Search the Community

Kindly adjust the brightness & contrast of your monitor to accurately depict this Gray Scale. As the patches are neutral gray, the colour on your monitor should also be neutral. Calibrate Mac http://www.wikihow.com/Calibrate-Your-Monitor Figure 1. Gray Scale. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/INK576.jpg Figure 2. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Swabs: Waterman Florida Blue. R&K Scabiosa. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK663.jpg NIB-ism LINK Depicts relative nib width and wetness. WRITTEN SAMPLES: Moby Dick Note - Narrow Nibs: First two rows are 5mm wide; the last two rows are 8mm wide. Figure 3. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK665.jpg Figure 4. Paper: Clairefontaine Triomphe. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK667.jpg Figure 5. Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, White. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK670.jpg Figure 6. Grocery List Paper: Pulp - from a one-a-day cartoon calendar. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK673.jpg Figure 7. Out of curiosity. Paper: QuoVadis journal with ivory paper (Clairefontaine?) http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK675.jpg OTHER SAMPLES: Figure 8. HAPPY ! On glossy card stock. Smear / Dry Time. Wet samples. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/Ink%20Review%20-%20R_K%20Scabiosa/INK674.jpg GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Type: Iron-gall fountain pen ink. Daily writer? Afraid not - for me anyway. (This is Ms Blue-Black speaking; I am not channelling Walter Cronkite, OK?)Will do very well for those who seek a very unique ink: shading and colour are without peer. Other: The visual weight and presence are a bit odd: having a warm tint, the colour wants to come forward, but somehow is bound to the plane of the page.This might be a 'Must Have' for someone who has an itch they can't scratch. USES: Business: While this is the least 'red' of all warm colours I can recall, it is still not quite a colour that might find its way into the conference room.The grey-rose may well seem conflicted or indecisive. (?)And with it being so unique, it may actually be distracting. (??)Signatures. (It's yours!)Not snappy enough and too dark for mark-up, editing, revision.For correction / grading, it does not have enough zip & zap to stand out. Illustrations / Graphics: Absolutely.Can be paired with either warm, cool or neutral colours and would complement them all. (Throw away the Colour Wheel for this one!)Lack of feathering and the i-g tight clean lines supports its use for extremely narrow lines/labels in drawings/diagrams; and the colour should provide eye-relief even when saturated, (no edge-effect).Due to the shading, it is not a candidate when even tone is required. e.g. Large areas to be blocked-out, though cross-hatching will compensate. Personal: This is the arena for this ink.It is a unique ink, so I suggest exploiting that by using a somewhat wet, but not saturating writer. As this ink seems to run at the 'true' width of a nib, I'd think a M-B nib would to it - not just a plump M. Students: While I think it certainly wonderful for notes, (good on poor paper, robust, etc.), it may not be acceptable for assignments. PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS: Flow: Widely considered to be dry / dusty, which it is - in spades.Problems were encountered while preparing the Written Samples on the G Lalo. *expletive*LINKOther than the hard textured G *expletive* Lalo, Scabiosa did well. Nib Dry-out: Not noticed. Start-up: Good. Lubrication: Lean, barely adequate. (Seek a smooth nib & paper.)Typical of an i-g ink. Nib Creep: None. Staining: Not noticed in the short term. Clogging: Unlikely. Bleed Through: Not on any of the papers. Show Through: Both sides of paper may be used without a problem. Smell: Very faint.Reminiscent of blanched almonds. Hand oil sensitivity: Not noticed. Archival: Very likely. Water Resistance: (Figure 8) Excellent. Smear Results: (Figure 8) Dry within 25 seconds. Bulletproof: N/A. Clean Up: Quick & thorough with plain water.*One should cleanse pens completely, including the innards of the cap.As with other inks, I flush and cleanse a pen after use. I-G inks are not of the sort to let dry-out in a neglected pen. However, other practitioners have reported that pens inked with i-g ink start right up after not being used for months on end. Not I; use 'em then clean 'em. Mixing: No stated prohibitions / limitations, but from personal experience do not mix with Sailor nano inks: the likelihood of a precipitate / sludge forming is very real.I have used this ink to warm my sole brown, and to add even more dimension to the Herbin 'Larmes de Cassis'. THE LOOK: As mentioned above, i-g inks have a different look to them than purely dye-based inks.The i-g inks seem to reside slightly behind the plane of the writing surface; but as Scabiosa is warm, it wants to come forward. I believe this is one reason that Scabiosa can be seen as indecisive : it creates visual tension. Saturation: Struggles to achieve solid density.A wet-ish writer and compliant paper are required.And I wonder if saturation is contrary to the character of the ink; so no acts against Nature, OK?LINK Shading: Extraordinary & unique.Shading LinkShading LINK Feathering: None noticed Variance depending on pen+nib combos used: More than I though I'd see! especially with the wider nibs!! FIDELITY: Is colour name appropriate / accurate? No idea.Name has something to do with flowers - not a persistent nasty skin condition of reptiles. PAPERS: Lovely papers: This ink should look good on all white papers.Could overcome paper with optical brighteners with a bit of a tussle. Trip-wire papers: Any that are hard, dry or textured. Tinted Papers: After choking on the G Lalo VdF, I tried a sheet from the Quo Vadis Habana journal with the plain/blank ivory paper. Very nice indeed; no feathering or bleed-through either. Some show-through, but for a personal journal, no big deal. Is high-end paper 'worth it'? Within the limits of the Trip Wire papers mentioned above, it's a matter of preference over performance, especially as Scabiosa does well with lesser papers. OTHER THAN INK: Presentation : 50 ml. bottle. Country of origin: Germany. Container: A very simple cylindrical brown-tinted glass bottle, 40 mm diameter and 78 mm tall.The centred round opening is an adequate 22 mm.The text on the label is in four European languages.The hard white plastic screw cap has adequate grippy nodes, and is easy to grasp. Note: I heard the plastic lid was replaced by a metal cap.The cap is not child-proof.The cap seal is 'foam' plastic.Single tank, no filling aids, no sediment collector. Another Tsk!Label wraps around, so ink level cannot be determined - no good for Snorkels! (Bah!) Box: Pleasantly absent. Eco-Green: Bonus Points for not using a box Availability: Various on-line outlets ETC: Majik: Possible, but not sure if it'll be worth the sweat.Its pretty impressive from the bottle, so you might just try it with pens & papers at hand, then go from there. Personal Pen & Paper Pick: The Carene on Clairefontaine, but I'd go for a slightly wider nib. (Time for that stub for the Carene perhaps.) Yickity Yackity: An elusive ink, which is part of its cachet.Goes down more Red than it appears when dry and cured.Ah kushbaby, not your colour, ... I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+O+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I MATERIEL USED: These pen+nib combos: (Same as used for the Salix Ink Review.) For Written Samples: A. Esterbrook J + 9550 steel Posting XF. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN446.jpg B. *Eversharp Skyline + 14K firm F. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN439.jpg C. Pilot Custom 74 + SFM http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN442.jpg D. Waterman Carene + 18K M nib. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN447.jpg E. The Notorious Pink Safari + steel B nib + body stocking. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN659.jpg F. Sailor Demonstrator + 14K MS nib. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/Pen_Scans/PEN445.jpg * The Skyline is considered a Dealers' Choice as it has a firm nib - many in the market are or claim to be flex-ish. For lines & labels: Pilot Plumix + steel XF nib; inked with Visconti Green. On these papers: HPJ1124 24 lb. Laser Copy.Clairefontaine Triomphe.G Lalo 'Verge de France', WhitePulp - One-a-day cartoon calendar page: Esterbrook J + XF.Quo Vadis Habana Journal ivoryGlossy card stock: Sailor + MS. NOTES: To be relevant to the most members, I make an effort to use papers, pens & nibs that are readily available, for which I paid $100 or less, and are 'factory stock' - not customised. If I use something outside of my guidelines, it will be ID-ed with an asterix to denote a *Dealer's Choice. Scans were made on an Epson V600 scanner; factory defaults were accepted. Figures shown were scanned at 150 dpi & 24 bit colour. Images linked were scanned at 300 dpi & 24 bit colour. Scans were not adjusted other than cropping and straightening using iPhoto on a MacBook, but most went straight to the file sharing thingy. -30-

