Liberty's Elysium Is Not Waterproof!

[SamCapote]

I'll just say again that the standard of "bulletproof" has been established, and is largely synonymous with the term "eternal." Bulletproof is a standard that goes beyond just waterproof. A host of Noodler's inks qualifying as bulletproof are listed on this 4 page PDF chart from their website. The new L.E. ink which was represented as being bulletproof does not meet the standard of those on the PDF chart. It should not be represented as being bulletproof. That's the issue, nothing is wrong with the ink itself.

[Truppi327]

I technically agree with Sam's opinion of the ink and the accepted definitions of Noodler's terms of permanence. I'm also fine with the explanation of the Goulets.

 

I'm happy to have a bottle of LE on the way.

 

I also look forward to a potential reformulation and no matter the cost I'll purchase a bottle of Liberty's Elysium 2.0 and store it next to the "original formula". I'm just a Noodler's completest like that...

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Truppi327

[ravantra]

Before people forget... THANK YOU, Brian and Rachel Goulet, for giving us a new Noodler's blue ink. :notworthy1: It might not suit all of us, but you did your best and most of us appreciate it. :thumbup:

 

+1 Thank you indeed.

[blopplop]

I technically agree with Sam's opinion of the ink and the accepted definitions of Noodler's terms of permanence. I'm also fine with the explanation of the Goulets.

 

I'm happy to have a bottle of LE on the way.

 

I also look forward to a potential reformulation and no matter the cost I'll purchase a bottle of Liberty's Elysium 2.0 and store it next to the "original formula". I'm just a Noodler's completest like that...

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

+1 on the reformulation comment. I'll buy one in a heart beat.

 

Also, I too am very appreciative of the Goulet's ink offering, and to their service to us overall. This is but a small bump in the road really. Goulet Pen's is my go to place for most of my pen & paper needs these days and will continue to be.

 

Blessings,

Dave

[MyDarnSnakeLegs]

I like it, and I'm glad that I now know it's not waterproof. I was excited about the purported waterproofness of the ink, but I don't think it's a deal-breaker.

[arkgray]

I will be getting my bottle tomorrow and I am looking forward to it. While it may not be as waterproof as we would like it to be, in my opinion it still meets the test of bulletproof. My reason for using a bulletproof ink is to make sure that if somehow I accidentally drenched the paper I would still be able to read what I had written. It doesn't need to look perfect at that point, just readable. This ink looks like it fits that bill. If you look at Jimmy James review it is still really clear even after part of the ink has washed away.

 

I would be interested to see what a really long soak would look like next to some different blues.

[MyDarnSnakeLegs]

I'm going to soak it for a while, and I'll post it when I get around to writing up my official review. I'll even test it written by different pens since I have three of them loaded with this ink.

[bjcmatthews]

The variability of bulletproof inks 'bulletproofness' is enough for me not to have got as riled up as some about Liberty Elysium. I scoured this review the last couple of days since FPN went down, waiting for the Goulet's reply/defense-I don't think that they misled anyone in relation to the qualities of the ink. Sure, not as water-resistant as some, perhaps unfortunately similar in regards to Eel Blue, and Blue, but it's not as though this is the first "bulletproof" ink that smears like crazy when wet, or even fades considerably. Even reputable permanent inks exhibit this at times-Sailor Nanoblack, not all the time but some of the time, when subjectted to water of different turbulences/time frames of soaking becomes a very waterry grey, that is still there, and only just legible.

 

The fact that the Goulet's are considering relabeling the ink is a very fair move on their behalf, and in regard to everything they do that is good-service, friendliness, incredibly helpful, I would grant them a bundle more slip ups then this one ink before getting really worked up about it.

 

And if you're disappointed with a bottle of ink you've just bought-thats what ink samples are for Personally, I think snatching a bottle of the latest Noodler's asap is never a good idea, because they are so variable. Remember Blue Nose Bear, and Rome is Burning disappointments? Wait for the reviews, and if your dying for the ink, samples samples samples

 

And like the Goulet's noted, people get fanatical about new products on this site. And fanatics ALWAYS react in excess of the situation presented. Sure, its unfortunate, but thats about it.

[XiaoMG]

I get a fairly similar color out of a very waterproof Mitsubishi Uni Eye Micro. The Mitsubishi puts out more of a sheen, so it is not exactly the same, but it is quite similar.

 

I think it's not too bad, though I probably should have tried some BBH or Bluebonnet instead, as I really would prefer something that doesn't get messy when touched with wet fingers or otherwise encounter a bit of moisture. I generally leave Kon-peki at home and will likely do the same with L.E.

