Inks That Eat Sacs

[Algester]

we really can't say for certain what factors are in a sac failure but were's probably certain the variables lie in

sac batch

sac material

ink's PH level

environment

sac's age

probably reaction in the spring

and each one have varying degrees we can't say which one is the true culprit in bringing down the sac

but this could be a good time sink investment if one is probably bored enough to do so

[ink-syringe]

Most of my favorite pens are pneumatic Sheaffers (touchdowns and snorkels) and some levers (Flat-top and a much loved Crest) so I am watching this with great interest. I have 6 of them filled with Iroshizuku Asa Gao (2 TDs and a Snorkel and both my PFMs and my legacy I YIKES!).

 

So now I am nervous. Another is filled with Diamine Blue Velvet (very saturated) and another with Sailor Tokiwa-matsu (probably okay).... I'll be watching this thread with interest. Omas Blue (also high chroma) in my Imperial.

 

(I know that is a lot but most of my pens are Sheaffers)

[tonybelding]

What would be interesting to know is if this was a regular occurrence in the past in fountain pens, because if it was then that might shed some light on it.

 

 

Our conventional wisdom among pen collectors, since I've been into this hobby, has been that a new rubber sac should last for "many years". However. . . I also know that back in the Good Old Days if you could design a pen without any rubber sac, it was considered a great advertising point. Thus: Conklin Nozac, and other piston-fillers, and the various vac/plunger filling pens which were often considered a step up from the cheap lever-fillers.

[grainweevil]

I also think it's important to point out that Saskia's problem is not with boutique inks; it's the mixture of some of these boutique inks with vintage pen sacs. For example, Pilot can be a boutique ink creator and seller, and they don't sell pens with ink sacs.

 

I've been ruminating on this - not, evidently, very quickly! - and was wondering where Pilot's Con-20 squeeze filler might come in. It is, after all, just a rubber sac in a cage, and yes, it's rather more sturdy than the average sac, but, well, I wondered, is that sufficient to make Pilot more "rubber sac aware" than maybe some other ink manufacturers?

[Vintagepens]

Environmental factors are clearly important. Air pollution, including ozone, contact with metal surfaces, and exposure to various chemicals, all can do bad things to sacs. An interesting comment in another thread noted that the residue from printer's ink if not thoroughly cleaned off the poster's hands would destroy latex sacs subsequently handled.

 

Latex sacs are not made from pure latex. Various proprietary additives go into the mix, which are designed to stabilize the rubber. If sac manufacture were still a big business, new additives would be being introduced to protect against all the recently-introduced inks. That's not the case, obviously.

 

Empirically, I do think the problem of premature sac failure is primarily a function of the plethora of new inks. Those of us who have been involved with sac pens since the 1980s can all testify that the problems with melting sacs really took off just in the past ten years or so (noting that the defective sacs from Woodbin were a good dozen years ago now, and were pulled from the market very quickly at the time).

[Uncial]

 

 

Our conventional wisdom among pen collectors, since I've been into this hobby, has been that a new rubber sac should last for "many years". However. . . I also know that back in the Good Old Days if you could design a pen without any rubber sac, it was considered a great advertising point. Thus: Conklin Nozac, and other piston-fillers, and the various vac/plunger filling pens which were often considered a step up from the cheap lever-fillers.

 

Which might hint that sacs dropped out of use for a reason; other than the arrival of cartridges and pistons.

[tonybelding]

Clearly this is a subject with a lot of uncertainty and lack of consensus.

 

As it happens, I have three bulb-filling pens right here. One of them is fully functional, one has a melted bulb, and one has a bulb that's too long and needs to be replaced.

 

No, I don't remember what was the last ink I used in the melted one. I might possibly be able to dig through my records and find out, but. . . I find it suspicious that my bulb-filler bulbs melt in storage, not when they're in use and full of ink. Maybe it's something in the water here, and flushing them out for storage was what killed them?

 

Replacing a bulb on a bulb-filler is about as simple and cheap as it gets. So, what I think I shall do is order up a vial of sac cement and a good supply of sacs for all my bulb-fillers, and then start putting them through a methodical testing regimen with various inks, and I'll keep records of everything. I'll be sure and only clean them with distilled water from now on, too. Maybe this exercise can produce enough fresh data points to start moving the discussion beyond the realm of mere bloviation.

[dcwaites]

But Tony, to prolixly bloviate is half the fun of this board!

[Algester]

were still not sure if we can actually apply the environment at this point like rapid freezing and thawing the sac based fillers... <_< >_> as I said yet again this will be a time sink investment

[Ron Z]

 

 

Those of us who have been involved with sac pens since the 1980s can all testify that the problems with melting sacs really took off just in the past ten years or so (noting that the defective sacs from Woodbin were a good dozen years ago now, and were pulled from the market very quickly at the time).

