Ballpoint Refill That Is Waterproof And Permanent?

[OregonJim]

Hello FPN friends!

 

I am looking for a regular ballpoint refill (not gel) that is both waterproof and permanent. This is specifically for drawing, not writing. I've found that most ballpoint inks are fairly waterproof, but they are also very fugitive (fading badly over time). I'm looking for permanent/archival black ink in a Parker-style refill. I did find a thread about this from ~2008, but the links are broken and I figured there must be at least a couple of good choices these days. Any artists here with recommendations? Thanks!

 

[usk15]

Check this: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/316088-ballpoint-refills-test/

[OregonJim]

Check this: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/316088-ballpoint-refills-test/

 

Thanks. That's close to what I was looking for. Unfortunately, none of those inks will do for drawing. I found a recommendation elsewhere for the Schneider Slider 755, so I ordered a few for testing (could only find extra-broad). However, it will be several months before I have any results.

Edited June 21, 2019 by OregonJim

[usk15]

It would be useful if you'll do some similar tests with some refills for drawing!

Please keep update.

[1nkulus]

The Schneider XB refills are butter smooth.

 

Any of the Uni Super inks should suffice.

https://www.cultpens.com/c/q/brands/uni-ball/uni-super-ink-pens

 

Only 2-3 variants have a colourful selection.

[A Smug Dill]

I am looking for a regular ballpoint refill (not gel) that is both waterproof and permanent.

Look out specifically for Parker refills that comply with the ISO 12757-2 standard, then?

 

This is specifically for drawing, not writing.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure of the differences in functional and qualitative requirements of inks (and ink delivery mechanisms) for those disparate applications. What are the specific differences, or alternatively, what are the specific requirements for drawing?

Edited June 22, 2019 by A Smug Dill

[OregonJim]

Look out specifically for Parker refills that comply with the ISO 12757-2 standard, then?

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure of the differences in functional and qualitative requirements of inks (and ink delivery mechanisms) for those disparate applications. What are the specific differences, or alternatively, what are the specific requirements for drawing?

 

The requirements for drawing (that differ from writing) are:

 

1. Ability to produce gradients of shade by varying pressure. This rules out all gel and hybrid inks. Only the oil-based, original type of ballpoint ink is capable of this.

 

2. Waterproof - no smearing or bleeding when going over ink lines with watercolor washes.

 

3. Non-fugitive - no fading or color shifts from exposure to UV light.

[1nkulus]

Look out specifically for Parker refills that comply with the ISO 12757-2 standard, then?

 

This is interesting.

The Quinkflow refills do not fare well in the tests even though they are certified.

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/316088-ballpoint-refills-test/

 

Question now remains, was the testing too harsh or is Parker cutting corners in the quality?

[1nkulus]

The requirements for drawing (that differ from writing) are:

 

1. Ability to produce gradients of shade by varying pressure. This rules out all gel and hybrid inks. Only the oil-based, original type of ballpoint ink is capable of this.

 

In which case, kindly disregard my earlier post although the XB being butter smooth still holds.

[A Smug Dill]

The requirements for drawing (that differ from writing) are:

 

1. Ability to produce gradients of shade by varying pressure.

Thank you for explaining clearly and succintly! I was quite recently skimming through the contents of several old patents, and they contain a fair number of apparently hand-drawn illustrations, so I was intrigued as to what a drawing on a 'document' (or artefact, by any other name) that one most wants to be waterproof and permanent would require that 'writing' pens (or 'technical' pens a la Rotring) could not deliver. I was thinking of drawing as articulation with shapes using pen and paper, that isn't predicated on human language, but not as an specific art form (that excludes certain styles of graphic art such as comic strips and ad posters from the Fifties and Sixties).

 

Now that I get you, I'm afraid I don't have any helpful information to offer, since I don't ever look for gradients of shade when doing monochrome drawings (very infrequently).

[usk15]

Jim, may I ask to post some sample of your art work?!

[OregonJim]

Now that I get you, I'm afraid I don't have any helpful information to offer, since I don't ever look for gradients of shade when doing monochrome drawings (very infrequently).

 

The best way to think about ballpoint drawing is that it is very close to drawing with a graphite pencil. Shading can be achieved through differences in stroke pressure. Only the traditional oil-based ink formulas allow this - gel and hybrid inks do not (it has to do with the viscosity). Drawing with gel/hybrid inks, as well as other pen types (technical, fountain, rollerball, etc.) is, as you say, monochromatic, and shading can only be implied through techniques like stippling, hatching, and cross-hatching.

 

I did manage to find two refills that fit my requirements (at least theoretically) - the Schneider Slider 755 and the Schmidt P900. Both have passed my waterproof tests (just did that this morning), but it will be several months before I can judge their lightfast properties.

[OregonJim]

Jim, may I ask to post some sample of your art work?!

 

Sorry, but I don't post my artwork on the Internet. However, it's easy to google "Ballpoint Pen Art". Here is a representative sample (not mine):

 

https://www.boredart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ballpoint-pen-art-7.jpg

 

[A Smug Dill]

The best way to think about ballpoint drawing is that it is very close to drawing with a graphite pencil.

If you say so.

 

I have a copy of How to Draw with a Ballpoint Pen by Gecko Keck (aka Gerhard Wörner) — which is, by no means, a classic, authoritative or much-lauded 'textbook' on the subject — and while he talked about shading techniques that are premised on variation of pressure, many of the example drawings he presented don't require or display those techniques, so I never treated them as part and parcel of "ballpoint drawing".

