Interpreting David Carvalho, Do We Have The Perfect Ink?

[arcfide]

Here's a fun quote from David Carvalho's 40 Centuries of Ink:

 

 

 

"Indian" ink, except for specific purposes, belongs to the great past and will so continue with its virtues unchallenged and proven, until some solvent is discovered for the carbon which forms nearly the whole of its composition, at which time THE perfect ink can be said to have been discovered.

 

Here's some context to be had:

 

* The era was filled with new and interesting colors through the use of Aniline dyes.

* The "perfect ink" would have to have been one that was considered most ideally suited to the main purpose of writing, which, implied by Carvalho, is the preservation of the written word on paper, thus giving rise to his denigration of "fugitive inks" and promotion of "enduring, durable inks"

* It is also clear that the sharpness of clarity and contrast was valued, and thus, black was a highly desirable color, whereas today, many people consider black passe.

 

In light of the present day, it is interesting to note Carvalho's view that india ink, for the purposes of writing ink, belonged in the past. His viewpoint was that properly chemically balanced iron gall inks without the addition of coloring or dyes was the best state of the art ink for writing. He made some allowances for the use of an indigo dye in the ink, but felt that even this degraded the longevity and durability of the ink, which strongly emphasized the issue of fading, more than the issue of water fastness, though often water fastness is implied in the durability consideration. The reasons for rejecting India Ink in his view was that India ink did not properly adhere chemically to the paper, thus making it unsuitable for long term preservation, because "water and a sponge" could be used to wipe away the ink, unless specific treatment options were applied to the paper to preserve it. Presumably, these treatment options were too laborious to warrant being considered in a writing ink.

 

However, he acknowledges plainly that India Ink (carbon inks) universally performed the best in terms of color fastness and clarity, lacking only in the ability to resist physical and mechanical erasure from the page.

 

If we examine the general requirements Carvalho presents, we can compare them to what we have today:

 

* Black ink of solid, pure, bright, clear color

* Waterproof

* Fadeproof

* Free flowing and suitable for use in modern writing implements

* Resists mechanical erasure

* Chemically inert

* Low maintenance in terms of achieving these benefits

* Affordable

 

Carvalho's basic assertion in his quote is that if India ink could have been rendered more permanent and easier to work with, then it could have been considered ideal, and presents a case for "dissolving" India ink somehow so that it would absorb into the paper fibers. While we don't have any mechanism for dissolving carbon ink the way that he envisions, we now have nanoparticle Carbon inks such as Platinum Carbon Black that do suspend the particles in a way previously impossible, and in such a way that the ink penetrates the fibers of the page and adheres in a way that may not have previously been possible.

 

Thus, it seems to me, based on the existence of inks like Platinum Carbon Black and Sailor Kiwaguro, that we can say that modern ink manufacturers have, roughly 100 years later, nearly perfectly addressed, so far as I can see, the desires for a perfect ink by Carvalho's definition and vision.

 

What say you?

 

Now, if we acknowledge that we have this perfect ink, we must then ask the question of whether Carvalho might not have altered his view of what the perfect ink was in our current day? Assuming that he was still primarily focused on "enduring inks," do we think that Carvalho would have latched on to the Carbon Fountain Pen Ink as the ideal writing ink, or do we think that he would have chosen a different viewpoint given the new technologies out there, such as cellulose reactive inks and increasingly more sophisticated iron gall formulations? Would he have continued to insist on black ink?

[Mercian]

Ink is a tool. It’s a special, liquid, tool for the purposes of writing.
Like all tools, the identity of the perfect ‘tool’ depends upon the task that one wishes to perform with it.

E.g. which is the ‘perfect’ hammer? A 20lb sledge hammer? A Geologist’s rock hammer? A jeweller’s hammer? A steel claw-hammer? A wooden mallet? The answer will depend on what one wishes to use the hammer on, and for what purpose. What material am I using the hammer on? Am I driving a post into the ground? Knocking down a wall? Re-shaping a piece of precious metal? Testing a sample of rock to examine its cleavage pattern? Driving a nail in to a wooden beam? Breaking a window in order to escape from a car that is on fire? Etc.

