How much ink is really in that 2 oz bottle?

January 15, 2007

I'm bored... idle hands... all that stuff

In the past, I always used Sheaffer Skrip in my calligraphy, mainly because it was easy to find. Since I've rediscovered writing, I've branched out and (hold on to your hats) purchased a bottle of Waterman. Both are marked 50ml on the bottle. The Sheaffer box was marked 1.69oz (29.57ml per oz). The Waterman box was labeled 2oz. At 2oz, the Waterman bottle >should< contain close to 59ml; it doesn't. That's almost a 20% shortage.

Now I realize that the major cost of ink is probably packaging, but I still feel cheated. Are other inks afflicted by the same creative math? Or is France just getting us back for that whole "freedom fries" thing?

On a side note... Why aren't ink bottles conical so you can get to the last few ml?

January 15, 2007

It seems like it's just a conversion error on the part of Waterman, though what's important is the volume in mL, not fl. oz. A Waterman bottle should have 50ml of ink, which amounts to 1.69oz. In that sense, you're not getting shorted. When buying ink from a European company, I would trust their metric measure rather than the other measure. Having said all that, as a Frenchman, I can't say I'd blame Waterman for exacting retribution for the whole freedom fries episode

Best,

David

January 15, 2007

It seems like it's just a conversion error on the part of Waterman

Well, on a single unit, commodity sale, I could understand a simple conversion error. When dealing in large volume with international distribution, that theory pales a bit. Besides, I'm confident that the French in general have a grasp of math. That "freedom fries" theory is starting to look more likely.

I was in a pen store in Austin today and they had a shortage of blue in their selection. Since they didn't have the color I wanted anyway, I actually chose Waterman based upon the label showing a larger quantity than Montblanc, Noodlers, Private Reserve and Aurora (well, that and it was $3 cheaper).

Imagine if you refueled up your car and later discovered that you were overcharged by 20%. Or if you fueled a fleet of cars and were overcharged by 20% every time because the vendor refused to correct a known error in their calculations.

It is a minor error, but something easily rectified.

I'll stand chagrined now...

http://www.tclme.org/images/ike-mad.jpg

January 15, 2007

It is true that 1 fl.oz. = 29.57 ml, but it is written 2 oz on the bottle... is it possible it is then referring to weight ounce, in which case 1 oz = 28.3495 grams, so 2 oz is 56.7 grams for 50 ml, which gives a total weight of 1134 grams/liter, 10% heavier than pure water, but we know ink contains water AND dyes.

On the other hand, this does not proove anything, I agree...

Can anyone check the weight difference between the empty bottle and the full brand new bottle ??

Regarding the 'freedom fries' hypothesis, I find it quite funny, but on the other hand, I think Waterman was dispatching bottles with '2oz' on it a long time before any Mr Bush learned the existence of Iraq. It may be a retaliation for another episode...

Juju

January 15, 2007

is it possible it is then referring to weight ounce

Anything is possible... but... Other than mercury, I've never seen a liquid sold by weight. Maybe they're packaging like cereal manufacturers and the contents have settled during shipping?

January 15, 2007

Waterman bottles can be placed tipped on one of the flat surfaces on the side so that you can get ink out eaily when just a small amount of ink is left.

January 15, 2007

Many years ago Carling built a brewery in Fort Worth Texas. Some division of the Texas Government found they were shorting their 12oz. bottle and can fills by, as I remember, 1/4oz. Carling had to pay a huge fine and were banned from doing business in Texas for several years. They sold the brewery to Miller Brewing.

It is not nice to advertise false quanaties.

Ron

Edited January 15, 2007 by wdyasq

January 15, 2007

It is not nice to advertise false quanaties.

Sure... At first it looked "don't know what to do" question, but now I'd really like to know the wherabouts of this... Anyone has contacts with Sanford ?

Juju

January 15, 2007

It is true that 1 fl.oz. = 29.57 ml, but it is written 2 oz on the bottle... is it possible it is then referring to weight ounce, in which case 1 oz = 28.3495 grams, so 2 oz is 56.7 grams for 50 ml, which gives a total weight of 1134 grams/liter, 10% heavier than pure water, but we know ink contains water AND dyes.

Well, not LEGALLY possible. US labeling laws do require dual labeling, metric and US Customary, and don't permit mixed labeling, where one unit is weight, the other volume. Further, using official conversions (NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C), the larger of the two net contents claims must be true. The statement in mL makes it obvious (to the law) that volume is used, so the "FL" is superfluous and may be used or omitted at seller's option.

Thus 2 OZ / 50 mL is allowed only if it really contains 2 oz, because it is the larger claim. If they claimed 2 OZ / 60 mL, the 60 mL would be the larger claim and would have to be true. If you have measured and didn't get 2 US fl oz, rat them out to the state weights & measures inspectors where it was sold.

January 15, 2007

Remember that these are filled on fairly high speed bottling lines, and the bottles must on average be filled to the stated capacity. There are often slight variations on the fill level of liquid products. You may have just picked up a "light" bottle.

January 15, 2007

Based on the number of significant digits printed on the box, both the metric and imperial quantities are correct on the Sheaffer and Waterman boxes. If the Waterman ink had "2.0 oz" printed on the box, then you would have a valid legal case for misrepresentation. However, since the conversion from 50 ml to ounces is about 1.7 fl oz, then 2 ounces is the correct value when representing it as an integer value - due to rounding-up.

I work with technical specifications on a daily basis, and if I want to mandate a supplier to provide me with at least 2 fl oz of product, then I would specify it as "2.0 fl oz" to ensure that I'm going to receive at least 1.95 fl oz.