 

The color isn't bad, but I am not sure how I'll finish off a bottle. This blue seems pretty easy to find in waterproof rollerballs.

[Rugrat]

I'll just say again that the standard of "bulletproof" has been established, and is largely synonymous with the term "eternal." Bulletproof is a standard that goes beyond just waterproof. A host of Noodler's inks qualifying as bulletproof are listed on this 4 page PDF chart from their website. The new L.E. ink which was represented as being bulletproof does not meet the standard of those on the PDF chart. It should not be represented as being bulletproof. That's the issue, nothing is wrong with the ink itself.

 

Agreed. We can't call it near-bulletproof either. The near-bulletproof inks behave very well, unlike the bulletproof ones (with Noodler's black being the exception). This is because they are colors (brown, red, navy, green, etc.) mixed with Noodler's black. The lines run true to form with these near-bulletproof inks. I feel some permanence is better than none. I love all of these near-bulletproof inks!

 

I have about (10) bulletproof inks and they all turn my Japanese F nibs into Western F-M ones. So does LE, but doesn't even have the bulletproof characteristics. As a result, LE should be classified as water-resistant.

 

The Goulet's should release a color similar to PR American Blue This could consist of a true blue mixed with Noodler's black. They could call it "Patriot's Blue", keeping in line with the liberty theme and could indeed be classified as near-bulletproof. I think there is a market because many folks here on FPN like the near-bulletproof ones.

 

Regards,

Eric

[mhosea]

I don't agree at all. "Bulletproof" is a marketing term used by Noodler's, and as such it means exactly what Nathan says it means. If Nathan's marketing materials are inconsistent or need to evolve, he can leave them that way or fix them without regard to outside opinions. In his quest to provide more interesting colors and different properties, such as good shading properties in brighter colors without chalkiness, he may not be able to bond 100% of the ink's components to the paper. And yet if he can bond enough of it that there is a substantially impervious component, then the writing may indeed be tenaciously permanent, in a practical sense. It may not be in the sense of preserving exactly the original color, as we see in many bulletproof inks like Bad Blue Heron, instead preserving the legibility of the writing in the face of a variety of attacks, intentional and accidental. I think he is well-entitled to adapt his term "bulletproof" to encompass this property, even if it is more limited than folks would prefer.

 

Having said that, I acknowledge that Nathan exercising his prerogative to evolve the marketing terminology has created legitimate confusion. Specifically, a clearer designation of what sort of water resistance a Noodler's ink has or doesn't have would be extremely helpful. Given the limitations of creating bulletproof inks in new, more vibrant colors, it may in fact be essential that this property be "forked off", lest the only truly "bulletproof" inks remain dark or chalky forever more. Of course, what we get already from Noodler's vis-a-vis properties of the ink already exceeds what we usually get from ink manufacturers. We are lucky to get "permanent" or "washable", which literally only tells us about the potential for washing it out of clothing.

[Phormio]

I don't agree at all. "Bulletproof" is a marketing term used by Noodler's, and as such it means exactly what Nathan says it means. If Nathan's marketing materials are inconsistent or need to evolve, he can leave them that way or fix them without regard to outside opinions. In his quest to provide more interesting colors and different properties, such as good shading properties in brighter colors without chalkiness, he may not be able to bond 100% of the ink's components to the paper. And yet if he can bond enough of it that there is a substantially impervious component, then the writing may indeed be tenaciously permanent, in a practical sense. It may not be in the sense of preserving exactly the original color, as we see in many bulletproof inks like Bad Blue Heron, instead preserving the legibility of the writing in the face of a variety of attacks, intentional and accidental. I think he is well-entitled to adapt his term "bulletproof" to encompass this property, even if it is more limited than folks would prefer.

 

Having said that, I acknowledge that Nathan exercising his prerogative to evolve the marketing terminology has created legitimate confusion. Specifically, a clearer designation of what sort of water resistance a Noodler's ink has or doesn't have would be extremely helpful. Given the limitations of creating bulletproof inks in new, more vibrant colors, it may in fact be essential that this property be "forked off", lest the only truly "bulletproof" inks remain dark or chalky forever more. Of course, what we get already from Noodler's vis-a-vis properties of the ink already exceeds what we usually get from ink manufacturers. We are lucky to get "permanent" or "washable", which literally only tells us about the potential for washing it out of clothing.