 

When contemplating the question of which is the ‘perfect’ ink, one must consider the nature of the medium on which one wishes to write.

 

Cellulose-reactive inks are great for permanent writing on paper made from wood-pulp or cotton fibres, but how ‘permanent’ would they be when written on goatskin vellum, or on plastic tape?

 

Iron-galls are great on goatskin vellum, but some of them can be damaging to paper.

Carbon/pigment inks are great on fibre-based papers, but how good are they on plastic tape (whose surface their coloured particles cannot sink in to)?

[arcfide]

Ink is a tool. It’s a special, liquid, tool for the purposes of writing.

Like all tools, the identity of the perfect ‘tool’ depends upon the task that one wishes to perform with it.

 

E.g. which is the ‘perfect’ hammer? A 20lb sledge hammer? A Geologist’s rock hammer? A jeweller’s hammer? A steel claw-hammer? A wooden mallet? The answer will depend on what one wishes to use the hammer on, and for what purpose. What material am I using the hammer on? Am I driving a post into the ground? Knocking down a wall? Re-shaping a piece of precious metal? Testing a sample of rock to examine its cleavage pattern? Driving a nail in to a wooden beam? Breaking a window in order to escape from a car that is on fire? Etc.

 

When contemplating the question of which is the ‘perfect’ ink, one must consider the nature of the medium on which one wishes to write.

 

Cellulose-reactive inks are great for permanent writing on paper made from wood-pulp or cotton fibres, but how ‘permanent’ would they be when written on goatskin vellum, or on plastic tape?

 

Iron-galls are great on goatskin vellum, but some of them can be damaging to paper.

 

Carbon/pigment inks are great on fibre-based papers, but how good are they on plastic tape (whose surface their coloured particles cannot sink in to)?

 

If it wasn't clear from the context above, I'm explicitly framing the discussion in terms of those proposed by David Carvalho's book, which context can be roughly summarized as "record, commercial, historical, and personal writing on paper where the existence and viability of the written product is desired to continue beyond a transient initial span of time." Here the assumption must be made that paper is the primary medium (we could argue over what kind of paper, but I think we can take the same basic assumption of the general paper construction given in the book, which amounts to linen, cotton, and wood-based papers in widespread distribution). Additionally, as can be inferred from the context of the discussion, little notes that have only a passing relevance and that would be perfectly satisfactorily burned after initial consumption don't really come into play, but those things which you would be likely to retain for some time and that you would not willingly destroy after some very limited period of time. In other words, materials that continue to hold at least a modicum of personal or public value and are thus worth keeping in storage or out in the public sphere for some amount of time that may be considered indefinite.

 

This is a nebulous way of quantifying the idea of "serendipitous archival" items. That is, items that might not have at one time been considered completely worth preserving, but that, in future generations, we find that we had wished that we had paid more attention to their preservation. There are many cases of people who find the immediate enjoyment of the writing and inks and the like, and who subsequently feel that even if the inks are not long for this world and are likely to decay over time, that this is more or less okay, because they have no anticipated desire for them to continue forever. The point made in the book regarding this attitude is that this has historically resulted in the destruction of many pricelessly valuable historical documents over time because in a specific slice of time these artifacts were not deemed worth any effort of preservation.

 

Thus, the idea is that if you wouldn't actively destroy the text, thus making it at least worth some level of storage, then we can take a proactive step of defaulting to a high degree of permanence on the off chance that it may at some point in the future prove to be valuable.

 

Under this assumption, we then have to ask about the best "writing ink." That's the context for this discussion as far as I see it. And constraining this even more, the question isn't about what everyone else thinks about the best writing inks, as there are obviously a lot of different opinions, but upon specifically the attitude and motivations, which many share, that Carvalho describes in his book, as summarized in the original post.

[silverlifter]

I would say Diamine Registrars. Dries to nearly black, waterproof, not acidic enough to eat through paper or damage pens, and economical enough to purchase in industrial quantities.

 

Also, a lovely ink.

[aurore]

Waterproof, lightfast, chemically and mechanically resistant AND low-maintenance is a contradiction in terms.