Jim

January 15, 2007

Checked three bottles and two boxes. The boxes were marked 50ml on one side and 2oz on the reverse. The bottom of all three bottles were marked "APPROX 2oz." Since the outside box is what ones first sees, retailers are advertising it as a 2oz bottle, and 50ml is not two ounces of liquid, I would guess there is a problem here.

Since the Waterman unit of the Sanford division of the American conglomerate Newell Rubermaid is the owner in question, I would guess we have an American legal system problem here. If you wish to make an issue of this I would guess the place to start would be a call/email/letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and/or the U.S. Department of Justice. Either one can probably direct your complaint to the proper Branch.

And yes, as in "wdyasq"'s Carling example, the misleading of consumer products in the U.S.A. is considered extremely serious. If the Feds don't dump on the company, the States will, and if they don't the tort lawyers will usually try to hang the company out to dry with a class action suit.

January 15, 2007

Do we have some litigous types here with too much time on their hands? Please be sure and let us know exactly who starts the ball rolling with the authorities so that we'll all know whom to thank when Waterman ink becomes unavailable in the US &/or doubles in price.

I for one would REALLY look forward to my $.01 settlement in a class action suit.

Petra

January 15, 2007

Based on the number of significant digits printed on the box, both the metric and imperial quantities are correct on the Sheaffer and Waterman boxes. If the Waterman ink had "2.0 oz" printed on the box, then you would have a valid legal case for misrepresentation. However, since the conversion from 50 ml to ounces is about 1.7 fl oz, then 2 ounces is the correct value when representing it as an integer value - due to rounding-up.

I work with technical specifications on a daily basis, and if I want to mandate a supplier to provide me with at least 2 fl oz of product, then I would specify it as "2.0 fl oz" to ensure that I'm going to receive at least 1.95 fl oz.

Jim

I'm also an engineer and I understand what you are saying about rounding in specifications. That is not how US "net content" labeling law works. I suggest you read the FDA rules in support of FPLA (Fair Packaging and Labeling Act) or the UPLR (Uniform Packaging and Labeling Requirements), model legistlation for the States to adopt (most do) put out by the National Council of Weights and Measures. All are available at the "Legislation" page of US Metric Association.

(I think ink is a consumable that would fall under UPLR, not FPLA, but can't be sure.)

I would have to admit my knowledge of Canadian, UK, and other requirements is more at the "vaguely aware" stage. For them the metric amount is the requirement, and they are allowed to state Imperial measure as "supplemental information."

Where "average fill" is allowed, the average must equal or exceed the stated measure, and the maximum shortfall is judged in a sample test. They would not be allowed a tolerance of 9+ mL short

January 15, 2007

I am not a user of Waterman ink. However ... Before anyone calls his or her favorite tort specialist, maybe it would be a good idea for the aggrieved to actually contact Waterman and find out what they have to say about the matter.

Considering the number of people here who could not live without their favorite Waterman ink, I would not want to be the person who filed the lawsuit that ended up with Waterman no longer able to sell ink in the US or in any one of the states. :ph34r:

January 15, 2007

This is funny now. The thread has grown from "are some ink manufacturers fibbing" to "don't sue them". I just want what was represented on the box. If they mean 1.69oz, they need to print that instead of 2.

The correct action of course is to contact the manufacturer. In fact, judges hate when simpler paths of resolution are not followed prior to filing suit. There is an expectation of reasonable behavior from all litigants. I've seen judges throw their hands in the air and ask "why didn't you call and ask before suing them?"

I just wanted to know if the creative labeling was widespread. My concern is simple: I plan to purchase larger 3oz bottles. If those larger bottles exhibit the same 20% fib, the economic impact is greater to the consumer (me). I would bet that in huge quantities, Waterman does not ship 10000 liters of a 12000 liter order and call it good. I would also expect that a reasonable purchasing agent would not let that type accounting slide.

To those worried about Waterman removing itself from any market because of litigation... A responsible manufacturer audits and repairs a defective process rather than giving up a market. If they simply take their ball and go home, then they were likely screwing you on purpose anyway. Reasonable people don't do that. I believe Waterman to be reasonable (although I still haven't ruled out the "freedom fries" angle).

And Bill...

Before anyone calls his or her favorite tort specialist...

I know it's serious, but lets not involve any pastries at this point.

January 15, 2007

However, since the conversion from 50 ml to ounces is about 1.7 fl oz, then 2 ounces is the correct value when representing it as an integer value - due to rounding-up.

Understood... So lets go into the paint business. We could buy by the gallon and sell in bucket quantities. As long as we're 51% full or better, we're good. We could make a bundle!

I don't buy this. Mainly because that would mean that 1.5000000000000000001oz would qualify as 2, .51 liter would qualify as 1, .51 acres would really be a full acre...

I see people in McDonald's return to the line because their soda isn't to the brim.

The outside of the box states 2oz on one side (the side facing me, the buyer). The reverse says 50ml, but I didn't see that. The price sticker from the vendor says 2oz. It is true that the bottle label says 50ml, and it is true that the bottom of the bottle is cast to read "APPROX 2oz", but for my eyes (reasonable man), the casting marks that clarify their position on volume are not visible until post purchase when I am free to open the packaging. They need to add that "APPROX" to the outside label.

January 15, 2007

Qualifying words like "approximately" are not permitted in the "net contents area. (the bottom of the bottle wouldn't count.) US labeling law specifically warns against rounding the converted quantity up; the larger claim of net contents must be verifiable.

They appear to have two violations:

*The 2 OZ claim appears to be wrong, unless someone actually measures that they are supplying at least 2 oz, 59.15 mL of ink.

*On the bottle, they disclose net contents solely in metric and fail to make a parallel USC claim. The latter could be legal in the future as there is a proposal to amend the labeling laws so metric is required, Customary is optional.

January 15, 2007

To the curious, I did email Sanford, using the contact info on the Waterman web site.