Colorverse Blue Moon (Goldspot Pens Exclusive)

[Matthew TWP]

As I was thumbing through one of my swatch books recently, I realized that I had never seen this ink mentioned anywhere else on the internet, so I thought that I might as well do it myself. It might be neglected because it's a store exclusive, or it might be because it's just an unremarkable ink. That's what I'm leaning towards. 

 

 

This ink comes in a standard 30ml Colorverse bottle and modest box (for Colorverse), with blue moon-themed labels, which I like quite a bit. It cost $16, which is dramatically less than I paid for "Supernova", for example, but still not exactly thrifty.

 

 

The ink itself is a pale, thin blue that leans slightly green. On ink friendly papers it shades nicely with some very green areas, but on standard printer paper, it's very flat and is bordering on "powdery".

 

 

Below, the papers are Rhodia (left) and Triomphe.

 

Here is 52gsm Tomoe River, a bit closer.

 

I thought that I would look through my ink collection and find a dozen different pale blues that are similar, but I was surprised to discover that most of my light blues are much more green... though I admit that I don't really collect pale blues, as a rule. 

 

Below, I've included the Diamine Blue Velvet for reference as a medium blue. Most of them are quite a bit more saturated than Blue Moon.

 

 

In general, the ink is fairly well behaved when writing. I did see a tiny bit of feathering on the HP paper, but that's to be expected with any ink. Dry time was moderate, and flow is medium. Surface tension isn't great, and I didn't have much luck with a flex nib. But, because the ink is so thin, there's quite a bit of variation in the ink's appearance depending on the pen's flow and nib size. In a wet pen or dip pen, this ink looks like a normal, medium blue. In a dryer pen, I get heavy shading and difficult-to-read thin spots. 

 

 

 

 

 

So, there you have it. Those of you who are in distant lands and don't order from Goldspot now know what you're missing (or not missing, as the case may be).  For my part, I like the ink just fine, but I'm not crazy about it. I almost never use it. But I'm glad that it's part of my collection. 

 

Oh, and there's no water resistance to speak of, as far as I can tell. A few drops of water on a page written the day before ends up like this after about 30 seconds:

 

 

[LizEF]

Thank you for another review.  I always enjoy the pretty pictures, even when I don't find the ink particularly appealing.

[lapis]

Thanks for this nice, well-written and illustrated review. The colour itself isn't at all that  "bad" (no, you didn't say it was "bad") but I too see no big merits in it. First thing I thought of was the LE "Montblanc for BMW", also a "nice" medium blue with some green in it, but IMO nothing really special. Above all, simply 'cuz there really are a few blues out there in the ball field.

[mizgeorge]

Thank you for a nice review. I actually think it looks a perfectly serviceable ink, and one that I'd probably use if it behaved a little better. It's not, however, one that I'd go out of my way to get, and I would certainly have to. 

 

So no temptation there for me!

[Matthew TWP]

Thanks! I think it's a nice ink, and I like the shading. It's too pale for me for everyday use, but for anyone who wants a light blue ink with some odd shading sometimes and doesn't happen to already have a similar ink, this one is as good as any. 

[wvbeetlebug]

Thanks for the review. I thought it looked a lot like JHerbin Bleu Pervanche. 

[Matthew TWP]

4 hours ago, wvbeetlebug said:

Thanks for the review. I thought it looked a lot like JHerbin Bleu Pervanche. 

They do look very similar in my photos, definitely. In real life, the Colorverse is a little more blue, and the color is not as even... it's a bit more mottled and not as saturated. Still, a lot of similarity.