Though Sailor nano-pigment ink are close, if you won't let them dry out in the pen. While Koh-i-Noor Document Blue is very cheap and will out last the paper but can be a bit aggressive to some materials.

Edited September 9, 2020 by aurore

[arcfide]

Waterproof, lightfast, chemically and mechanically resistant AND low-maintenance is a contradiction in terms.

Though Sailor nano-pigment ink are close, if you won't let them dry out in the pen. While Koh-i-Noor Document Blue is very cheap and will out last the paper but can be a bit aggressive to some materials.

 

Sorry, I should have qualified that low maintenance. From the perspective of the book, the idea of "low maintenance" was that you didn't have to do special laborious activities to the page after writing with the ink in order to achieve the permanent effects. So, the examples from the book are that iron gall ink binds chemically to the paper simply through the act of writing, whereas the India ink of the time required not only specific gum binders in order to ensure good cohesion, but also required some sort of other additional process on top of that which relied on cooking in the sunlight in order to ensure that the inks were preserved effectively and could not be washed off.

 

The consideration of maintenance of the writing instrument wasn't really at question within the scope of the book, except as it relates to being able to use the writing instrument effectively.

[Mercian]

If it wasn't clear from the context above, I'm explicitly framing the discussion in terms of those proposed by David Carvalho's book, which context can be roughly summarized as "record, commercial, historical, and personal writing on paper where the existence and viability of the written product is desired to continue beyond a transient initial span of time." Here the assumption must be made that paper is the primary medium (we could argue over what kind of paper, but I think we can take the same basic assumption of the general paper construction given in the book, which amounts to linen, cotton, and wood-based papers in widespread distribution).

 

This is a nebulous way of quantifying the idea of "serendipitous archival" items. That is, items that might not have at one time been considered completely worth preserving, but that, in future generations, we find that we had wished that we had paid more attention to their preservation.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification

 

But I want to point out that the definition that you give above “record, commercial, historical, and personal writing” is problematic, in that it is not a uniformly-defined single task.

 

Why do I say that?

Because I’m English.

For historical/archival purposes our laws are, even now, still recorded in iron-gall ink on goatskin vellum.

Is it the ‘perfect’ archival recording method? We cannot say for certain yet, but we can say that we have legal/‘Chancery’ archival goatskin/iron-gall records that go back to the early 12th century CE and which remain legible and usable to this day. After nearly 900 years of (careful) storage.

 

For governmental/historical archive, we can say that writing on goatskin vellum has a very good track-record of being ‘fit for purpose’, and so I would think that iron-gall inks are probably the ‘best’ ink for this purpose on this writing-medium.

Because goatskin vellum doesn’t provide the particulate content of pigmented/soot-based inks with any surface ‘matrix’ to interpenetrate. And no cellulose for cellulose-reactive inks to bind to.

So, for making governmental/historical records, writing on goatskin vellum may be the best solution - and iron-gall inks ‘good’ but pigment inks ‘bad’.

 

Now, the definition that you gave also includes ‘personal writing‘.

Very few people are going to be using goatskin vellum for personal writing. It is very labour-intensive to produce, and supplies are limited. It is very expensive.

 

I think that we can agree that most people will be writing their ‘personal writing’ (Journals, letters, etc) on paper that is made from wood-pulp, cotton, or linen, or sugar-cane. In any case, a matrix of fibres that contain cellulose.

Iron-gall inks consist of a solution of iron salts dissolved in an acidic solvent - they are not ‘chemically-inert’ (one of the criteria specified in the OP.)

The acidity of some iron-gall inks causes some papers to deteriorate/dissolve/crumble over time. Modern commercial ones intended for use in fountain pens are less acidic than their historical predecessors.

Nevertheless, if we are trying to find an ink that enables us to preserve ‘personal writing’ for as long as possible, we are going to have to assume that it will not be written on very expensive specialist ‘archival’-quality paper, or on goatskin.

Almost all of most people’s personal writing is going to be written on ‘ordinary’ or ‘everyday’ paper.

 

Thus, if our goal is ‘serendipitously-archival’ preservation of the writing of ‘ordinary people’ (e.g. Social historians are very, very interested in ordinary citizens’ personal letters and personal journals), we will have to assume that the ink will be being deployed on ‘run-of-the-mill’ ‘everyday’ commercially-available inexpensive paper.

