to solvents or aging. Some folks marvel at the age of certain documents written with iron gall ink and assume that this type of ink must be totally indelible and eternal, but historically people have been able to chemically erase this type of ink from documents, and many documents that are not so old (just a couple of centuries) don't look so good. Iron gall ink is insoluble in water once its reactions are complete, I'll give it that, but it's still generally vulnerable to the elements and prone to fading (eventually its most permanent dye--orange-brown rust--is all that remains).

Oh, yes, when somebody exposes facts that goes against the clear established common thought of a group, then that individual must need to relax...and the arguments used based on false premises. Ha! Citing your own words, "get real", there is a big world out there. If there was any scientific evidence that inks that affirm being tamper proof, eternal and so, most governments, banks, institutions in the civilized would rush into purchasing and using it no matter who made it. Assuming otherwise reveals very clearly how yourself would react -protecting your own products- does not match the reality trade anywhere else. If that product existed, we would eat, drink and breath it. What I was affirming and still do is that iron gall has been used for centuries because its qualities deserved it. Facts, no promises.

My sentence was crystal clear.. and not addressed to you. Other poster mentioned looking at his desk he found we have too readily adopted all those products from other countries and I replied that if you feel the need to avoid them,nor pen, inks, biros, etc., are actually a US invention but that the marker is. I intend to keep fire, and wheel no matter who made them or where.

So, again, I'm exposing facts.
-Iron gall based inks have been used since the XII century based on their properties.
-Legislation of at quite a few countries specify that are the ones to be used for official records.
-Since 2003, a company named Noodler's manufactures some inks that affirm to be permanent and eternal on cellulose based surfaces.
-Affirming all the above, makes my statements irrationally anti-american.

Wait, let m stop here to .

You really believe that, even though most of the institutions you cite don't really care about permanence of ink on paper, as they've all switched to computer based records? Fascinating. You rant about exposing facts, even though it's well known that iron gall ink has no resistance to bleach (and, by extension, no fraud resistance) and you seem immune to evidence confirming that. You seem to have a unique understanding of what a "fact" is.


No, the rest of what you wrote, and the way you wrote it makes you seem irrationally (and borderline illiterately) anti-American. You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder. I don't know why, and I frankly don't care why. You've dragged a bunch of strawmen into the discussion, and seem to delight in attacking them. If that makes you happy, fine. I think it's a little sad that you can't have a more reasonable discussion, but if that's your preference--it's your life.

The conversation is a little over-heated, and I hope not to make it worse but I have a few points and questions about these facts.

*You say modern iron-gall inks are safe, yet early iron gall inks are highly acidic and can damage both pens and papers. Exactly when were "modern" iron gall inks formulated and have they been retested for waterproofness, anti-fading in sunlight, and other archival properties. What about other chemicals such as bleach? (Bleach is important as it is often used to disinfect water-damaged items and prevent mold). How do I tell a modern iron gall ink (properties)?

*I would guess in the XII century, documents were mostly on parchment (dead sheep). Noodlers won't work on dead sheep; they contain no cellulose (it will also wash off your hands well). Has modern iron gall ink been thoroughly tested on modern papers? There have been concerns the acids in iron gall inks could attack the paper (over decades). What are the required properties of inks and papers to ensure archival performance.

*Has the EU done any testing to compare Noodlers to iron gall ink? If so, results? Did they use accelerated tests? (I'm too old to wait 100 years for 100 year results) Our government is much newer than any European government and I guarentee it has a LOT of inertia; I suspect European governments do too. I know that when I earned my degrees, my university required all drawings in the original copy of a thesis to be done in India ink (with a technical pen). I suspect now, 40+ years later, Noodler's Black would work as well. I DON'T know if they have changed.

I think I'm the poster you claim said "he found we have too readily adopted all those products from other countries" when actually I said "Yes, looking around my office and home leads me to think we here in the USA have been pretty enthusiastic in adopting the products of other countries. "

My statement meant the exact opposite of what you said it meant. Americans like products from many different countries. It seems you changed my meaning to suit your own notions of Americans.

Well your response to mstone where you said "Yes, off course, the reason must be political......what else could it be.. that iron gall is actually better? Proven for centuries? Nah, can't be, right? Anything US made is automatically better, no question. headsmack.gif What I was thinking of....By the way, is there any appointee ink in prospect concerning this same issue? Will the House pass a bill on it? I wonder if there is a reason for that....Hum........" is probably one of the things that seemed irrationally anti-American to some people.

Iridium.....despite your very law school style argumentation, you've got nothing but argumentative replies... Well, some of them are directly false:. There are thousands written documents from the XII century till today that refute that affirmation, not only legible but absolutely stunning.

Reading a word in a dictionary does not mean you understand its meaning, nor the concept of irony. I suggest you look up "demagogic" and "propagandistic". Talking about a real strawman argument.. The facts,, my friend, are that iron gall based inks, with all its problems due to the almost individual formulation and its particular interaction with different surfaces used,:

-Has been used for its resilient qualities since the XII century till these days, from Miquelangelo to Rubens to Toulouse Lautrec to Gaudí. (wanna try give them lesson on their trade?).
-That such inks are legislated as official in many countries, all of those not precisely founded yesterday. If anything proves -no states- to be better, no doubt it will change even in the era of digitalization. Noodler's hasn't yet. Come back after the next 100 years and we'll see then.
-That my affirmation that today's formulation is safe is based on 40 of personal experience, (379 if you take into consideration family papers) but also on the fact that reputed manufacturers do make it for their own pens. Montblanc, and Lamy, for instance. Even other manufacturers, nibmeisters, do not have problems with iron gall inks, but they do with with so called bulletproofs.