 

This is precisely the reason why most of the pen repair people argue for the use of inks made by pen manufacturers. I don't put Noodlers in this category. I consider them to be an ink manufacturer who also sells jobber made pens. There is a difference.

 

I do find the whole argument excusing the use of some inks to be rather entertaining, Really, the choice is yours, and the payment for repairs will be yours too. If you find the level of risk to be acceptable, go for it. But don't be surprised when a sac fails prematurely.

[PaperQueen]

 

This is precisely the reason why most of the pen repair people argue for the use of inks made by pen manufacturers.

 

...

 

Really, the choice is yours, and the payment for repairs will be yours too. If you find the level of risk to be acceptable, go for it. But don't be surprised when a sac fails prematurely.

 

 

As always, kind sir, your voice of experience is deeply appreciated. Thank you.

 

So that I'm not being dense, does this include all inks bearing the Pilot-Iroshizuku label? Also...what about J. Herbin? I've always thought of their offerings as being extremely safe.

 

My preferences lean away from the traditional black, blue, and blue-black range, thus my curiosity about the more color-driven pallets.

[white_lotus]

I have an Edison Beaumont pneumatic which uses a sac, and an Edison Meno pump filler. Both of which had failures. I was pretty good about keeping track of what inks went into the pens, but before the failure may have missed some. I did use pen flush in those pens before their failures. The majority of the inks I used in those pens were Organics Studio (claimed to be safe by the manufacturer), Sailor bespoke inks, and a couple instances of Iroshizuku and J. Herbin. The latter two were the longest time inks were actually in the pen.

 

Brian Gray believes that Sailor inks are safe, but I'm not convinced that the bespoke inks are as safe for pens with sacs.

 

I am very diligent now keeping track of what inks are used in which pens. I also only clean with soap and water.

 

Instead of avoiding inks which may damage sacs, maybe avoiding pens with sacs is a better choice, but one each of us must decide.

[saskia_madding]

I've used a fair amount of Iroshizukus in Sheaffers with sac and not yet had a problem. Although I agree that it is just anecdotal evidence.

 

Here's my problem with people saying that we can't be sure if it's the ink, or other environmental factors:

 

I like to think I'm very good to my pens. I NEVER leave them sitting usued with ink in them for more than 36 hours. I clean them out the second they are empty of ink. I wash them with warm water (yes, tap water from Toronto) and very occasionally a drop of dish soap, and leave them to dry for 24 hours (some require a bit more to be dry), out of the sun and away from heaters. Then I put them into their dark pen boxes until I use them next.

 

Now, If that is not enough care and some environmental factors in that process somehow eat away at the sac, then I personally do not care to include them in my consideration. I cannot and will not ever take better care of my pens than I do now. If an ink takes advantage of the "environmental factors" in my pen care regime and eats the sac, then that is an ink I will not use in a sac pen anymore, period. There's no way for me to control environmental factors beyond what I'm already doing.

 

That's why I started this list for myself. So I could keep track of the inks that ate the sacs in my Sheaffers. I'm with white_lotus - I'm not going to avoid using the inks, instead I'm going to avoid using pens with vintage sacs ... at least with those particular inks. You guys are right in that is may not eat the sac every time, but one bitten twice shy, and it's NO PROBLEM for me to simply use these inks in the TONS of piston and c/c pens I own.

[Ron Z]

Well, we've also had reports from some of the service departments saying that they have seen pens damaged by the boutique inks - and these were companies that manufacture C/C and piston filled pens. I've also had to clean them, and it can be especially difficult with some of the dye saturated inks.

 

There is some experimentation going on, and an initial report from one individual is that he has found a definite link between the super saturated inks and sac failure. He says that diluting the ink 20% - 30% seems to make a difference, but the testing was still on going.

[dcwaites]

Clearly this is a subject with a lot of uncertainty and lack of consensus.

...

Maybe this exercise can produce enough fresh data points to start moving the discussion beyond the realm of mere bloviation.

 

 

...

 

There is some experimentation going on, and an initial report from one individual is that he has found a definite link between the super saturated inks and sac failure. He says that diluting the ink 20% - 30% seems to make a difference, but the testing was still on going.

 

No fair! It's not fun when somebody replaces mere opinion with real data!

That would reduce the volume of posts on the FPN (and in the general media) by about 90%.

I'd have to go back to reading the comics online in the morning.

 

But seriously, that 20% - 30% figure is interesting, because it also seems to be the amount that makes slow-drying inks dry quickly, and reduce feathering and bleeding, but without seriously changing the colour or brilliance of the inks.

 

I wonder if the ink makers might start to look at that for their products. It would save them money, and people would generally still pay full price for their inks.

 

Or, perhaps, sell 50 mls of ink in a 60 ml bottle, so that purchasers could dilute if they wanted.