As such, I would personally not recommend iron-gall inks. Their acidity means that they might - in the long term - be a threat to the structural integrity of the paper on which they were written. Especially if that paper is very inexpensive.

Obviously, whether or not this is of any concern will depend on how ‘non-transient’ the span of time for which one wishes to be able to preserve the writing is.

For spans of, say, twenty years, modern commercial iron-gall fountain pen inks may well be the ‘best’ inks.

But can we say with confidence that iron-gall inks are the ‘best’ if we wish to preserve writing written on ‘ordinary paper’ for nine hundred years? I suspect that the answer to that question is ‘no’.

 

For readily-available inexpensive ‘ordinary’ paper, pigmented inks might be the ‘best’ inks.

But, as they ‘work’ by penetrating the matrix of paper fibres and lodging particles of soot/pigment in that matrix, how do they cope on papers that are coated with a hard, smooth finish? (‘Common’ papers like Rhodia, Clairefontaine, & Oxford Optik.)

I don’t know, because I’ve never used pigmented inks. Other people will be able to make better-informed comments about them.

 

Cellulose-reactive inks also might be the ‘best’ ink for ‘ordinary’ papers - but my own experience of using them on smooth, hard-coated papers (Clairefontaine etc) is that they have extremely-long dry-times.

And that words written with them will smear if touched for a surprisingly-long time after the ink appears to be ‘dry’.

And that any cellulose-reactive ink that smears across one’s writing will bind to previously-un-marked paper just as strongly as the ink that one wrote intentionally.

Which can make ‘documents’ that were written with c-r ink difficult to decipher after smearing - especially if the writer’s handwriting is as messy, scrawly, cramped, and rushed as mine And s/he is as careless/clumsy as I am

 

Tl;dr summary

the question that I raised in my first post remains pertinent.

Are we trying to define an ink to use for a governmental archive - one for which the final product must remain legible ‘indefinitely’ and so the price of materials is not constrained?

 

Or are we trying to define an ink to be used by ‘ordinary’ people writing on ‘ordinary’ papers?

If the latter, then for how long do we want the writing to remain legible?

20 years?

100 years?

900 years?

 

Those are different ‘tasks’. They each contain different ‘mission profiles’.

So the answers to the questions above will each lead (imo) one to a different definition of the ‘perfect’ ink.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Mercian

[A Smug Dill]

Thus, it seems to me, based on the existence of inks like Platinum Carbon Black and Sailor Kiwaguro, that we can say that modern ink manufacturers have, roughly 100 years later, nearly perfectly addressed, so far as I can see, the desires for a perfect ink by Carvalho's definition and vision. 

 

What say you? 

 

Now, if we acknowledge that we have this perfect ink, we must then ask the question of whether Carvalho might not have altered his view of what the perfect ink was in our current day?

 

I personally think Platinum Carbon Black is almost the perfect ink, except for two things:

• Sailor Kiwaguro demonstrates that it is possible for a nano-particle black ink to be less apt to feather and/or bleed through than Platinum Carbon Black (which, to be fair, isn't too bad in that regard compared to a number of Noodler's 'bulletproof' inks), and in turn Sailor Seiboku demonstrates that it is possible for a nano-particle ink to be more waterproof than Sailor Kiwaguro (but Platinum Carbon Black outperforms Sailor Seiboku in that regard).
• The red sheen from Sailor Seiboku and Sailor Souboku, which can survive even a sixty-minute bath, is in all likelihood more prominent and less reproducible by exact copy methods than the minimal graphite-like sheen (or shininess) from Platinum Carbon Black, and so I consider them better inks where authenticity of an original document needs to be readily apparent, in the age of relatively high-tech copying.

So, Sailor Souboku is even closer to being the perfect ink (for me) than Platinum Carbon Black, on account of the balance of those two considerations.

 

Affordability is not something I take into account as to whether an ink is good or perfect for a particular application, except if I take the word literally — if I cannot afford to acquire the volume of ink required for the application, then the application cannot succeed. But a cheaper ink with identical qualities is not a 'better' ink for it, only a 'better' choice for the particular user or application if cost is a concern (and/or something to minimise as an objective); and I'm not interested in whether a cheaper ink would allow (or encourage) more users to do more writing in aggregate, or judging the merit of an ink by that social or cultural aspect.