 

Shading can be achieved through differences in stroke pressure. Only the traditional oil-based ink formulas allow this - gel and hybrid inks do not (it has to do with the viscosity). Drawing with gel/hybrid inks, as well as other pen types (technical, fountain, rollerball, etc.) is, as you say, monochromatic, and shading can only be implied through techniques like stippling, hatching, and cross-hatching.

Considering the number of FPN forum members who profess to be mad keen on obtaining shading from the use of fountain pens and inks, I'm afraid you might find some disagreement there. I don't chase shading myself, but I'd say that it is certainly possible to achieve different colour intensity and line thickness from a fountain pen and ink, by variation of pressure and speed alone: example here.

[OregonJim]

 

Considering the number of FPN forum members who profess to be mad keen on obtaining shading from the use of fountain pens and inks, I'm afraid you might find some disagreement there. I don't chase shading myself, but I'd say that it is certainly possible to achieve different colour intensity and line thickness from a fountain pen and ink, by variation of pressure and speed alone: example here.

 

The artist's definition of shading is not the same as what fountain pen users call "shading". The fountain pen phenomena is largely random and uncontrolled, and is mainly due to variations in "wetness" delivered by the nib, combined with an ink that "shades well". While pretty, it is not the same as "shading" in the artistic sense.

[milkb0at]

I'm mostly just commenting because I, too, would like to know the answer.

 

I like the Schneider 755 for writing (that large ball is quite good fun) but I find it too gel-like for drawing. I think it's more of a hybrid ink than a pure ballpoint (I'd need to check) so shading isn't so easy.

 

I like to sketch with the Fisher Space Pen refill, but I have no idea if it's archival. It's not so important for me since I'm mostly just doodling, but it'll be useful info for real artists.

[OregonJim]

I'm mostly just commenting because I, too, would like to know the answer.

 

I like the Schneider 755 for writing (that large ball is quite good fun) but I find it too gel-like for drawing. I think it's more of a hybrid ink than a pure ballpoint (I'd need to check) so shading isn't so easy.

Thanks for the info. You are right. I must admit that I only tested it for a few minutes, and it seemed to shade pretty well for me, but not as subtly as some "vintage" refills (which I am quickly running out of). After reading your post, I did a more thorough test and it seems to be very hard to get more than 2 or 3 distinct values out of it.

 

I like to sketch with the Fisher Space Pen refill, but I have no idea if it's archival. It's not so important for me since I'm mostly just doodling, but it'll be useful info for real artists.

I also use a Fisher Space Pen now and then to sketch with, but the ink fades just as quickly as Parker Quink, which is to say that it's the opposite of archival. However, it's wonderful if you get caught in a rain shower while sketching.

[WarrenB]

Considering the number of FPN forum members who profess to be mad keen on obtaining shading from the use of fountain pens and inks, I'm afraid you might find some disagreement there. I don't chase shading myself, but I'd say that it is certainly possible to achieve different colour intensity and line thickness from a fountain pen and ink, by variation of pressure and speed alone: example here.

 

The artist's definition of shading is not the same as what fountain pen users call "shading". The fountain pen phenomena is largely random and uncontrolled, and is mainly due to variations in "wetness" delivered by the nib, combined with an ink that "shades well". While pretty, it is not the same as "shading" in the artistic sense.

Chiaroscuro, sfumato or unione. Or all three.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfumato

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione

 

Altogether: the use of tonal gradients rather than strict line to model volume in a drawing or painting. Shading in fountain pen writing is 'merely' the pooling of excess ink within the line being laid down. A very attractive effect to be sure, but it'd be a bit difficult to use to describe the gradual shadow on the curved plane of a cheek, without resorting to hatching.

[Olya]

 

Sorry, but I don't post my artwork on the Internet. However, it's easy to google "Ballpoint Pen Art". Here is a representative sample (not mine):

 

https://www.boredart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ballpoint-pen-art-7.jpg

 

Absolutely amazing!

 

Do you (or others) draw straight with ink or do you make a sketch with pencil beforehand?

If you do sketch with a pencil first, how does the erasing go?

[redpillow]

I'm currently running a uv test on several ball point inks and 1 fp ink.

 

I've placed 2 sheets of paper facing south, I started may 27 and planning a 90 day test

 

MB permanent blue fp ink - Top of the class so far, ZERO fading and waterproof, amazing

 

I'm testing around 10 bp inks so far and from what I can see already

 

Schneider Slider XB and Schneider Express 75 broad performing very well for uv, waterproof

 

MB ballpoint blue broad performing very well, not quite as good as the Schneiders, waterproof

 

Inoxcrom from Spain, a standard G-2 refill, medium blue, as good as, if not better than the Schneiders, I did a quick water test, and it seemed waterproof. There is no iso 12757-2 rating on it so I'm not 100% sure if this is just a normal oil-based refill or some hybrid gel which would make it a bit less waterproof.

Anyway, from a uv perspective probably the best right now.

 

Schmidt easyflow 9000 blue Broad, this refill has a rating of iso 12757-1 which is almost the same as 12757-2 except it isn't forgery proof. However it seems very uv-proof and it is waterproof (slighly slightly less waterproof than a standard oil based ballpoint from what I have tested)

What I cannot understand is why Schmidt would make a ballpoint with this dull/purplish color with the fantastic smooth qualities of this refill.

 

Pelikan 337 blue medium (standard G2 refill) turned turqouise after 2 weeks, fading quickly, surprisingly bad.

 

Parker blue broad standard G2 refill, Turned black, yes black after just a few weeks and fading QUICKLY

 

I'll post the pictures in August