 

+1

 

 

 

Rugrat

 

Posted Today, 01:39 PM

 

 

 

SamCapote, on 02 June 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

 

 

I'll just say again that the standard of "bulletproof" has been established, and is largely synonymous with the term "eternal." Bulletproof is a standard that goes beyond just waterproof. A host of Noodler's inks qualifying as bulletproof are listed on this 4 page PDF chart from their website. The new L.E. ink which was represented as being bulletproof does not meet the standard of those on the PDF chart. It should not be represented as being bulletproof. That's the issue, nothing is wrong with the ink itself.

 

 

 

Agreed. We can't call it near-bulletproof either. The near-bulletproof inks behave very well, unlike the bulletproof ones (with Noodler's black being the exception). This is because they are colors (brown, red, navy, green, etc.) mixed with Noodler's black. The lines run true to form with these near-bulletproof inks. I feel some permanence is better than none. I love all of these near-bulletproof inks!

 

I have about (10) bulletproof inks and they all turn my Japanese F nibs into Western F-M ones. So does LE, but doesn't even have the bulletproof characteristics. As a result, LE should be classified as water-resistant.

 

The Goulet's should release a color similar to PR American Blue This could consist of a true blue mixed with Noodler's black. They could call it "Patriot's Blue", keeping in line with the liberty theme and could indeed be classified as near-bulletproof. I think there is a market because many folks here on FPN like the near-bulletproof ones.

 

Regards,

Eric

 

Lads, you're joking right? If not, get over it.

 

P

Edited June 2, 2012 by Phormio

[scribbler77]

My, my, what passion in some of these comments. I first learned of Noodler's "bulletproof" inks some five years ago. I understood the term to mean that they ink could not be REMOVED from a cellulose base by water, alcohol, other cleaning chemicals, and ultra-violet. Even BB black can come off the paper in water if not all the ink has been absorbed by the cellulose. However, you cannot remove the writing without destroying the paper--at least that was true until someone managed the feat with lasers. Maybe you can find it somewhere, but I do not recall any statement by Tardif that bulletproof meant that no ink would come off in water or other substances. Only that the ink could not be totally removed from cellulose, not only by water but by various chemicals including those that erase most inks.

 

Semi-bulletproof seems to refer to inks in which a bulletproof ink (usually black) is mixed with another color. In this case, when the ink is soaked the color is removed and the BB stays to make it legible. I had assumed that the term "eternal" was coined for colors that resist water and solvents and retain most of the color when soaked. I have most of these inks and they behave as I understood the description.

 

I don't have the Goulet special, but plan to order it. For those who have it, try blotting it just after the writing. That should take off any excess ink that does not react to the paper. This works for me with BB. When I blot, I do not get any smearing from a wash.

 

By the way, Baystate Blue (never labeled "bulletproof,") is highly water resistant but comes off paper instantly with rubbing alcohol and fades rapidly in sunlight.

 

In sum, I don't believe "bulletproof" ever meant total resistance to water or anything else, but total resistance to removal from paper. By the way, if you have on a bulletproof vest and it catches a shot, I imagine it may well be damaged. You might even receive some injury.

[arkgray]

In sum, I don't believe "bulletproof" ever meant total resistance to water or anything else, but total resistance to removal from paper. By the way, if you have on a bulletproof vest and it catches a shot, I imagine it may well be damaged. You might even receive some injury.

 

+1

 

I think this is exactly right. Also I like the comparison to the bulletproof vest, it hints very well at what seems to be the intention of the bulletproof inks. Some damage, but still serving to keep you safe from losing everything.

 

Someone mentioned about Nathan branching out into other colors. My guess is now that he is getting into "harder" colors we will see some changes in the ways that we thought about bulletproof inks. The key though is that something will still be left behind after the "injury" that is still legible. This is something that most inks can't do.

[SamCapote]

Some of you are mistaking simple accuracy in using the term bulletproof correctly as being passionate or microscopically anal, or inferring that the issue is somehow denigrating Goulet and/or Noodler's. That is not the case as far as I am concerned. I love and respect both companies tremendously.

 

It also appears to me that some of you responding have not taken the time to look at Noodler's website page and the PDF chart specifically describing their various ink characteristics and origins of the terms used.

 

From their own PDF chart, Noodler's defines the categories:

 

• Bulletproof: "Waterproof, UV resistant, bleach resistant."

• Eternal: "Archival, fade resistant, fully waterproof"

• Forgery-Resistant: "Impervious to lasers, alcohols, solvents; ideal for security documents"

• Water-Resistant: "Partially or fully waterproof"

If you make a page with lines/smears from 25 of the known bulletproof/eternal listed inks, and put L.E. in the middle of them; then submerge the page under water for a minute---you will see that L.E. does not belong in this category.