[arcfide]

 

Those are different ‘tasks’. They each contain different ‘mission profiles’.

So the answers to the questions above will each lead (imo) one to a different definition of the ‘perfect’ ink.

 

Thanks for laying out the way you see it, and I think that division is reasonable. I think it's particularly related to the paper choice. Of course, I had thought it must be implied, since we are able to choose inks, then we must likewise be able to choose and are choosing papers. As you point out, in institutions that have decided to continue with traditional vellum paper, the traditional issues with India inks and Carbon inks remains relevant, and the argument in favor of strong, well-balanced iron gall inks seems to continue to be valid. Of course, it should also be noted that even in such cases, the documented issues with iron gall inks on vellum are still present. That is, from the research I have seen, it appears that while vellum and iron gall *can* be archived for a long time, the required steps to ensure its long term survival appears to be quite high, since moisture changes and light appear to be strong triggers for the "bad effects" iron gall inks are often associated with. One page I found specifically points out that the documents that can be seen to have been well preserved and clear versus those that have started to degrade and suffer corrosive effects can often be distinguished by the one having no exposure to strong moisture changes, while the other is often documented to have been exposed to some sort of high moisture changes and light. This puts the choice of vellum paper for preservation into one of those "high maintenance, high effort" categories where it can work if the intention is there from the start, but is unlikely to do well in the "serendipitous" category, even if expense were to be removed from the equation.

 

However, in other cases, I think that we may assume that we are choosing our paper with at least a reasonable degree of care, with at minimum an acid-free paper. I think this greatly improves our chances without much increase in cost, and I think that is a compatible assumption to be made when examining the issue of Carvalho's thoughts on the matter.

 

Under the serendipity principle, I think the question of "how long" can be answered with, "we don't know, and therefore, shouldn't constrain it to less than it could be." I think this is compatible with the idea of "perfect ink" as defined in this thread: an ink which will not suffer any ill effects of either time, light, moisture, or the like.

 

Thus, I think vellum can be considered as a relevant, but niche category that isn't really of much concern for the specific question of documentation, because even the British government is not willing to encode *all* of its archived documents on vellum. Only those that are seen as intentionally to be preserved in perpetuity are given that treatment. This means that we should be able to at the very least assume a base level of quality, archival acid-free paper which is readily available, because otherwise there would be no point in selecting an "enduring ink" when you aren't also at least choosing "enduring paper." to go with it.

[arcfide]

I personally think Platinum Carbon Black is almost the perfect ink, except for two things:

• Sailor Kiwaguro demonstrates that it is possible for a nano-particle black ink to be less apt to feather and/or bleed through than Platinum Carbon Black (which, to be fair, isn't too bad in that regard compared to a number of Noodler's 'bulletproof' inks), and in turn Sailor Seiboku demonstrates that it is possible for a nano-particle ink to be more waterproof than Sailor Kiwaguro (but Platinum Carbon Black outperforms Sailor Seiboku in that regard).
• The red sheen from Sailor Seiboku and Sailor Souboku, which can survive even a sixty-minute bath, is in all likelihood more prominent and less reproducible by exact copy methods than the minimal graphite-like sheen (or shininess) from Platinum Carbon Black, and so I consider them better inks where authenticity of an original document needs to be readily apparent, in the age of relatively high-tech copying.

So, Sailor Souboku is even closer to being the perfect ink (for me) than Platinum Carbon Black, on account of the balance of those two considerations.

 

Affordability is not something I take into account as to whether an ink is good or perfect for a particular application, except if I take the word literally — if I cannot afford to acquire the volume of ink required for the application, then the application cannot succeed. But a cheaper ink with identical qualities is not a 'better' ink for it, only a 'better' choice for the particular user or application if cost is a concern (and/or something to minimise as an objective); and I'm not interested in whether a cheaper ink would allow (or encourage) more users to do more writing in aggregate, or judging the merit of an ink by that social or cultural aspect.