This post is my attempt to restore the pictures to Sandy1’s review of this ink, Rohrer & Klingner ‘Scabiosa’. I have ‘restored’ the pictures as links to Sandy1’s photos in her photobucket account. In order to view the photos without ‘watermarks’, you will need to click on each one, then double-click on it to open it on photobucket, and perhaps then double-click on it again. All credit for the review, and for the photos, is owed to Sandy1. ——- Kindly adjust the brightness & contrast of your monitor to accurately depict this Gray Scale. As the patches are neutral gray, the colour on your monitor should also be neutral. Calibrate Mac https://www.wikihow.com/Calibrate-Your-Monitor Figure 1. Gray Scale. Figure 2. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Swabs: Waterman Florida Blue. R&K Scabiosa. NIB-ism LINK Depicts relative nib width and wetness. WRITTEN SAMPLES: Moby Dick Note - Narrow Nibs: First two rows are 5mm wide; the last two rows are 8mm wide. Figure 3. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Figure 4. Paper: Clairefontaine Triomphe. Figure 5. Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, White. Figure 6. Grocery List Paper: Pulp - from a one-a-day cartoon calendar. Figure 7. Out of curiosity. Paper: QuoVadis journal with ivory paper (Clairefontaine?) OTHER SAMPLES: Figure 8. HAPPY ! On glossy card stock. Smear / Dry Time. Wet samples. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Type: Iron-gall fountain pen ink. Daily writer? Afraid not - for me anyway. (This is Ms Blue-Black speaking; I am not channelling Walter Cronkite, OK?) Will do very well for those who seek a very unique ink: shading and colour are without peer. Other: The visual weight and presence are a bit odd: having a warm tint, the colour wants to come forward, but somehow is bound to the plane of the page. This might be a 'Must Have' for someone who has an itch they can't scratch. USES: Business: While this is the least 'red' of all warm colours I can recall, it is still not quite a colour that might find its way into the conference room. The grey-rose may well seem conflicted or indecisive. (?) And with it being so unique, it may actually be distracting. (??) Signatures. (It's yours!) Not snappy enough and too dark for mark-up, editing, revision. For correction / grading, it does not have enough zip & zap to stand out. Illustrations / Graphics: Absolutely. Can be paired with either warm, cool or neutral colours and would complement them all. (Throw away the Colour Wheel for this one!) Lack of feathering and the i-g tight clean lines supports its use for extremely narrow lines/labels in drawings/diagrams; and the colour should provide eye-relief even when saturated, (no edge-effect). Due to the shading, it is not a candidate when even tone is required. e.g. Large areas to be blocked-out, though cross-hatching will compensate. Personal: This is the arena for this ink. It is a unique ink, so I suggest exploiting that by using a somewhat wet, but not saturating writer. As this ink seems to run at the 'true' width of a nib, I'd think a M-B nib would to it - not just a plump M. Students: While I think it certainly wonderful for notes, (good on poor paper, robust, etc.), it may not be acceptable for assignments. PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS: Flow: Widely considered to be dry / dusty, which it is - in spades. Problems were encountered while preparing the Written Samples on the G Lalo. *expletive* LINK Other than the hard textured G *expletive* Lalo, Scabiosa did well. Nib Dry-out: Not noticed. Start-up: Good. Lubrication: Lean, barely adequate. (Seek a smooth nib & paper.) Typical of an i-g ink. Nib Creep: None. Staining: Not noticed in the short term. Clogging: Unlikely. Bleed Through: Not on any of the papers. Show Through: Both sides of paper may be used without a problem. Smell: Very faint. Reminiscent of blanched almonds. Hand oil sensitivity: Not noticed. Archival: Very likely. Water Resistance: (Figure 😎 Excellent. Smear Results: (Figure 😎 Dry within 25 seconds. Bulletproof: N/A. Clean Up: Quick & thorough with plain water. *One should cleanse pens completely, including the innards of the cap. As with other inks, I flush and cleanse a pen after use. I-G inks are not of the sort to let dry-out in a neglected pen. However, other practitioners have reported that pens inked with i-g ink start right up after not being used for months on end. Not I; use 'em then clean 'em. Mixing: No stated prohibitions / limitations, but from personal experience do not mix with Sailor nano inks: the likelihood of a precipitate / sludge forming is very real. I have used this ink to warm my sole brown, and to add even more dimension to the Herbin 'Larmes de Cassis'. THE LOOK: As mentioned above, i-g inks have a different look to them than purely dye-based inks. The i-g inks seem to reside slightly behind the plane of the writing surface; but as Scabiosa is warm, it wants to come forward. I believe this is one reason that Scabiosa can be seen as indecisive : it creates visual tension. Saturation: Struggles to achieve solid density. A wet-ish writer and compliant paper are required. And I wonder if saturation is contrary to the character of the ink; so no acts against Nature, OK? LINK Shading: Extraordinary & unique. Shading LINK Shading LINK Feathering: None noticed Variance depending on pen+nib combos used: More than I though I'd see! especially with the wider nibs!! FIDELITY: Is colour name appropriate / accurate? No idea. Name has something to do with flowers - not a persistent nasty skin condition of reptiles. PAPERS: Lovely papers: This ink should look good on all white papers. Could overcome paper with optical brighteners with a bit of a tussle. Trip-wire papers: Any that are hard, dry or textured. Tinted Papers: After choking on the G Lalo VdF, I tried a sheet from the Quo Vadis Habana journal with the plain/blank ivory paper. Very nice indeed; no feathering or bleed-through either. Some show-through, but for a personal journal, no big deal. Is high-end paper 'worth it'? Within the limits of the Trip Wire papers mentioned above, it's a matter of preference over performance, especially as Scabiosa does well with lesser papers. OTHER THAN INK: Presentation : 50 ml. bottle. Country of origin: Germany. Container: A very simple cylindrical brown-tinted glass bottle, 40 mm diameter and 78 mm tall. The centred round opening is an adequate 22 mm. The text on the label is in four European languages. The hard white plastic screw cap has adequate grippy nodes, and is easy to grasp. Note: I heard the plastic lid was replaced by a metal cap. The cap is not child-proof. The cap seal is 'foam' plastic. Single tank, no filling aids, no sediment collector. Another Tsk! Label wraps around, so ink level cannot be determined - no good for Snorkels! (Bah!) Box: Pleasantly absent. Eco-Green: Bonus Points for not using a box Availability: Various on-line outlets ETC: Majik: Possible, but not sure if it'll be worth the sweat. Its pretty impressive from the bottle, so you might just try it with pens & papers at hand, then go from there. Personal Pen & Paper Pick: The Carene on Clairefontaine, but I'd go for a slightly wider nib. (Time for that stub for the Carene perhaps.) Yickity Yackity: An elusive ink, which is part of its cachet. Goes down more Red than it appears when dry and cured. Ah kushbaby, not your colour, ... I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+O+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I MATERIEL USED: These pen+nib combos: (Same as used for the Salix Ink Review.) For Written Samples: A. Esterbrook J + 9550 steel Posting XF. LINK B. *Eversharp Skyline + 14K firm F. LINK C. Pilot Custom 74 + SFM. LINK D. Waterman Carene + 18K M nib. LINK E. The Notorious Pink Safari + steel B nib + body stocking. LINK F. Sailor Demonstrator + 14K MS nib. LINK * The Skyline is considered a Dealers' Choice as it has a firm nib - many in the market are or claim to be flex-ish. For lines & labels: Pilot Plumix + steel XF nib; inked with Visconti Green. On these papers: HPJ1124 24 lb. Laser Copy. Clairefontaine Triomphe. G Lalo 'Verge de France', White Pulp - One-a-day cartoon calendar page: Esterbrook J + XF. Quo Vadis Habana Journal ivory Glossy card stock: Sailor + MS. NOTES: To be relevant to the most members, I make an effort to use papers, pens & nibs that are readily available, for which I paid $100 or less, and are 'factory stock' - not customised. If I use something outside of my guidelines, it will be ID-ed with an asterix to denote a *Dealer's Choice. Scans were made on an Epson V600 scanner; factory defaults were accepted. Figures shown were scanned at 150 dpi & 24 bit colour. Images linked were scanned at 300 dpi & 24 bit colour. Scans were not adjusted other than cropping and straightening using iPhoto on a MacBook, but most went straight to the file sharing thingy. -30- ———————————————————————————————————————————— The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. ——— This is another of Sandy1’s reviews that persuaded me to buy the ink in question. Thorough. Detailed. Humorous. Very informative. Like all her review work. As for my own opinions of R&K ‘Scabiosa’: I agree with Sandy1’s remarks about it. E.g. I found it to be such a ‘dry’ writing experience in my aerometric Parker “51” that I actually dumped the ink out of the pen. This though I find R&K’s other iron-gall ink - the blue-black ‘Salix’ - to be delightfully well-suited to my “51”s. My ‘Scabiosa’ has worked well for me in various other Parker pens (vintage and modern), and in my Pelikans and my Lamy 2000. And, just like Sandy1 said, this ink’s sui generis colour, its tight lines, its good water-resistance, and above all its beautiful shading, make it (IMO) an excellent choice for writing personal letters. Dark enough to be easily legible. Pretty enough to be ‘personal’. But why are you reading my opinions? Go back up, and read what Sandy1 wrote! 😉 Slàinte, M.