 

So for me, these posts are just a matter of using the term correctly for a given ink, because people have expectations based upon others used from the PDF chart. It doesn't mean this ink is bad, or Goulet/Noodler's is bad. We don't even know how Nathan described the ink's status to Goulet, or if Goulet had a prototype version (similar to Binder's release of Everflo True Blue) leading them to make the bulletproof, true blue announcement in this post.

 

In the overall scope of important life issues, this is insignificant. It is rather a minor point of accurate labeling, and should have no effect on the wonderful Goulet Pens and/or Noodler's reputation.

[XiaoMG]

Some of you are mistaking simple accuracy in using the term bulletproof correctly as being passionate or microscopically anal, or inferring that the issue is somehow denigrating Goulet and/or Noodler's. That is not the case as far as I am concerned. I love and respect both companies tremendously.

 

It also appears to me that some of you responding have not taken the time to look at Noodler's website page and the PDF chart specifically describing their various ink characteristics and origins of the terms used.

 

From their own PDF chart, Noodler's defines the categories:

 

• Bulletproof: "Waterproof, UV resistant, bleach resistant."

• Eternal: "Archival, fade resistant, fully waterproof"

• Forgery-Resistant: "Impervious to lasers, alcohols, solvents; ideal for security documents"

• Water-Resistant: "Partially or fully waterproof"

If you make a page with lines/smears from 25 of the known bulletproof/eternal listed inks, and put L.E. in the middle of them; then submerge the page under water for a minute---you will see that L.E. does not belong in this category.

 

So for me, these posts are just a matter of using the term correctly for a given ink, because people have expectations based upon others used from the PDF chart. It doesn't mean this ink is bad, or Goulet/Noodler's is bad. We don't even know how Nathan described the ink's status to Goulet, or if Goulet had a prototype version (similar to Binder's release of Everflo True Blue) leading them to make the bulletproof, true blue announcement in this post.

 

In the overall scope of important life issues, this is insignificant. It is rather a minor point of accurate labeling, and should have no effect on the wonderful Goulet Pens and/or Noodler's reputation.

To me, it's worth noting that there are no "bulletproof" inks on the Noodler's list that are categorized as "partially" waterproof. All inks listed as "partially" waterproof are either "partially" bulletproof or not bulletproof. That correlation doesn't seem to matter to most people here, but it matters a good deal to me when trying to make purchase decisions.

[Nonsensical]

Some of you are mistaking simple accuracy in using the term bulletproof correctly as being passionate or microscopically anal, or inferring that the issue is somehow denigrating Goulet and/or Noodler's. That is not the case as far as I am concerned. I love and respect both companies tremendously.

 

It also appears to me that some of you responding have not taken the time to look at Noodler's website page and the PDF chart specifically describing their various ink characteristics and origins of the terms used.

 

From their own PDF chart, Noodler's defines the categories:

 

• Bulletproof: "Waterproof, UV resistant, bleach resistant."

• Eternal: "Archival, fade resistant, fully waterproof"

• Forgery-Resistant: "Impervious to lasers, alcohols, solvents; ideal for security documents"

• Water-Resistant: "Partially or fully waterproof"

If you make a page with lines/smears from 25 of the known bulletproof/eternal listed inks, and put L.E. in the middle of them; then submerge the page under water for a minute---you will see that L.E. does not belong in this category.

 

So for me, these posts are just a matter of using the term correctly for a given ink, because people have expectations based upon others used from the PDF chart. It doesn't mean this ink is bad, or Goulet/Noodler's is bad. We don't even know how Nathan described the ink's status to Goulet, or if Goulet had a prototype version (similar to Binder's release of Everflo True Blue) leading them to make the bulletproof, true blue announcement in this post.

 

In the overall scope of important life issues, this is insignificant. It is rather a minor point of accurate labeling, and should have no effect on the wonderful Goulet Pens and/or Noodler's reputation.

Although what you are saying is strictly true, I believe that given the fact that L.E is both UV resistant and also bleach resistant, it is more than just water-resistant, no?

 

I agree that there need to be changes made, but in this case, I think the bulletproof classification is MORE accurate than the other option proposed: water resistant.

 

Unfortunately, until all the classifications are altered/more are added, it seems difficult to perfectly classify quite a few Noodlers inks. I don't see the issue with trying to find the most appropriate classification (which in my opinion, would be bulletproof- due to the other properties of the ink) until that time. The current classifications seem awfully restrictive to me. Would it be better if the label had the entire "water-resistant, UV resistant and bleach resistant"? Seems a little long-winded to me.