 

You bring up two interesting properties that aren't discussed with any seriousness in Carvalho's work: fraud and feather/bleed. I think you make a reasonable case regarding the Sailor nano inks when dealing with those additional factors, but I think, as you mention, these come at a cost of less penetration into the paper and thus less deeply integrated carbon particles. So, I think I think that by the book's definition, Platinum Carbon Ink would probably still win over the Sailor inks for the simple expedient of being slightly more enduring if less well-behaved (though, as you point out, it's not nearly as misbehaved as CR inks). On the other hand, one might be able to make a reasonable argument that the book's attitudes about fraud and the like might change if written today versus so long ago.

[arcfide]

From my analysis of how Carvalho might have taken CR inks, I strongly suspect that he would have been highly in favor of them. On the other hand, in terms of sheer archival quality, the Carbon inks from Sailor, Platinum, and others are probably still to be considered slightly superior, I suspect, because of the sheer ease with which we can argue their archival qualities. We need not extrapolate much in order to argue in their favor for archiving, and only demonstrate their resistance to traditional ills that plagued carbon inks of the past, which we can do. On the other hand, arguing for Noodler's Bulletproof inks, for instance, requires that we are very confident in the dyes and components used and their ability to resist aging over an extended period of time. While we can probably argue convincingly in favor of them, particularly the Black ink, I doubt anyone can be absolutely assured of their enduring qualities past a relatively short lifespan. I think it's reasonable to expect them to be at least as archivally powerful as a very well made iron gall ink, but this is simply a different class of permanence relative to carbon inks.

 

Given Carvalho's lack of consideration for the value of color in the equation of a perfect ink, I suspect that he would continue to advocate for carbon inks today over the other options, but I do believe that with the CR inks in existence, his stance on "dye-based" inks would likely have changed to admit CR inks as excellent alternatives, particularly for those who are interested in colors but want enduring ink.

 

Based on the taciturn nature of Carvalho's book regarding innovation, I suspect that his conservativism would prevent him from outright praising the golden age of inks in which we seem to live, where it seems you can get nearly every color in so many different forms and qualities, to meet pretty much every need. He would probably continue to lambast the "fugitive inks" and promote instead the strong IG inks such as Registrar's, continue to denigrate the light IG inks, praise the Carbon nano inks as the "best thing since sliced bread", have strong praise for the enduring pigmented inks, and consider the cellulose reactive bulletproof inks as "how colored ink should have always been done" while at the same time complaining about it to one degree or another. At least, that's my interpretation.

[A Smug Dill]

The reasons for rejecting India Ink in his view was that India ink did not properly adhere chemically to the paper, thus making it unsuitable for long term preservation, because "water and a sponge" could be used to wipe away the ink, _...‹snip›... we now have nanoparticle Carbon inks such as Platinum Carbon Black that do suspend the particles in a way previously impossible, and in such a way that the ink penetrates the fibers of the page and adheres in a way that may not have previously been possible.

As I discovered earlier today, even Platinum Carbon Black is subject to mechanical erasure (to an extent) when the page is re-wetted: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/355628-struggling-to-find-a-waterproof-black-for-watercolor-sketches/?p=4357317

[arcfide]

As I discovered earlier today, even Platinum Carbon Black is subject to mechanical erasure (to an extent) when the page is re-wetted: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/355628-struggling-to-find-a-waterproof-black-for-watercolor-sketches/?p=4357317

 

Do you know whether it is possible to do an effective mechanical erasure on any of the modern Carbon inks where the inks are fundamentally removed? I think a little lift-off of the top layer is probably okay, but how easy is it to truly remove enough of the carbon content to be less visible than competing technologies? I know that in theory mechanical erasure is still an issue, but it's not clear to me how feasible it actually is and what the mechanisms have to be to get there.

[A Smug Dill]

Do you know whether it is possible to do an effective mechanical erasure on any of the modern Carbon inks where the inks are fundamentally removed?

 

 

Not without physically breaching the paper surface and leaving artefacts of such damage, I wouldn't think; but there's a difference between ink markings being tamper-evident, and the information content being retrievable and/or discernible, and then again from having all traces of the ink removed physically from the page with or without damage.