Kindly adjust the brightness & contrast of your monitor to accurately depict this Gray Scale. As the patches are neutral gray, the colour on your monitor should also be neutral. Calibrate Mac LINK Figure 1. Grey Scale. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/INK576.jpg Figure 2. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Swabs: Waterman Florida Blue. R&K Salix. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK424.jpg Nib-ism Link Shows relative nib width & wetness WRITTEN SAMPLES: Moby Dick Note - Narrow Nibs: First two rows are 5mm in height; the last two rows are 8mm in height. Figure 3. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK427.jpg Figure 4. Paper: Clairefontaine Triomphe. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK428.jpg Figure 5. Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, white. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK429.jpg Figure 6. Grocery List Paper: Pulp - from a one-a-day cartoon calendar. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK430.jpg Figure 7. 'Happy' Paper: Glossy card stock. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK431.jpg OTHER SAMPLES: Figure 8. Smear / Dry Time. Wet samples. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/InkReview_RK_Salix/INK432.jpg GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Type: Iron-gall fountain pen ink.Daily writer? Oh yes baby.Will do incredibly well for those who prefer a dark blue or blue-black, and/or must use poor paper.Other: Has visual weight commensurate with dark tone.This ink is known to be dry to the point of being 'dusty', but it performed with aplomb with all sampled pens and papers.This might be a 'Must Have' for anyone who uses MB Midnight Blue (née Blue-Black) and wants to lighten up, cut loose, and have some reckless fun while wearing a belt & braces. USES: Business: A good alternative to all dark blues and blue-blacks.Can be used without hesitation for internal and external correspondence.Posting and anything that requires tiny writing with very narrow nibs.Does well on glossy stock, so can be used for marginalia.Signatures.Not snappy enough and too dark for mark-up, editing, revision, correction, etc.Illustrations / Graphics: Absolutely.In terms of colour, it will substitute for Dark Blue.Lack of feathering and the i-g tight clean lines supports its use for extremely narrow lines/labels in drawings/diagrams.Due to the shading, it is not a candidate when even tone is required. e.g. Large areas to be blocked-out, though cross-hatching will compensate.Personal: Not quite.This is a bit too dark and not all that convivial. However, with suitable pen & paper, the ink generates sensual shading, so it cannot be dismissed outright as a personal ink.Also, with the unique look of i-g inks, (impossible to convey in a scan - I tried), it cannot be mistaken for a rollerball, gel, or some implement other than an FP.Students: A very suitable ink: easy to read, durable, good for hand-written assignments, does well on poor paper. (Pay more for ink and save on paper; or save on ink and pay more for paper.) PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS: Flow: Widely considered to be dry / dusty.However, no problems were encountered while preparing the Written Samples. And this Review includes pens used in my other Reviews: this is not a set of cherry-picked ultra-wet writers.OK with all sampled nibs & feeds.Nib Dry-out: Just a tiny bit after about 10 minutes uncapped: the dry-out is the nib tip - not the entire nib.Start-up: Good.Lubrication: Lean, but adequate. (Similar to Herbin.)A little more would be welcome on the hard textured G Lalo.Typical of an i-g ink.Nib Creep: None.Staining: Not noticed in the short term.Clogging: Unlikely.Bleed Through: Not on any of the papers.Show Through: Both sides of paper may be used without a problem.Smell: Very faint.Reminiscent of green (unroasted) walnut meat.Hand oil sensitivity: Not noticed.Archival: Likely.Water Resistance: (Figure 8) Excellent.Smear Results: (Figure 8) Dry within 10 seconds.Bulletproof: Not claimed.Clean Up: Quick & thorough with plain water. :-)*One should cleanse pens completely, including the innards of the cap.Looks boring in the wash, so bring a crossword, or do some journal jotting.As with other inks, I flush and cleanse a pen after use. I-G inks are not of the sort to let dry-out in a neglected pen. However, other practitioners have reported that pens inked with i-g ink start right up after not being used for months on end. Not I; use 'em then clean 'em.Mixing: No stated prohibitions / limitations, but from personal experience do not mix with Sailor nano inks: the likelihood of a precipitate / sludge forming is very real.I have used this ink to bring the ultra-wet Private Reserve 'Tanzanite' into normal wetness range. I dubbed that mix as 'Tarzanite': the mix is mostly Tanzanite but is strengthened and made less flabby by the Salix. Also a mix of MBMB I dubbed SalixX that makes Salix a bit darker and improves flow. THE LOOK: As mentioned above, i-g inks have a different look to them than purely dye-based inks. The i-g inks seem to reside slightly behind the plane of the writing surface; and Salix, with it's light-dark shading, almost seems to make 'ripples' on the page as it goes above and below the plane of the page. Very unusual. Saturation: Has good density.A wet-ish writer may be used to suppress shading, without inducing feathering.Saturation LINKShading: Almost in-your-face, but not distracting.Shading LINKShading LINKShading LINK Feathering: None noticedN.B. As this ink is highly unlikely to feather or bleed through, a wet writer may be used.Tight line LinkInk pool LINK Variance depending on pen+nib combos used: Maintains 'The Look' across the sampled pens & papers.Even with the narrow nibs, the shading is visible. Carumba! FIDELITY: Is colour name appropriate / accurate? No idea.Name is unlikely to be a by-product of Happy Hour libations. PAPERS: Lovely papers: This ink should look good on all white papers.Could overcome paper with optical brighteners.Trip-wire papers: Can't think of one.Tinted Papers: The shading generated could provide the opportunity to generate a two-colour impression: Salix where saturation is high; and a mix of Salix and the tint of the paper where ink saturation is low. I think the G Lalo Ivory is too yellow/warm for this, but perhaps a buff or pale brown paper for an 'antique' look.Is high-end paper 'worth it'? Very much a Dealer's Choice:Salix is going to do what it does pretty much without regard for the paper. However, good paper does allow Salix to do its thing more easily and consistently.Also, due to the lean lubrication, a very smooth paper may be preferred by some practitioners. OTHER THAN INK: Presentation : 50 ml. bottle.Country of origin: Germany.Container: A very simple cylindrical brown-tinted glass bottle, 40 mm diameter and 78 mm tall.The centred round opening is an adequate 22 mm.The text on the label is in four European languages.The hard white plastic screw cap has adequate grippy nodes, and is easy to grasp. Note: I heard the plastic lid was replaced by a metal cap.The cap is not child-proof.The cap seal is 'foam' plastic.Single tank, no filling aids, no sediment collector. Another Tsk!The label obscures the ink level / surface. No fun for snorkel fillers.Box: Pleasantly absent.Eco-Green: Bonus Points for not using a boxAvailability: Various on-line outlets ETC: Majik: The high degree of shading, and tight lines provides the basis for conjuring.Personal Pen & Paper Pick: Tough one, so I'll pick two: the C74 + SFM nib on the HPJ1124; and the Notorious Pink Safari + B nib in a body stocking on the Triomphe.Runner-up: Skyline + F nib on the Lalo: an unexpected and impressive performance of a narrow nib on a hard textured paper.Yickity Yackity: A tour-de-force from an ink that I've used mostly for special purposes, and not so often for general writing.Was this an 'ugly ducking' / black swan ink?This is definitely moving forward on the ink shelf.Ah kushbaby, not your colour, but you can make the stretch ... I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+O+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I MATERIEL USED: These pen+nib combos: For Written Samples: A. Esterbrook J + 9550 steel Posting XF. B. *Eversharp Skyline + 14K firm F. C. Pilot Custom 74 + SFM D.Waterman Carene + 18K M E. The Notorious Pink Safari + steel B nib + body stocking. F. Sailor Demonstrator + 14K MS nib. For lines & labels: Pilot Plumix + steel XF nib; inked with Visconti Bordeaux. On these papers: HPJ1124 24 lb. Laser Copy.Clairefontaine Triomphe.G Lalo 'Verge de France', WhitePulp - One-a-day cartoon calendar page: Esterbrook J + XF.Glossy card stock: Sailor + MS. NOTES: To be relevant to the most members, I make an effort to use papers, pens & nibs that are readily available, for which I paid $100 or less, and are 'factory stock' - not customised. If I use something outside of my guidelines, it will be ID-ed with an asterix to denote a *Dealer's Choice. Scans were made on an Epson V600 scanner; factory defaults were accepted. Figures shown were scanned at 150 dpi & 24 bit colour. Images linked were scanned at 300 dpi & 24 bit colour. Scans were not adjusted other than cropping and straightening using iPhoto on a MacBook, but most went straight to the file sharing thingy. Scanner Densitometer Readings were generated from the 'N' in 'Ink Review' in Figure 2: Red 33; Green 134; Blue 210; Luminosity 129. -30-