[Ad_Astra]

Classifying it as partially-bulletproof covers the UV/bleach aspects and the limited water resistance while conveying that its not truly superb in one or more of those facets compared to the bulletproof varieties.

[SamCapote]

Would it be better if the label had the entire "water-resistant, UV resistant and bleach resistant"? Seems a little long-winded to me.

 

There's not a category (i.e. "bulletproof" "eternal" etc.) printed on my L.E. labels. Some Noodler's inks have the categories printed on them, others do not.

 

I also tested this with bleach when forming my earlier opinion, and compared to other bulletproofs. My bleach test after rinsing with water is to make a small puddle with 5-6 drops of household Clorox Bleach and let it sit there for about a minute. I don't rub the paper away with the q-tip because I want to just see the effect of bleach alone. Suffice it to say that it does not hold up. I could show images of my test, but I'm afraid I already made KCat's head explode. I know she secretly missed me the last few days when FPN was down.

 

 

.

Edited June 2, 2012 by SamCapote

[MrsGouletPens]

Okay let's take a step back here and breathe.... it's just ink, folks! The passion fountain pen enthusiasts have for ink is a double-edged sword. I love it and hate it sometimes! LOL.

 

That being said, I agree with much of what is being said here, and I do encourage everyone to read Brian's response in reply #45. He does address much of what is being said here, including the possibility of a reformulation (LE was as vibrant a blue as possible, and as durable as possible, without costing an incredible amount - to reformulate it to be completely BP would sacrifice other qualities, such as the vibrant color or the cost, so please keep all that in mind in your arguments about a reformulation!). Luxury Blue is more than 3x the price, and the old Swishmix inks were also more costly. Blue dyes are incredibly challenging to be durable. I'm sure Nathan will keep on innovating and improving, but let's be realistic about what can and cannot be done.

 

A lot of this centers around everyone's understanding of Nathan's marketing terms of 'bulletproof' or 'eternal'. I spent hours and hours creating the Noodler's PDF document that was reviewed by Nathan, who also provided me via phone with the definitions of the terms at the top, and so I feel pretty confident about the labels, but I am certainly open to redefining them if necessary. I was reminded of our interview with Nathan during our 10/12/11 Write Time at 9 Broadcast. You can access it through our podcast on iTunes or through our blog archives. Just before 14 minutes in, I ask him about his definitions for bulletproof and eternal, and he does not address waterproofness directly, but more durability of the ink against bleaches, oven cleaners, and other tools of the forger.

 

The most important thing here is that the LE ink is not removed from the page. Other blue inks will wash away in their entirety, leaving nothing but a blank white page or a pale smear. This ink is still legible. The color is not the same, granted, but it is legible and will last on the paper. It does resist many other chemical attempts to alter it. Just as with other fully bulletproof inks that change color when certain chemicals are applied, that is the point - it shows proof that it was tampered with. So I think, I believe, it is accurately labeled as bulletproof according to Nathan's intention. In the interview, he describes bulletproof as a sliding scale (over time, its definition has evolved into being this sort of super ink that is completely resistant to everything). Not all bulletproof inks are created equal. Again, this has to do with the dye components. Black is of course the most durable, blue is not.

 

I agree, it is not fully waterproof in that some of the color washes away. But it is certainly quite water-resistant, more so than many other blues of this shade out there. I feel it holds up pretty darn well. We actually used this color (in a blue Pilot Custom 74) to sign all of our mortgage paperwork last week. We felt confident enough personally to use this for legal documents. It just felt a little more interesting than using Noodler's Black (and showed up more distinctly on photocopies).

 

Sigh. Anyways. I feel like I'm talking in circles. I didn't even want to address this thread today (we're moving!) but we just can't get it off our minds. It's killing us that we're being accused of misrepresentation, or even to a lesser extreme that folks are simply disappointed. And we can't quite figure out what specifically we did to cause it. We do offer samples, and we posted our review at the same time the ink went up for sale, so I feel like we made a reasonable effort to present the ink for what it was, as objectively as possible.

 

BUT that all being said, please email us directly and we'll be happy to work with you if you're unhappy with your bottle purchase. As Brian said, we will try to speak to Nathan next week and try to provide more context into his marketing terms or labels or whatever (and I will certainly change the PDF document if necessary), but I think we're arguing over semantics here. I don't think Nathan ever intended these terms to be used absolutely.

 

We're really trying here to provide a great product and great service, and to represent Noodler's well, and we'll do whatever we need to make things right.

 

Thank you!