Vintage Waterman Inks--Same Chemistry As Today's

[tnmike1]

Have several bottles of Waterman's Blue Black and Blue from various periods from the early 1950s through 1960 or so. None, I believe, are iron gall in that they don't smell metallic nor do they change color in the case of the blue-black. All are waterproof, fantastic shaders, and really love them. Then I read on Richard Binder's website how he loves Waterman because it's so safe for all pens.

 

So wondering: are these older Waterman inks as safe as the new version?? Or do they contain something that may harm new or vintage pens?

[KCat]

As far as I know isn't the same chemistry. But I doubt that what was removed (chemical preservative bad for us) had any impact on pens.

 

Many of us lamented when WM took that lovely awful smell out of our ink.

[mturk]

I have a quart bottle of Waterman Blue ink from the 1950's (just guessing - yellow label w/blue lettering) and the ink is somewhat lighter than the current Florida Blue. In fact, a swab shows it to be close to Pelikan Koenigsblau. Who knows what it looked like sixty years ago, but that's how it appears today. I think there has been a dye alteration as well as a change in perservatives.

[smodak]

Are you saying vintag waterman was iron gall?

[tnmike1]

I believe I read in one of the reviews here on Waterman Blue Black (I think it was Ernest Bitterman's review of vintage BB under the Waterman Blue Black review) that someone posted the older Waterman blue-black inks were iron gall.

 

In any event, I am concerned that my vintage inks could damage my better pens--Pelikans, Conway Stewarts, etc. Not concerned about the Lamy or other inexpensive and easily-replaced pens. But I avoid using these vintage Watermans in my better pens until I learn more about the chemical characteristics of the older inks--info I cannot find by Googling. Hence my post here

[stuartk]

As far as I know isn't the same chemistry. But I doubt that what was removed (chemical preservative bad for us) had any impact on pens.

 

Many of us lamented when WM took that lovely awful smell out of our ink.

 

It (phenol) can't be too awful for us, since it's still used in throat spray like Chloraseptic... They probably did a study and found out that if you put lab rats in phenol they drown. Then some fool politician lead an anti-phenol crusade and his/her bill banning it had a farm subsidy attached as a rider. You can get anything but health care reform passed if you stick in a farm subsidy too.

[raging.dragon]

Are you saying vintag waterman was iron gall?

 

The vintage blue-black might have been iron gall, but their other colours certainly weren't. Vintage inks used phenol as a preservative, and phenol has been banned in some countries forcing ink makers to reformulate their products.

[Richard]

So far as I know, vintage Waterman was not an iron gall ink — certainly, the bottle I keep for reference isn't.

 

The principal difference between vintage and modern Waterman, as pointed out above, is the reformulation that was necessitated by the banning of phenol for use as a biocide in inks. Chloraseptic contains phenol, making use of the stuff's action as a protoplasmic poison, but the solution is very dilute (1.4%), and it's not expected that people will come in contact with Chloraseptic on a regular basis as they will with ink. (Analogy: you can take a whack upside the head once in a great while, but if you take one every day you're going to end up addled.)