This post is just my attempt to restore pictures to another review by Sandy1. Sandy1’s reviews got me interested in iron-gall inks, and this ink - Rohrer & Klingner ‘Salix’ - was the first i-g ink that I bought. Anyway, herebelow is her review, with her links to the photos in her photobucket account restored. All credit for this review is owed to Sandy1. Enjoy! 😊 ——— Kindly adjust the brightness & contrast of your monitor to accurately depict this Gray Scale. As the patches are neutral gray, the colour on your monitor should also be neutral. Calibrate Mac LINK Figure 1. Grey Scale. Figure 2. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Swabs: Waterman Florida Blue. R&K Salix. Nib-ism: LINK Shows relative nib width & wetness WRITTEN SAMPLES: Moby Dick Note - Narrow Nibs: First two rows are 5mm in height; the last two rows are 8mm in height. Figure 3. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. Figure 4. Paper: Clairefontaine Triomphe. Figure 5. Paper: G Lalo, Verge de France, white: white. Figure 6. Grocery List Paper: Pulp - from a one-a-day cartoon calendar. Figure 7. 'Happy' Paper: Glossy card stock. OTHER SAMPLES: Figure 8. Smear / Dry Time. Wet samples. Paper: HPJ1124 Laser Copy. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Type: Iron-gall fountain pen ink. Daily writer? Oh yes baby. Will do incredibly well for those who prefer a dark blue or blue-black, and/or must use poor paper. Other: Has visual weight commensurate with dark tone. This ink is known to be dry to the point of being 'dusty', but it performed with aplomb with all sampled pens and papers. This might be a 'Must Have' for anyone who uses MB Midnight Blue (née Blue-Black) and wants to lighten up, cut loose, and have some reckless fun while wearing a belt & braces. USES: Business: A good alternative to all dark blues and blue-blacks. Can be used without hesitation for internal and external correspondence. Posting and anything that requires tiny writing with very narrow nibs. Does well on glossy stock, so can be used for marginalia. Signatures. Not snappy enough and too dark for mark-up, editing, revision, correction, etc. Illustrations / Graphics: Absolutely. In terms of colour, it will substitute for Dark Blue. Lack of feathering and the i-g tight clean lines supports its use for extremely narrow lines/labels in drawings/diagrams. Due to the shading, it is not a candidate when even tone is required. e.g. Large areas to be blocked-out, though cross-hatching will compensate. Personal: Not quite. This is a bit too dark and not all that convivial. However, with suitable pen & paper, the ink generates sensual shading, so it cannot be dismissed outright as a personal ink. Also, with the unique look of i-g inks, (impossible to convey in a scan - I tried), it cannot be mistaken for a rollerball, gel, or some implement other than an FP. Students: A very suitable ink: easy to read, durable, good for hand-written assignments, does well on poor paper. (Pay more for ink and save on paper; or save on ink and pay more for paper.) PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE & CHARACTERISTICS: Flow: Widely considered to be dry / dusty. However, no problems were encountered while preparing the Written Samples. And this Review includes pens used in my other Reviews: this is not a set of cherry-picked ultra-wet writers. OK with all sampled nibs & feeds. Nib Dry-out: Just a tiny bit after about 10 minutes uncapped: the dry-out is the nib tip - not the entire nib. Start-up: Good. Lubrication: Lean, but adequate. (Similar to Herbin.) A little more would be welcome on the hard textured G Lalo. Typical of an i-g ink. Nib Creep: None. Staining: Not noticed in the short term. Clogging: Unlikely. Bleed Through: Not on any of the papers. Show Through: Both sides of paper may be used without a problem. Smell: Very faint. Reminiscent of green (unroasted) walnut meat. Hand oil sensitivity: Not noticed. Archival: Likely. Water Resistance: (Figure 😎 Excellent. Smear Results: (Figure 😎 Dry within 10 seconds. Bulletproof: Not claimed. Clean Up: Quick & thorough with plain water. 🙂 *One should cleanse pens completely, including the innards of the cap. Looks boring in the wash, so bring a crossword, or do some journal jotting. As with other inks, I flush and cleanse a pen after use. I-G inks are not of the sort to let dry-out in a neglected pen. However, other practitioners have reported that pens inked with i-g ink start right up after not being used for months on end. Not I; use 'em then clean 'em. Mixing: No stated prohibitions / limitations, but from personal experience do not mix with Sailor nano inks: the likelihood of a precipitate / sludge forming is very real. I have used this ink to bring the ultra-wet Private Reserve 'Tanzanite' into normal wetness range. I dubbed that mix as 'Tarzanite': the mix is mostly Tanzanite but is strengthened and made less flabby by the Salix. Also a mix of MBMB I dubbed SalixX that makes Salix a bit darker and improves flow. THE LOOK: As mentioned above, i-g inks have a different look to them than purely dye-based inks. The i-g inks seem to reside slightly behind the plane of the writing surface; and Salix, with it's light-dark shading, almost seems to make 'ripples' on the page as it goes above and below the plane of the page. Very unusual. Saturation: Has good density. A wet-ish writer may be used to suppress shading, without inducing feathering. Saturation LINK Shading: Almost in-your-face, but not distracting. Shading LINK Shading LINK Shading LINK Feathering: None noticed N.B. As this ink is highly unlikely to feather or bleed through, a wet writer may be used. Tight line LINK Ink pool LINK Variance depending on pen+nib combos used: Maintains 'The Look' across the sampled pens & papers. Even with the narrow nibs, the shading is visible. Carumba! FIDELITY: Is colour name appropriate / accurate? No idea. Name is unlikely to be a by-product of Happy Hour libations. PAPERS: Lovely papers: This ink should look good on all white papers. Could overcome paper with optical brighteners. Trip-wire papers: Can't think of one. Tinted Papers: The shading generated could provide the opportunity to generate a two-colour impression: Salix where saturation is high; and a mix of Salix and the tint of the paper where ink saturation is low. I think the G Lalo Ivory is too yellow/warm for this, but perhaps a buff or pale brown paper for an 'antique' look. Is high-end paper 'worth it'? Very much a Dealer's Choice: Salix is going to do what it does pretty much without regard for the paper. However, good paper does allow Salix to do its thing more easily and consistently. Also, due to the lean lubrication, a very smooth paper may be preferred by some practitioners. OTHER THAN INK: Presentation : 50 ml. bottle. Country of origin: Germany. Container: A very simple cylindrical brown-tinted glass bottle, 40 mm diameter and 78 mm tall. The centred round opening is an adequate 22 mm. The text on the label is in four European languages. The hard white plastic screw cap has adequate grippy nodes, and is easy to grasp. Note: I heard the plastic lid was replaced by a metal cap. The cap is not child-proof. The cap seal is 'foam' plastic. Single tank, no filling aids, no sediment collector. Another Tsk! The label obscures the ink level / surface. No fun for snorkel fillers. Box: Pleasantly absent. Eco-Green: Bonus Points for not using a box Availability: Various on-line outlets ETC: Majik: The high degree of shading, and tight lines provides the basis for conjuring. Personal Pen & Paper Pick: Tough one, so I'll pick two: the C74 + SFM nib on the HPJ1124; and the Notorious Pink Safari + B nib in a body stocking on the Triomphe. Runner-up: Skyline + F nib on the Lalo: an unexpected and impressive performance of a narrow nib on a hard textured paper. Yickity Yackity: A tour-de-force from an ink that I've used mostly for special purposes, and not so often for general writing. Was this an 'ugly ducking' / black swan ink? This is definitely moving forward on the ink shelf. Ah kushbaby, not your colour, but you can make the stretch ... I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+O+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I=+-+=I=+o+=I MATERIEL USED: These pen+nib combos: For Written Samples: A. Esterbrook J + 9550 steel Posting XF. B. *Eversharp Skyline + 14K firm F. C. Pilot Custom 74 + SFM D.Waterman Carene + 18K M E. The Notorious Pink Safari + steel B nib + body stocking. F. Sailor Demonstrator + 14K MS nib. (The underlined letters A-F are links to pics of the pens.) For lines & labels: Pilot Plumix + steel XF nib; inked with Visconti Bordeaux. On these papers: HPJ1124 24 lb. Laser Copy. Clairefontaine Triomphe. G Lalo 'Verge de France', White Pulp - One-a-day cartoon calendar page: Esterbrook J + XF. Glossy card stock: Sailor + MS. NOTES: To be relevant to the most members, I make an effort to use papers, pens & nibs that are readily available, for which I paid $100 or less, and are 'factory stock' - not customised. If I use something outside of my guidelines, it will be ID-ed with an asterix to denote a *Dealer's Choice. Scans were made on an Epson V600 scanner; factory defaults were accepted. Figures shown were scanned at 150 dpi & 24 bit colour. Images linked were scanned at 300 dpi & 24 bit colour. Scans were not adjusted other than cropping and straightening using iPhoto on a MacBook, but most went straight to the file sharing thingy. Scanner Densitometer Readings were generated from the 'N' in 'Ink Review' in Figure 2: Red 33; Green 134; Blue 210; Luminosity 129. -30- ———————————————————————————————————————————— The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. ——— All credit for all of the above is owed to to Sandy1. Slàinte, M.

About snap back... despite all the insistence in its myth status, lots of Quantum Dynamics and Molecular Dynamics simulations (not in metallic bands, I recognize, but on biological materials), tell me that the "spring" factor of materials depends on bond flexibility and a hoard of many other interactions. So it can hardly be considered in isolation by itself: it will all depend on use case. I am not denying that on a band model in material science with normalized calculations it may not seem moot, and it may not look too fast to be an issue. In real life, everybody's experience tells us it is not the case, and when theory and real life collude, the latter always has precedence, and shows the theory wrong or incomplete. 100+ years ago it would likely have been easier to measure using a music roll (you know one of the earlier music players that worked on a cylindrical drum). The closest analogue I can come up today is a Richter scale earthquake roll recorder, if that's still used. Or a press rotary. One might take a cylindrical drum moving at a realistically fixed "writing" speed, have an arm with a weight to hold a pen at a fixed angle, and connect the arm to an eccentric wheel/ellipse coupled to the moving roll to make the pen go up and down periodically, also at a fixed speed. One would need only to calibrate the speeds (and maybe attack angle and maximal weight) and be able to swap papers and pens. The up and down movement would force tin spread and snap back, the weight would define the maximum pressure applied, and the line drawn would show the maximal width attained and snap back at varying pressure. Then one could try different pen/ink/nib/angle/pressure combinations and get a nice graphical result that could be measured. Nicest, one would not need a balance, only a fixed weight. For comparability one might define a standard set of pressure/speed, and then we'd have all the measures we'd like on the paper. And a good engineer can make all the required calculations on resulting pressures, speeds, etc. at each time point. It would still miss the shear factor, i.e. writing in oblique/slanted/sideways directions (but might be simulated placing the pen partially rotated), which may bring up some additional interesting considerations, or rotating the nib (which is something many people do while writing), but would give a more accurate idea. Maybe a Mecano set can do it, I do not know, I stopped playing with Mecano sets very, very long ago. That I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. Added: come to think of it, maybe all one needs is to modify a turn table (a vinyl disk player for those unfamiliar with stone-age technologies).

Does anyone have information on removing the metal (not brass) telescopic filling mechanism from a 1950s MB? It's the small "lady's" size Meisterstuck. The mechanism has a single small hole in the sleeve (some kind of white metal?) underneath the blind cap. I'm playing with the idea of using the small wrench-like tool that is used to calibrate micrometers. Also, I'm assuming that if the mechanism is held in the barrel by threads (not a friction fit) that the threads are RH. Any info or reference appreciated.

There are currently (August 2013) one hundred colours available in the standard series from Diamine. Below I have written one line with each colour first on low-absorbent paper (Rhodia No 18 dotpad) and second on normal absorbent paper (our corporate printer’s stock “cartridge” paper). All lines are written with a medium Lamy Z50 nib on a Lamy Safari pen. Apologies for the corporate branding: I do not have blank cartridge stock paper. I hope it does not distract too much from the inks. If you want to calibrate your monitor, the blue and orange colours in the logo are Pantone Blue 072 and Pantone 1375, respectively. There are 25 colours on each sheet so 4 sheets in total. I will write more about the sorting of the ink colours later. For now: enjoy! and I hope this is useful. (And if someone wants to send me samples of the special edition Diamine inks that I do not have, then I will be happy to add them. This is mainly the Music set.) Colour set 1 Low-absorbent paper (Rhodia) Normal absorbent paper (cartridge)

Color management can be simple (do a white balance on a camera), or complex (you don't want to know). Just what do you want to do with the scans? If you want to view them on your monitor with approximately the same colors as original, that's pretty simple. If you want to make prints that faithfully reproduce what your original piece of paper showed, that's more complex because you also have to calibrate the printer. Scanners can be just as accurate at color reproduction as cameras. Photo scanners usually have the ability to read a reference card with a whole range of known colors on it, and then they calibrate themselves pretty accurately from that. Some scanning software will give you the same capability on a broad variety of scanners. Here's a random example of how to do all this. www.booksmartstudio.com/color_tutorial/scanners.html If you are using a monitor to view your scans, remember that needs to be calibrated as well. For example, jpg images are usually in an sRGB format while high quality scanner files might be in TIFF or other more capable formats with larger color spaces (they can show more colors). That means a TIFF file may look weird on a typical office monitor - unless you calibrate. Here's another random sample about this. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-online-tools-calibrate-monitor/ To summarize, your scanner, monitor and printer all need to be using the same calibration and same color space if you are to get good color fidelity. Or just accept that red is red and don't fuss the carmine vs scarlet distinctions.