Ink shops could also sell bottles of Ink Dilution Fluid (aka distilled water). Although one company (Pilot? Platinum?) already sells an ink dilution fluid which is basically ink without the dye. This allows you to dilute an ink to lighten the colour without changing its properties.

Edited February 16, 2016 by dcwaites

[Ron Z]

 

 

I'd have to go back to reading the comics online in the morning.

 

Nah. There's more than enough entertainment and off the wall ideas here to keep one entertained. Besides, you'd miss FarmBoy's dry sense of humor.

[Arthur's Mom]

I'm in love with snorkels. I can't lie. I have TONS of them, and I specialize is hunting down funky, broader nibs. I also have a love of ink, as some of you may know.

 

This can sometimes cause a problem. Because I don't feel like resac-ing a snorkel by myself (though I did learn how to do it), it costs me $40 CAD every time an ink eats through the sac. At first, I was just mentally remembering which ones not to use, but now the list is getting longer, so I thought I'd put a post up here, and then link it in my signature so I could always find it, and so other interested parties could as well.

 

I'd love to hear what everyone else has experienced too. Add to this thread and I'll periodically update the first post after a few people have agreed that the inks does in fact chew through sacs.

 

***PLEASE NOTE: I am 100% NOT suggesting not to use these inks. Some of these inks are my absolute favorites, and I still use them all the time. Except now I use them in piston and converter pens, and they behave perfectly.***

 

 

Caran d'Ache Storm - this just ate the sac of a snorkel recently. However, I had it for one day less in another snorkel and that snorkel still functions. Not sure what it looks like inside or how long the sac will last now, but ... <shrug>

 

Diamine Midnight Blue - I used this for a year in the same snorkel with no problems. Of course, I probably only used the pen maybe 4 times, but on the 5th time it didn't work. The man who repairs all my snorkels for me (Restorer's Art), showed me a picture of the chewed sac. Now I only use it in converter/piston pens.

 

Cult Pens Deep Dark Blue - another absolute favourite of mine that now lives in converter/piston pens. It ate through the sacs of two snorkels.

YouTube video made by: Nathan Tardif (Noodler's Ink) touching on the subject of "sacks being turned to goo" during a pen repair video.

 

Link was supposes to start at 48min10sec . (It did at first, when I tested it.)

[very aggravating]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkFxmPrjgVY&feature=youtu.be&t=48m10s

 

It would seem there is a very good chance that, INK's themselves, are not to blame for sacks being dissolved into a gooey mess.

 

 

Edit: Attempting to correct the link start time. Forward to 48 min 10 sec.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Arthur's Mom

[amberleadavis]

 

I do find the whole argument excusing the use of some inks to be rather entertaining, Really, the choice is yours, and the payment for repairs will be yours too. If you find the level of risk to be acceptable, go for it. But don't be surprised when a sac fails prematurely.

 

Ron, I consider you an expert in this field, and have taken that advice to heart. I love overly saturated, retina searing, sac scarfing inks. I decided for me, PENS ARE AN INK DELIVERY SYSTEM, therefore I also budget time and money for cleaning and repairing stained demonstrators and devoured sacs.

[Vintagepens]

In this case, I do think the conventional wisdom was correct -- at least for the older, less saturated, inks.

I would also say that the embrace of pump-fillers of various kinds in the 1930s was as much a function of the appeal of gimmickry as anything else. Nor were lever-fillers and other sac pens regarded as cheap or a step down in quality. Lacking in gadget appeal and old-fashioned, perhaps. Functionally inferior, no. Don't forget that Waterman's top-of-the-line pen remained a lever-filler (the Patrician), while many other top American penmakers offered their premier designs in both pump and lever versions (Sheaffer, Conklin, Wahl-Eversharp).

 

Our conventional wisdom among pen collectors, since I've been into this hobby, has been that a new rubber sac should last for "many years". However. . . I also know that back in the Good Old Days if you could design a pen without any rubber sac, it was considered a great advertising point. Thus: Conklin Nozac, and other piston-fillers, and the various vac/plunger filling pens which were often considered a step up from the cheap lever-fillers.

[tonybelding]

I would also say that the embrace of pump-fillers of various kinds in the 1930s was as much a function of the appeal of gimmickry as anything else. Nor were lever-fillers and other sac pens regarded as cheap or a step down in quality. Lacking in gadget appeal and old-fashioned, perhaps. Functionally inferior, no. Don't forget that Waterman's top-of-the-line pen remained a lever-filler (the Patrician), while many other top American penmakers offered their premier designs in both pump and lever versions (Sheaffer, Conklin, Wahl-Eversharp).

 

 

In that sense one might say not much has changed. Just substitute "lever-filler" with "cartridge/converter" and you have the situation of today.