That is not the perfect ink and has its issues? Yes. But is well tested and writes on basically anything, from parchment to paper. Even you recognize that Noodler's has significant issues, too: bulletproofs, clogging feeds and nozzles, the Baystate series doing a great job staining and eating through ebonite feeds, not to mention it needs cellulose to bind. It has not been long enough in the market to prove a thing. How do you know it will not react also and destroy the substrate or itself as time passes by? You simply can't and blindly believing has never been my best, I admit it.

I do use Noodler's as well as iron gall, and that does not make me trash any of them. What I expose are realities, not only personal opinions. If it bothers anyone, tan pis, mes amis.
On the other hand, anybody that dares make any comment on the existence of well proven permanent inks other than that specific brand is literally hunted down and person and ink discredited with nothing more than opinions and peer pressure. That, my friend, is the only irrational attitude here.
Good and peaceful weekend to all.

So "too readily adopted" means you actually like them.....Oh, in that case I obviously got it wrong. I did not change a comma, by the way.

Well, perhaps your assertion that I thought Americans had too readily adopted the products of other countries, when I had said exactly the opposite, wasn't a "straw man" and you were just didn't understand my meaning. In either case, I don't think you can reasonably complain about iridium's post by claiming he doesn't understand the meaning of words.

That you misunderstand and yet berate others for the same fault seems... ironic.

No. What is irrational is to implicitly affirm that a product must be superior to other due to where it was invented or is manufactured. I was trying to ironically refute the argument that if iron gall based inks are appointed as official inks for archival purposes the reason has to be only political.

I think I have clearly understood every word and intention...including yours. The syntax is quite clear.
On the other hand, the OP made an specific question and I answered with an alternative other than the given ones.

No one has asserted "that a product must be superior to other due to where it was invented or is manufactured". You were completely wrong about that. That is the straw man.

mstone didn't say that the reason iron gall inks were originally required was political, but rather that it would be politically unlikely that something so well established would be changed.

So, while you and others have advanced reasonable arguments for the use of iron gall inks, all your other arguments have been based on your original misinterpretation of mstone's and other's posts, or perhaps on some anti-American feeling on your own part.

that's the one thing with iron gall inks there are lots of libraries that are trying to neutralize or remove iron gall ink from paper.

Kurt

Okaaay. If you're confident that you know what I meant, even when I explicitly explain I meant something else, I think it's time for you to take over both sides of the conversation. (Backing slowly away...)

I should have prefaced it as a forge proof gel pen! thanks for reminding me.

Kurt

Is there a pinned list of ink torture tests?

I'm not interested in wading through rants and flame wars. However, I would like to know which inks have actually been tested, to read exactly what tests they were subjected to, and to see before & after pictures.

Try the "Ink Comparisons, Scans and Tests" subforum of "Ink Reviews". You'll find a pinned topic about water tests with subtitle indicating it also contains other tests. E.g., you'll find some nice pictures of iron gall being erased with bleach, and ballpoint being erased by everything.

Were these documents tested for resistance to solvents or were they carefully preserved? I suspect that it's the latter. Some documents were soaked in solvents in order to transfer some of the iron gall ink to a copperplate so that engravers had an exact mirror-image copy with which to work. This usually resulted in damage to the original document, most notably a fading of the writing. This proves that while iron gall ink is famously waterproof, it can be removed with other solvents, which definitely has implications regarding its lack of resistance to check forgery.

As for aging in general, some documents written with iron gall ink have aged well while others have aged poorly. At the very least, this calls into question how much we can generalize about the properties of iron gall ink, of which many variants with different proportions of the ingredients are known to exist. In addition, documents that have been well preserved are not a strong test of the permanence of an ink relative to that of others. All I said was that iron gall ink has not proven to be particularly permanent or indelible in comparison to other inks, even though excellently preserved examples exist. Even the ratty old documents stored in the US National Archives will probably last nearly forever now because they are encased in sealed containers filled with argon and placed behind heavy filters, effectively arresting their decay.



You stated and then attacked a position that nobody here had taken, which is a classic straw man, while at the same time promoting a stereotype of Americans, which is propagandistic. It seems to me that the one who does not understand the concept of irony is you. You would do better to argue against points that people are actually trying to make rather than what you imagine them to be saying.



The statements I made were facts. You don't know which type of ink is more permanent over time because nobody really does, and for some, only the passage of centuries can provide real proof in the case of Noodler's. However, as for indelibility--which is more germane to this topic--tests show that it is far easier to remove modern iron gall ink from paper than Noodler's bulletproof inks. Here is one such example:

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=11804

As I had pointed out earlier, centuries ago people routinely removed iron gall ink from both paper and parchment during the printing process, and household bleach evidently eradicates it. These are all facts.



Well, I think that Leonardo Da Vinci made a mistake in using egg tempera on his "Last Supper" because of its poor adherence to the substrate. I wouldn't attempt to give him a lesson on art, but evidently there were some things that he didn't know about chemistry. Then again, perhaps he cared more about the look and texture of the painting than absolute permanence, which could also apply to your examples, as far as we know. While iron gall ink is resilient enough for many purposes, it's far from the best at resisting check forgery.