I think you misinterpreted both what I wrote, and where I was coming from, entirely. There are so many factors that end up affecting the observed and/or measurable line width(s) on the page. With each post, it became more apparent to me that you seem not just want (more) manufacturers to disclose whether they have internal standards/specifications, or at least set of targets, for their nib width grading, and to provide a view of how stringent their manufacturing and/or testing is, but you want complete, objective information published that the outsider could reproduce, falsify (as in prove incorrect), and/or interrogate or cite directly to inform their expectations of the writing or drawing outcomes they're going to get as users. You're simply never going to get complete information of the sort, as a user, purchaser, consumer, hobbyist, enthusiast, whatever. I'm not ‘telling’ you not to find it useful as provided, or not to want (more of) it to be provided; but, if you want to be so analytical in your approach, then you should perhaps first look at how reasonable it is to demand it, or how realistic it is to expect it, from more parties in the fountain pen industry. Even if you know the specific ink and type of paper used by Platinum Pen in its testing, then what? The ink is most likely a product Platinum makes and sells, but the paper is certainly not. I see no reason why Platinum would then provide that information. It was either a third-party product, whether that is one of several varieties of Tomoe River paper made by Tomoegawa (back in the day) in Japan, one of umpteen varieties of paper made by Clairefontaine in France, etc. over which Platinum has no production control, or something Platinum commissioned a paper mill to produce to the company's specifications which you cannot expect to be able to buy. I'm not trying to belittle you, or condescend, when I go to pains to point out you cannot have complete information, and the reasons why the information would be and will always be incomplete. I offered you the alternative view that, as long as a company publishes something done to a consistent framework of its own choosing, you don't need to know all the details of how its ink of choice behaves on or reacts with its paper of choice in testing; you just need to calibrate your own choices against it. And you can pretty much forget about ever getting to the point where you can cross-compare nibs of different brands by the information their respective manufacturers choose to publish. Again, it's a case of it being unrealistic to expect there will ever be sufficient cooperation between Platinum, Pilot, Parker, Pelikan, Aurora, Lamy, Majohn, and HongDian for there to be a common standard for testing and/or information provision to the consumer and would-be user. Better you (and the individual hobbyist) face that brick wall of a disempowering limitation now, reconcile with it, and work out how to work around it while still obtaining some (small?) measure of value out of what is freely offered. That's about as unemotional and rational a position as I can take. I don't feel belittled, I don't feel slighted, I don't feel condescended upon. My old job for many years was as a business analyst and enterprise architect (by whatever position title) for a large corporation, which even with its billions of dollars in revenue and in resources cannot operate with complete information. “That's not going to happen,” and, ”we don't have that information, and you cannot know it with any certainty,” were frequently part of how we chose where we directed our attention, resources, and investigative efforts in pursuit of specific outcomes for the business. Again, if as a hobbyist you are very interested to know particular information, then you're the one who has to ‘burn’ resources, efforts, time, and money to obtain it. If you want to know how a Platinum 14K gold #3776 EF nib, Platinum 18K gold President EF nib, Platinum 18K gold F nib, Lamy 2000's 14K gold EF nib, Pelikan EF nib, etc. using Aurora Black ink on Rhodia 80g/m² paper, then you're going to have to source those nibs and test them yourself, and still be without the ability to extrapolate the results to how they will perform if Waterman Serenity Blue ink and/or Maruman 70g/m² paper is used instead. Whether you then choose to publish your test results, as I've published this comparison of various Lamy EF nibs (as well as lots of other reviews, comparisons, and information in general over the past several years) will be entirely up to you. Nobody is working to a common standard or in a cooperative effort for hobbyists like you and me to know enough, either out of intellectual curiosity or for the best purchasing decisions we could make as consumers, from information being served up on a platter freely, without our spending our own efforts and money to get truly useful answers for the use-cases we have in mind.

I cannot tell you whether that is a standard Platinum black ink cartridge, or standard Platinum blue-black ink cartridge. Considering, in my experience across a couple of dozen Platinum's ‘better’ pen models (‘above’ the Preppy, Plaisir, and Prefounte), new pens are usually supplied with blue-black ink cartridges in their retail packages, in all likelihood that would be what was used for testing. As for the specific type of paper used, there was no explicit mention, and quite frankly I don't think it matters. No average fountain pen user and/or hobbyist is going to acquire writing paper supplied in long continuous rolls, which is no doubt (in my mind, anyway) the format that was used in Platinum Pen's test set-up. I trust that the type of paper used is consistent for all of the nibs tested and all of the test iterations, and so 1. the published line widths are achievable (without telling anyone all the conditions of how), and 2. the chart validly informs would-be purchasers how the various nib width grades compare. Who writes with the pen held consistently at 60° to the page with exactly 50g of downward pressure anyway? Press down with 55g, or hold the pen at 55°, and you'd be liable to get line widths not consistent with what the chart stated, even if you use the same ink and same make/type of paper (of which there may yet be batch-to-batch variation); so the goal of reproducing the exact same results would be misguided, in my opinion. It'd be more useful to calibrate one's expectations against the chart. I usually get significantly finer line widths than what the chart suggests, using UEF, F, and SF nibs on Platinum #3776 Century and President/Izumo pens. Based on how my Platinum UEF and F nibs perform, say, when writing in Aurora Black ink on Rhodia DotPad 80g/m² paper, I should be able to extrapolate and get a fair idea of how an M nib would perform using same. Yes, it's all guesstimates only from the user's perspective, not forecasting performance scientifically from first principles, and not operating in some way that comes with any guarantees of observable outcomes against which I can hold the manufacturer to account.

I recently picked up a stash of Exacompta FAF (size number 4) dot paper. Not that my hoard of Rhodia DotPad Nº16 paper, which I normally use for my ink reviews and anything that calls for showing others on FPN a writing outcome, is in danger of running out any time soon; but, having noted that the paper in that product has changed — for the worse, in my view — some time in 2019–2020, without notice and without any alteration to the product name or code, I was quite open to switching to a different ‘standard’ paper for those purposes. The discounted price of these FAF desk pad refills was too good to pass up, and the opportunity will not likely come again any time soon, so I jumped onto (almost 3,000 sheets of) it without having ever used or even seen the product before. Actually, the product was listed incorrectly as being Rhodia branded, so I didn't think it could be much worse than (the change to) DotPad paper, in spite of being one-eighth lighter in weight by the grams-per-square-metre metric. It turned out not to be a Rhodia product; but, never mind, at least it's still 5mm dot grid paper manufactured in France by Clairefontaine. Exacompta FAF Nº4 paper, including the stub above the perforation, measures 210×135mm, which is slightly narrower than A5 size (210×148.5mm). Rhodia Nº16 is A5 size, give or take half a millimetre. I haven't found the height of the part of the Rhodia DotPad sheet below the perforation to be very consistent from batch to batch; and the positioning of the dots can also vary, with some pads having 30 dots (and thus 29 full squares marked out) across the width of the sheet, while others having only 29 dots. I expect there is probably the same types of inconsistencies in the Exacompta FAF refills, but I haven't yet opened or checked any of the 170-sheet packs I received. The stack that came pre-installed in my FAF desk pad has 26 full squares across the (top) sheet, and the detachable part of the sheet has 37 full squares marked out vertically, compared to 36 full squares on the Rhodia DotPad I'm using at the moment. One minor advantage the FAF paper offers is that the sheets in each set or stack are physically independent of each other, and not glued together at the top edge or stapled together through the stub part, so it's possible to get more writing area out of each sheet by just removing it from the stack without tearing at the perforation; and I can lay the removed sheet flat to make it easier to write on, especially near the right-hand and bottom edges. It also means I won't get tempted to waste time removing the stack of stubs, the way I do with a depleted DotPad. But does the Exacompta FAF 70g/m² paper actually perform as well as, or even better than, the post-2020 version of Rhodia DotPad 80g/m² paper for use with fountain pens? The short answer is: no. For testing, I used a bunch of pens that are already inked — some as recently as this week, and others many months ago — and were physically convenient to grab at the time. It doesn't matter that some of the inks were highly condensed through evaporation, and look and perform nothing like they would fresh from the retail bottle; I wasn't doing this to see whether Herbin Blue Nuit, for example, would be a nice colour to use on the Exacompta FAF paper, but just to check whether (any random) ink is more likely to feather on it and/or bleed through it, etc. Compared to Rhodia DotPad 80g/m² paper, Exacompta FAF 70g/m² paper: has a bluer tone in its whiteness; draws more ink from the nib onto the page, and thus tends to make the lines from a particular pen broader, although the extent depends greatly on the actual ink used; is toothier, and exacerbates scratchiness due imperfections in the nib grind (such as those done by yours truly), but also makes it very challenging to do highly precise movements without getting derailed, and putting down more than 15 parallel and distinct horizontal lines in a 5mm-tall space is extremely difficult; is more apt to exhibit show-through; and is more apt to exhibit bleed-through, which is not surprising given the lower gsm weight. Feathering and/or woolly outlines doesn't actually occur more readily on Exacompta FAF paper than on Rhodia DotPad paper, for a given volume of ink deposited per unit area covered with ink. The issue is that there is a tendency for more ink to get drawn onto and into the Exacompta FAF paper, with the same pen stroke and technique. Fortunately, for most inks, the noticeable differences listed above are minor. One could even argue that, notwithstanding the Rhodia DotPad being the more common and more accessible product to use as a ‘standard’ against which ink review readers can calibrate, Exacompta FAF paper may be a better paper to use because issues with feathering, show-through, and bleed-through is more likely to show up with it; in that way it's closer to paper used, for example, in Paperblanks and Studio Milligram notebooks. I don't regret getting so many sheets of the Exacompta FAF paper at a great price, and I think it makes me more comfortable to use the paper actually for taking random, ultimately disposable notes in the way one would normally use a desk pad, as well as move to using it for producing writing samples to be shared online. Still, I wish the Exacompta FAF paper had similar ‘sizing’ (or ‘coating’) to that on pre-2020 Rhodia DotPad paper.

