Jump to content

The Fountain Pen Network uses (functional) cookies. Read the FPN Privacy Policy for more info.  To remove this message, please click here to accept the use of cookies






Photo

Has Lamy Blue-Black Been Re-Re-Formulated?

lamy blue black lamy blue black ink

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 jabberwock11

jabberwock11

    Extremely Rare

  • Member - Gold

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Flag:

Posted 23 December 2015 - 19:27

I recently purchased a bottle of Lamy Blue-Black and was quite surprised by the performance.  It seemed to do much better than any review would have had me believe.  I initially purchased the ink more or less just to get the bottle (with the hope that I might actually like the ink), but after using this ink for a couple of weeks I have to say that I am really impressed with it.  This leads me to believe that either Lamy has reformulated their reformulated version of Blue-Black, or that folks have been overly critical of what I have found to be a pretty good ink.

 

Right now I am using this ink in a Jinhao X750 with a Knox 1.1 nib; and in a Jinhao X450 with an Anderson Pens 1.1 nib (identical to the Goulet Pens 1.1, but with different brand etchings, obviously).  I have used the ink on a number of different papers all with fairly similar results.  What I have found is that this ink does not write overly wet, but still tends to bleed through a little bit even on good paper.  It is an unusual color, it  has a nice chalky blue color that dries a little bit on the dark grey side.  The most unusual finding is that the ink is actually fairly water resistant.  I would not call it waterproof, but I wrote a sample on an index card with a sample written using Chesterfield Archival Vault ink (an iron gall ink) for comparison, ran the card under water, and the Lamy held up fairly well.  I would never use it to address an envelope, but I have no issues using it as an every day ink.

 

I performed three water tests with Lamy Blue-Black and all of them had the same results.  The test consisted of me washing the index card under a fast moving tap for 60 seconds.  While this could have been made more rigorous by actively rubbing the ink while under water or adding a soap, I feel that my test is adequate for general use conditions.  Below is the index card before the test, an example of bleed through (on a Rhodia #12 pad...the bleed through is not as bad here as it is on many other papers, but it is still visible), and the index card after the test.

 

 

tumblr_nzts3oaL3B1uf00n4o1_1280.jpg

 

tumblr_nzts3oaL3B1uf00n4o2_1280.jpg

 

tumblr_nzts3oaL3B1uf00n4o3_1280.jpg

 

 

So, either I am more accepting of Lamy Blue-Black, or it has been reformulated to be a better overall ink.  I could believe either scenario, but I tend to think that I am just not as hard on this ink as other folks have been.  If it is the case that I am not as harsh as other users, then I tend to think that this is due to the fact that I never tried the old iron gall formulation.  In any event, taken on its own merits I think that Lamy Blue-Black is a good ink.  It has either gotten a bad rap, or is now better than it used to be.  I would be very interested in hearing what other folks think about this subject.


Edited by jabberwock11, 23 December 2015 - 21:37.


Sponsored Content

#2 lapis

lapis

    medium rare

  • FPN Super Moderators

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,194 posts
  • Location:West Berlin
  • Flag:

Posted 23 December 2015 - 22:39

AFAIK it has not been changed again (recently. It was changed in any case back in 2012 when they started to make the ink (in the bottle) as a non-IG, just like they had already done much earlier for the blue-black in their cartridges.

One problem (over and above that move from IG to non-IG) is that the old blue-blacks (prior to 2012) and the new blue-blacks (both in bottles and in cartridges all had/have the same bar code numbers. Other Lamy distinctions and/or Ident. numbers -- like for all MB inks -- were never issued.

Long story short: maybe you just purchased an older bottle instead of a newer one.

 

  hidden-171.gif


Life is too short to drink bad wine (Goethe)


#3 jabberwock11

jabberwock11

    Extremely Rare

  • Member - Gold

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Flag:

Posted 24 December 2015 - 00:26

I purchased the bottle from Amazon, so I assumed it was the newer formulation, but I suppose it is possible that my bottle just happens to be the old iron gall version.  If this is the non-iron gall formula, then I would consider Lamy Blue-Black impressively water resistant.  If this is actually the older iron gall formula of Lamy Blue-Black, then it is not as water resistant as I would like.  The Chesterfield barely even noticed that it was wet, which is how I expect my iron gall inks to act; the Lamy Blue-Black may not have bled completely away when wet, but it certainly ran a bit and lost some of its body.

 

I will have to do some further investigation, but without a sample of the old version (that I am 100% certain IS the old version) to compare it to, I'm not sure how I will determine if my current bottle is the modern or older iron gall version of Lamy Blue-Black.  As of right now, I am on the fence.  I did another water test where I rubbed at the ink while it was under running water, and it did not run anymore than it did with just the water.  I will have to compare this to inks that I know are not iron gall and are also not specifically formulated to be water proof.

 

In the end, I may be praising the iron gall Lamy Blue-Black rather than the current non-iron gall formula...either way, I like the ink and will continue to use it, but I may end up disappointed when it comes time to buy another bottle.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: lamy, blue black, lamy blue black, ink



Sponsored Content




|