One would have thought that, having instigated yearly Pelikan Hubs for the better part of a decade, the company must have a clear idea of what it hopes to gain from the event (or festival of sorts, I suppose), and plan as well as invest in it accordingly. The impression I got, however, is that Pelikan doesn't really know what it wants or expects from the marketing exercise, at least not in 2022. Is it a case of the company not knowing how to navigate the landscape in the age of the pandemic (since it will not be ‘over’ any time soon)? Or just that the Fine Writing division barely survived as a line of business through 2021 and 2022, and is still trying to find its feet again? (Quoting from another Pelikan Hub thread on FPN…) The way I see it, the enthusiasm and love that fans of the brand have for Pelikan pens (and inks?) is what money cannot buy. Testimonials in ad spots in informercials invariably come across as scripted and phony; whereas talking in person to users of Pelikan pens (who can be bothered to register and then actually show up for a Hub gathering) gives the curious prospective convert some confidence that the opinions and sentiments expressed are genuine. That doesn't mean Pelikan should avoid being seen as sponsoring the Hubs; but the company really ought to take active steps to encourage the discussion and exploration of Pelikan products at the events, instead of doing scantly more than lending its name to the occasion, but somehow expect (or hope) that the attendees would ‘organically’ turn the conversation towards (what positively promotes to strangers and newcomers to) the brand. Providing everyone with a pad of A5 paper that sports the logo and name of the brand in the top corner of every sheet is not going to do it; and that small ‘gift’ would be ineffective at inspiring a mild sense of obligation (to speak well of Pelikan, or otherwise be mindful of its best interests) in the name of reciprocity, if that was part of the intent. Imposing heavily on the volunteer Hub Masters to contribute, and/or treating the event as an opportunity (at the company's instigation) for fans to ‘give’ their time and advocacy to the brand out of love or goodwill, but otherwise pretending they are just locally organised fountain pen user gatherings and leaving everyone to their own devices seems counterproductive. Especially when, in that context, interrupting the flow of conversation to demand people's attention to a marketing presentation of the Souverän M800 40 Years Limited Edition pen and the Apatite special edition pen and ink (but without exhibiting the actual products), felt jarring. Given the lack of effort into making it a Pelikan-themed event, I was glad to see several (or many?) fountain pen lovers in attendance brought large (≥10-pen) carry cases filled with the pens that they enjoy, value, are proud to own, and was keen to show others and freely let others have a go at using… and most were not Pelikan pens. It just wasn't a, “Look, I really like the brand and have willing spent thousands on just the small proportion of pens I have brought with me today, including going to such trouble and expense to hunt down this limited edition or that rare vintage model,” even though there are indeed thousands of dollars' worth of gear in that pen case, type of event. What's a good way to describe it? Hmmm… I think Pelikan's offerings and/or ‘awesomeness’ were largely eclipsed by what else was there. Not that it was an impossibility, or that “nobody in their right mind” would do so, but it's just unlikely that someone will of their own volition and motivation bring a broad selection of Pelikan pens with a view to promoting the brand to others, when Pelikan itself is not organising (to provide, or borrow from private owners with prior agreement, etc.) hundreds or thousands of dollars' worth of Pelikan pens for others to try. At the low end, I may have at least one M200 and M205 nib in every width grade that someone could order on the next standard colourway or special edition M20x pen he/she buys — and I have enough Pelikan pens onto which to fit them — but it would make no sense at all for me to bring them all, filled with the same ink, on the plausible expectation that someone would want to compare an EF nib against an F nib of the same type, or a M200 F nib against a M205 F nib, or a M200 EF nib against a M400 EF nib (and perhaps even a M600 EF nib, and so on). Yes, a Pelikan Hub would probably draw out people who would like to see the nibs and the differences for themselves first-hand; but it's up to Pelikan to see that as an opportunity to satisfy their curiosity and perhaps convince them of what they want to spend their money on next, and so make provision for that gear to be at hand. I'd prefer to be bringing what are customised nibs, or factory-condition nibs that are anomalies or at least don't fit one's expectations; for example, two M200 F nibs on which the tipping size (and width) is discernibly different when seen side by side, without requiring inspection through a loupe or magnifying glass. If I'm talking to fellow Pelikan users (and fans), that would be more interesting; and if someone is unfamiliar with Pelikan and pondering whether an F nib would best suit them, that would serve to illustrate to them that ordering a Pelikan F nib is “like a box of chocolates”. I wouldn't even need to have those nibs mounted on (separate) pens for that, let alone ink them up with the same ink to show the actual differences in line width on the page, or get messy and do a nib swap on the spot for the same purpose. Letting someone try a Platinum UEF nib — which, again, most likely someone in attendance at a Hub event would be curious about, but Pelikan comes nowhere near producing or offering — or a Pilot Elabo soft nib, or handle a HongDian 960 (which looks awfully like a Pelikan M600 or M800 at a glance, but is actually not the same size as either of those) fitted with ‘standard’ EF nib or a transplanted Blade (or ‘long knife’) nib, is more gratifying to me in the name of broadening others' horizons and/or let them calibrate how Pelikan compares. Of course Pelikan is never going to satisfy that kind of curiosity among pen users; nobody would reasonably expect that. On the flip side, it's entirely on Pelikan to arrange a curated showcase of its products at the event, if that's what it hopes will be available to interested prospective customers. Sure, there would probably be someone there with a M205 that is fitted with an F nib, and someone else with a M405 fitted with an F nib; but is any mildly curious person going to go from table to table, attendee to attendee, in trying to find those two pens to compare? Even then, it wouldn't be a truly meaningful comparison, when in all likelihood their respective owners would not have filled their pens with the same ink. Even if Pelikan is not of a mind to cater to any of that, but just wants to seed open ‘celebration’ for what fans like about the brand's pens and inks for others to see, it really still needs to make more of an effort and investment with a clear plan in mind.

These are not recommendations per se, but see this thread for some fountain pens and nibs capable of putting down very fine lines for small handwriting: Not disputing your first-hand experience, but if my Pilot steel EF nib (of the type that fits onto a Pilot Penmanship, Kaküno, 78G, MR, Prera, etc.) was scratchy in the sense that it damages the paper surface just with ‘normal’ handwriting use, this would have left the credit card-sized area on the sheet feeling fuzzy to the touch: but, no, the paper surface actually remained smooth. If you do not adapt your technique for tiny handwriting with a very fine nib, but apply about the same amount of downward pressure on it as you would a pen with a ‘Western’ Medium nib, in all likelihood the writing experience will not be nearly as smooth kinaesthetically, not even if you use a Pilot 14K gold PO (‘Posting’) nib on a Custom 742 or Custom 743. You'll also need ‘good’ paper if you're going to write small but legibly; cheap photocopier paper won't pass muster. I cannot recommend the Platinum Preppy ‘02’ nib, if someone is specifically after very fine lines consistently no matter with which ink you use it. Expending relatively little money (and effort), so as to calibrate one's expectations and/or gain intangible knowledge, is perfectly worthwhile doing; and the Preppy has its good points. I have about thirty of them, as well as more than ten Plaisir and another five Prefounte pens, here. However, it certainly would not be ‘the’ fountain pen I would recommend to someone for their craft or their best work (in whichever context), or as an instrument for sheer writing enjoyment.

But you would just not get “nothing” out of it. You will gain experiential knowledge that you cannot otherwise get, and surely cannot rely on others to give you either in previously published information or in answer when you ask them directly, any more than you can know whether going through pregnancy is “worth it” (for you!) by asking pregnant women or speaking to mothers. Useful information is not “nothing”; and, if that information was not useful, why would you be trying to look for it from us now? Do it once, and you don't like the result, then you'll know not to do it again; that is gained knowledge. Or, if you like it, and find yourself wanting to buy another, that is also gained knowledge. Moreover, you will have clear title to a tangible good in your hands, in exchange for $120. You may not deem it to be worth $120, but may well decide it writes “no better than a $30 pen”, in which case it must still be worth $30 to you even before you consider the differences in its pen body compared to a $30 pen. At most, then, you spent $(120-30=)90 that, in retrospect, you would have avoided spending had you known better, armed with the knowledge you only just gained from that exercise. Furthermore, if you manage to sell a barely used pen to someone at “a bargain” (to them) for two-thirds of the retail price you paid, then the cost to you is only that one-third, i.e. $40, you cannot recoup. So, a $120 pen you don't end up concluding to be a genuine step up from a $30 pen is not a $120 loss for which you get “nothing” out of it. That is what I mean. That is thinking systematically, and what people on the autism spectrum are apt to do, irrespective of one's emotional response to an event or circumstance. Some of us don't use that as an excuse. You'll get better at understanding what people mean, reading between the lines, and picking up what is unspoken or unwritten… if you work at it. You could make it a goal, a skill, a weapon, or even a hobby. So, do your research and due diligence, starting by gathering data and reading as many reviews as you can of the product in question, before you make a purchase decision. You won't and can't know whether it is “worth it” to you until you have tested it, by both having spent the money and used the pen. Either way, you will be taking a punt: buy one, and risk it being not “worth it”; or choose to forgo, even if it could mean you miss out on something that is well “worth it” had you owned and used such a pen. There is no certainty to be had prior to that, but only your analysis based on incomplete information you can find, in which you may not have total confidence in its accuracy, reliability, and applicability; and it will be coloured by your pre-existing biases that you cannot begin to correct or adjust without the right “learning experiences”. Nobody else can do your analysis on your behalf, no matter how experienced they are with that product and fountain pens in general. Furthermore, you will need to calibrate and reconcile your assessment framework of “worth” with theirs. In other words, understand what they “mean”; not by demanding they couch their answers on your terms, guided by your feelings, but by wrapping your head around their descriptions and their ways of expressing their views and feelings.

A brief explanation: Mount a thin-walled tube onto the lower end of a larger diameter tube that has an on/off tap. Mount vertically with the thin tube at the bottom. Add ink into the larger tube. Open the tap and adjust to a slow drip-drip-drip from the thin tube. Collect some drops of the dripping ink in a small beaker, counting the number of drops as they fall into the beaker. Weigh the collected drops of ink, and calculate the weight of one drop by division. Calibrate the equipment by repeating the drop-weight measurement process with A ) Water, and B ) Ethanol. These are two liquids of known surface tension values, given in reference books. The weight per drop is assumed to be directly proportional to the surface tension of the liquid, all other factors being held constant. So the unknown surface tension of the ink can be calculated by interpolation. If the weight per drop of ink is at 92% of the interval from ethanol to water weights per drop, then also the surface tension of the ink is at 92% of the interval from ethanol to water surface tension values.

I think it's all relative. If you compare an IG ink against your traditional dye-based colored inks, I think in general they tend to do much better, but there are some dye-based inks that are more modern which do quite well (even without the cellulose reactive stuff). Diamine Registrar's in a sample form, IME, goes "bad" very easily, which really just means that the IG precipitates out and you get mostly a pale, dye-heavy, IG-light result. Compare this to the relatively dark line that you get from the Registrar's in the above, which was wetly applied. Compared against traditional dye-based inks, IG has a pretty good UV resistance, but that doesn't mean it's close to the very high UV resistance that you can see in pigmented or Cellulose reactive inks. You can see that the Registrar's ink is still fading in this test, and it will continue to fade and brown over time, but it's still holding strong at this point (all the IG, in fact) compared to the traditional dye-based colored inks. My point of putting the IG inks in this test was really as a control metric against the dye-based black inks, which were the real inks I wanted to test here. The IG inks represent a type of ink that I know will fade over time, but not one that fades very quickly relative to typical inks. This allows me to calibrate whether the dye-based black inks that I'm testing here fade at a rate closer to that of IG or more UV resistant dye-based inks, or whether they fade at a rate closer to that of the very fugitive dye-based inks. The reason I had this question in the first place was that it occurred to me that we might be able to examine some inks, such as IG blue inks, in light of them being designed to be relatively resistant and archival compared to other blue inks, but that such relative durability might still be less durable than a totally different color (black, in this case) which uses dyes. Thus, it got me wondering about the overlap across ink compositions and colors. That is, each color presumably may have a spectrum of durabilities across the various compositions for making that color, and I was interested to see how these spectrums/ranges overlapped with each other across the color dimension.

To be honest: ... better let's talk about good things in life, like nice fountain pens, ink colours and paper ... 😇 Thank you! Yes, I have a textbook about "Physical measurement methods" from 1975 which describes the principles. The capillary method is only one of three there. But you can find (a less detailed) description also in Wikipedia. Take any capillary that is narrow enough to require a good time for one or two milliliter ink passing through due to gravity and calibrate your system with known liquids. Good luck!

Ahh, I see. 🙂 I should have read your question more carefully! First, I included that grey card because if there's something on screen that people KNOW is neutral, then psychologically, they can make the adjustment and have a better perception of the ink's true color. Or at least, if it doesn't look neutral on their display, they know that they're not getting an accurate representation of the color, either. Most consumer monitors are not factory calibrated to an industry standard, and there's no way to match two monitors' colors from a single point of reference (a neutral grey)... even 24 standard color swatches aren't enough for some people's needs. For photographers and other graphics professionals there's a common way to calibrate monitors so that they all show the same thing. As a photographer, I use a monitor calibrator, which hangs down from the top of my monitor and reads the color from the center of the screen during calibration, and the software that goes along with it adjusts the color output from the GPU to match an industry standard. (I use a Datacolor Spyder Elite 5, which is at least a generation old now, but still works just fine. They used to cost about $100, but prices seem to be going up.) As A Smug Dill mentioned, that does sometimes also require making some adjustments to the brightness and contrast of the monitor (you'll usually get a wizard on screen to help with that) to reach the industry standards, at least to get to the best starting-off point for the software to work from. Most of the work is done by the software, and the calibration process can take a half hour or more, as it changes the colors displayed on the screen, reads them again, makes adjustments, reads again, etc. When you're finished running the calibration software, it will give you a report about how accurate your monitor's color is and how much of the sRGB and/or AdobeRGB gamut it can display, and your graphics card / GPU will load those profile settings every time your computer starts. I calibrate once a month, but there usually isn't much change, if any.

Unfortunately, lubricants are a wide field of substance classes and most ink producers have their 'small secrets'. That's generally OK. However, in most cases some poly-alcoholes, poly-esters or poly-ethers are used. Some of them decrease surface tension more, others less, some support keeping the colors in solutions, others help keeping pigment suspensions stable. I know about three lubricants that are used in some ink brands, but maybe I do not know the ca. 30 others. If you like to make an ink more wet, try to use one of the ready available ink lubricants, which contain Triton X-100. But do not use household dishwasher soap (or similar) - or do it once and learn the lesson.😜 Measuring surface tension of ink is the most easy of them. All you need is a calibrated and de-fated pipette. The more precise it is calibrated, the less the number of drops needed to be measured. That's all. Mine is calibrated for a precision of 0.02 mL, so I need to measure the volume of 10 free falling drops. You calibrate the pipette with water and with pure ethanol. And remember: each pipette is different, so if you break one, you need to calibrate the next and go on with the new function. Do not use plastic pipettes, as they can deform (without you noticing). As told already before, The Ink Guy did a combined measurement of surface tension and viscosity. As the viscosity has no effect on ink wetness (in normal viscosity range), he looses some sensitivity. But it doesn't mean his measurements are wrong. His form of data presentation doesn't have absolute values, they are all relative to each other. Again, not wrong, but you do not get out more details than the general classification he does. And yes, the work he did is massive - I have a lot of respect for his effort!

As for the scale itself. I think that the precision balance is a good start. One needs to define the method more precisely, as did they Spaniards of the former scale years ago (i.e. defining the angle at which it has to be measured, and how). A balance measures force to spread tines but it is useless without an estimate of how much do they spread. In Photography there are lens calibration sheets (for back-focus) that one may print and use to calibrate a lens. One can design a test sheet as well with different line widths and some tips to ease testing (need to think of that). Nib spread happens on writing. To measure it, I think it is better to do it against a reference paper, which needs to be defined, where these guide lines have been printed. Then one can simply see how much force is required for each line width by sliding the nib over the paper and pressing until tines match the printed line and noting the force applied at that point. Try with various widths and you'll get a measure of pressure needed at each width. I think that the nib should be moving. With a bit of materials knowledge and an approximate idea of modern nib thickness and alloys, one can estimate at which force we may be exceeding the tolerance and avoid springing a standard nib by stopping the spread before reaching that cautionary force. And thus, we could get minimal and maximal spread too. The problem then is that that is not enough. We need also a way to measure snap-back. One way is the traditional way, but I cannot see a way to universally objectivize it. I mean, drawing a vertical line, pressing and releasing and measuring the ratio of open to close (you get diamond-shaped figures) but that depends on the speed at which you do it, and it is difficult to keep constant for even the same human on two tries. In so doing we may be overstretching a nib and only discover after use that material has fatigued. That is more difficult to measure, or I cannot come up with an idea now. But we do not want to get a nib, use it satisfactorily for one month and end up with it sprung and having to buy a new one. For that we may as well stick to a Zebra G Ti. Similarly for tipping, untipped XXF nibs may widen slowly and that takes time. Maybe repeating the measures after one year of use would help, but is a level of compromise difficult to maintain. Nib tipping and point shape is relevant too: it will define its slidind/paper catching properties and influence writing fluency. Finally one would have to couple that with subjective feelings: how "soft" is it on writing (both flexible and catching of the XXF tip on paper), how "tiring" is it after some use, how well does it feel/slide on the up and down strokes, ...

Different monitors display colors differently. Depending on the monitor and software, there may be ways to adjust for more accurate color. Camera and lighting also affect color rendition. Here is an article on adjusting color on a mac (I can't test it because I don't have a mac): Calibrate mac monitor Somebody on FPN in their ink reviews posted a grey scale for adjusting the brightness of your monitor to match theirs.

Preamble This Review is produced with the primary intent of generating relevant objective samples so that practitioners may accurately envision how this ink will look and behave using their pen/s on their paper/s. To do this, pens and papers which I consider to be widely used and/or readily available (not too pricey or rare/exotic) are included. As you can imagine, a fair bit of work goes into my Reviews, so I want that work to derive the greatest benefit. If you feel that improvements can be made to the range of papers & pens, and means of sampling, please do not hesitate to send me a PM. The use of a 'matched set' of Pelikan 'P99' pens (profoundly neutral & devoid of personality) once again revealed that getting uniform wetness is elusive: the <F> & <M> look very similar, but the <B> is wetter. Ah me! <=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=>~<=:-:=> Date: March 13, 2010 Brand: Lamy Name: Green (Grn) Bottle: Yes, 50 ml. Pens: • Pelikan 'P99' : <F>, <M> & <B> • Pilot '78G' <F> • Waterman 'Phileas' <F> • Pilot 'Prera' <M> • Lamy 'Safari' <M> • Sheaffer 'No Nonsense' <M> • Waterman 'Charleston' <M> • Pelikan 'M200' <1.0mm Stub> Binder Papers: • HP1124 Laser Copy, Letter • Clairefontaine 'Triomphe', A4 • G. Lalo 'Verge de France', white, A4 General Description: An orphan ink that no one I know would willingly take home. I find it hard to imagine ink of this colour being used in a business setting, other than mark-up or editing. Use in graphs, illustrations, diagrams, and other non-text applications seems suitable. For personal correspondence: Forget it, one may well be shunned. Letters written in this ink will go unanswered. For billet doux: Impossible. Grounds for psychological and/or relationship counseling. Such use draws a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 weeks on the sofa. Those whose station mandates the use of Green ink should look elsewhere: this ink will undermine whatever authority/respect your station would otherwise elicit. Mixed-gender couples endeavouring to have children should avoid this ink. This ink should not be used to mark occasions such as Christmas, St. Patrick's Day, Rites of Spring, etc. Eureka, I have it! This ink is so benign that it can be used for correction of student work: this ink is a 'smurf', one could get hit between the eyes with it, and that would not elicit so much as a blink. Tender psyches are safe! Hoorah!! Box: The box top shows a colour 'dot' that is not the least bit representative of the colour of the ink : rather like photos of menu items. Diagrams printed on the inner flaps of the box illuminate the 'dimpled bottom' shaped glass bottle, inserting a pen into the bottle, and the use of the blotter tissue. Bottle: The unlabeled bottle functions very well actually. It is a stable cylinder, 2 1/2" (6 cm) base diameter; with a centred top opening of 1" (2.5 cm). The lid is green colour, made of soft plastic with adequate grip. Having a 'dimpled bottom' allows the maximum amount of ink to be drawn into the pen. However, if there is sediment in the ink, it may well accumulate in the dimple (oops!) The blotter tissue is best drawn from its dispenser when the cap is secured. Unless one manages to remove the plastic blotter tape dispenser from the glass bottle, it cannot be easily recycled. And on a 'Green' ink bottle! Bah! Flow / Lubrication: Flows easily in all clean writing implements. Lubrication is unremarkable. Drying Time: 2 to 4 seconds. Feathering: Only from a fully loaded dip pen. Absent on FP samples. Bleedthrough: Only with dip pen sample. Shading: Modest. Waterproof: You must be joking - not at all. Nib Creep: None. Staining: None in any of the pens used. Note: For obvious reasons, this ink remained in the pens only long enough to conduct this review. Clogging: None. Saturation: Low - even in a wet Binder Stub! Dilution: A 1:1 mix showed a weakening of this colour, and also degraded line quality. Not recommended when tight lines [on illustrations] are required. Appearance: Hiding. A new nadir. Odour: Ink. Unscented. Clean-up: Easily removed from all pens except the 'Phileas' for some unknown reason. Comparison: Don't tempt me. Summary: I bought this ink hoping to find a colour close to a 'process' green, that would be toe-to-toe across from magenta on the colour wheel, and so be useful for mixing inks. Such was not the case. Now I know why this ink does not have an entry in the Ink Review Index: no one would admit to having it. The alt use may well be to tint the water in a vase of flowers. Scans: Created using an Epson V600. Factory software & other defaults were accepted: 300 dpi & 24-bit colour. The image was not adjusted other than cropping and compression using iPhoto on a MacBook. Once again, a passage from 'Treasure Island' was lovingly transcribed. First Page : HP Laser Copy 24 lb. Swab & dip pen samples. (WFB included to casually colour calibrate your eye.) Written samples: Pelikan 'P99' <F>, <M> & <B> nibs. Dry Time: 2 seconds Scale: 3" & 8 cm. Wet Tests: Rain Drop. Soak - blank. http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/FPN019.jpg Second Page : Clairefontaine 'Triomphe' Written samples: Pelikan 'P99' <F>, <M> & <B> nibs. Pilot '78G' <F> Waterman 'Phileas' <F> Pilot 'Prera' <M> Lamy 'Safari' <M> Waterman 'Charleston' <M> Pelikan 'M200' <1.0mm Stub> Binder Dry Time: 2 seconds Scale: 4" & 8 cm. Wet Tests : Rain Drop. (Pointless to show soak.) http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/FPN020.jpg Third Page : G Lalo 'Verge de France', white. Note: IMHO this paper has the 'hardest' finish, hence the most dry of those used in this Review. Written samples: Pelikan 'P99' <F>, <M> & <B> nibs. Pilot '78G' <F> Waterman 'Phileas' <F> Pilot 'Prera' <M> Lamy 'Safari' <M> Waterman 'Charleston' <M> Pelikan 'M200' <1.0mm Stub> Binder Dry Time: 4 seconds Scale: 4" & 8 cm. Wet Tests : Rain Drop. (Pointless to show soak.) https://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/FPN021.jpg Broken Last Page : Grey scale and colour swatches. A pen-generated sample of the Lamy 'Green' and the exquisite Caran d'Ache 'Amazon'. Swirlies made using the back of a dip pen nib - intended to show potential density range of the colour. Shingle sample of down-stroke of all pens & nibs on all papers used in this Review. This also makes the base-tint of each paper more evident. https://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/FPN022.jpg Broken My penmanship has not improved, but... -30-

"Changing contrasts" is probably the last thing you want to do. If you are intent on accurate reproduction, you need to calibrate both the monitor and the scanner so that /they/ correct for imbalances in the lighting. Unfortunately, Monaco EZColor was discontinued decades ago. It provided functions for calibrating printer, scanner, and (rudimentary -- unless one purchased the $$$ hardware unit) monitor. One would print a special target file (note: one had to develop profiles for EACH paper used on the printer), attach a provided film target below it on the paper, then scan the print/film together. The software would first calibrate the scanner using the film image (since it "knew" what each color square was supposed to be), and then with that correction table it would develop a profile the ink/paper printed version. Monitors were usually a case of first setting the white point. Many monitors ship with an unset (~9500degK) white point (which is a rather bluish and bright setting). Photograde monitors are commonly set to something like Daylight (around 5500degK), "Cloudy" (around 6500degK -- yes, cloudy days have more blue), or Tungsten (~3400degK, red-orange). Then one has to adjust the gamma curve -- Software presents red, green, blue squares in which part of the square is middle-shade (Monaco used a large M), and the rest of the square is alternating lines of full color and black. While squinting at the monitor from a distance, one adjusted the drive so that the alternating color/black blends into the mid-tone. Having harangued you'all with that. Instead of CONTRAST adjust you want to work with (In Photoshop: LEVELS layer). Use the middle eyedropper (grey -- actually for white balance), locate a portion of the scan that is supposed to be neutral (any true grey other than pure white and pure black) and click on it. That will shift the color balance to remove any tint bias from the scan. The next two steps would be to use the white eyedropper (highlight) and click on something that is supposed to be full white, and the black eyedropper (shadow) on the darkest shadow. Those two will adjust the spread of brightness levels to the full span (hence, will tweak contrast). The last steps would be to move the gamma slider -- which will shift the mid-range brightness, and then tweak the output levels (at least one guide suggests setting output to 5 (blacks) and 250 (whites) -- which would mean you do not have full black and whites in the output/saved image; apparently they are considered "ugly" in prints, 250 means the whites get a very light speckling of dark, ...)

Hi guys and girls, I hope you're all doing well. I haven't posted here in a good long while in big part because I was at my most active here when I was looking for "THE ONE" pen that I would be using everyday. After going from Pilot Metropolitan to a Sheaffer Balance to a Montblanc 146 to a Karas Kustoms Ink with a palladium nib (what a disaster) to a Parker 45 I ended sticking with a Lamy Safari because I just really fell I love with the dang thing. I love each it is to replace parts such as the feed or the nib (I'm very accident prone and a bit too impulsive with homemade nib repairs though I think I have learned my lesson now), I love the ink window, I love how easy it is to disassemble for a thorough cleaning but, most of all, and contrary to a lot of other folks out there, I love the grip section. The biggest issue I had with most the aforementioned pens, which are all great by the way, is that they would rotate in my end while writing and so I would get away from the smooth writing sweet spot and would have to re-calibrate all the time or I would get hand cramps (also to be noted that I have fairly large hands so the Parker 45 was very much on the slim side). So TL;DR I am looking for a more high end feeling pen with a grip section that, like the Safari's, won't rotate in my hand. I have considered the Pilot Vanishing Point (or is it called something else now, not much came up when I typed this on eBay and Amazon) but I am put off by the small ink capacity (and I don't won't to use a syringe to fill my pen for various reasons). Does such a pen even exist? If not, I'm still more than happy with my Safari really, it does it's job really well and in charcoal with a silver nib, doesn't look half bad either, and this just a whim of someone with enough disposable income to worry about these silly things.

I'm employed in the IT department of a microbiological lab. At one point, I learned that the intent of our micropipette verification log book was not to calibrate the device (unlike the balance logbook) but to calibrate the user - that is, ensure the user could consistently measure a specific amount correctly - sort of a warm-up before they started pipetting for real. At some point last year (which was my second year of FP use), I decided that when I received a new pen, I would use at least 2 fills of ink before I even considered smoothing the tines (something I feel comfortable doing, and have done for a few pens). Depending on what I knew of the inks and nib, I might use more fills and a wider variety of ink before making that decision. During that time, I would use a variety of my usual papers. In essence, I decided it would be wise to calibrate the user before deciding whether the nib needed adjustment. So, out of curiosity, and perhaps to educate each other (or at least some of us who are newer), do you have ways in which you "calibrate the user" before deciding that the equipment may need adjustment? (And it could be pen, paper, ink, nib, converter / cartridge, writing surface, whatever).