Quink, Skrip old vs new

[FDubiel]

sask@toon wrote:
>
> Vintage Sheaffer and Parker inks, yes. And to these two
> you can add vintage Waterman's ink from the same era. The
> modern versions of these inks, however, are a different
> matter. The modern Waterman ink has a definite phenolic
> smell, and the new Sheaffer has a pungent odor that it
> didn't used to have. I can't identify it, but someone
> likened it to the smell of formaldehyde. All I can say is
> that some people can't use the Sheaffer ink because they
> can't stand the smell of it. Both ingredients are probably
> added to inhibit mold growth on the ink after the bottle's
> been opened. I haven't used the new Quink a lot, because I
> like the vibrant color of the Waterman washable blue ink so
> much, but as I recall, it is odorless. Frank says that
> Quink has no additives against mold growth, and he's been
> swearing to that over and over again in another message
> thread here on a.c.p-p.
>
This is a mis-quote. I said there were no special additives in most inks other
than what is normally added to ordinary drinking water. That can include
plenty of things. The point is they are such a tiny trace amount that they can
have no effect on a pen. Most ink relies on simple treated and filtered water
as a base, and beyond testing, not much, if any, treatment beyond whatever the
city water supply offers. In other words water from the tap, thru a filter to
the ink mixing vats. Sheaffer's main pre treatment was spinning in high speed
centriduges to spin out solid matter. Most other companies used a simple
settling tank to allow soilds to settle and then pump ink from the top.
Sheaffer insists there has been no change in the ingredients of Skrip. I
really get tired of saying the same things again and again, but once
more--there are hundreds of different dyes that can be used to make the SAME
ink, and many smell different. (Wetting agents can also smell different, but
only make water wetter and are about a trace .001% or less of ink.) As long
as the color is the same and its in the same family (aniline dye in most
fountain pen inks) its considered the same ingredient. So one batch of Skrip
could have blue dye from one company, another batch from another company
resulting in a different smell. However, the color match (as supported by
color samples from the dye company) and other factors of the dye are certified
by the dye company as the same. I am not aware of formaldehyde being used in
ink. That chemical has a very discintive smell, I am well aware of it as its
used extensively in the textile finishing industry after fabric is dyed. I
spent 20 years smelling it and getting sick of the "you won't have to be
embalmed when you die jokes." I cannot detect even the slightest trace smell
of it in modern Skrip. And I checked 4 bottles all less than a year old tonite
to be sure. Yes, Waterman is a totally different ink from the old US product,
and it does appear to have strong presertative. But Skrip and Quink remain
unchanged--or at least thats what Parker and Sheaffer say. I have seen nor
smelled anything to make me doubt that. True, I perfer vintage ink, however
I'm willing to belive the companies on this one, since I can do a daily side by
side, (and smell by smell) and really see nothing much different--at least not
to the extent that makes me think there is any change beyond dye substition
which is common in the ink industry. In fact there can literally be 100 or
even 1000 different dyes that could be used in the same ink and it would still
meet the same specs. The dyes are changed due to prices set by different dye
companies, shortages, esp since much dye comes from overseas and often third
world areas, political climates, etc. None of it matters as long as, say
Analine Blue #365 is certified as the same as another's companies Analine
HiBlu456d, and still anothers #ADB768. Dyes are really minor elements,
chemically speaking, in ink at any rate, since the ink remains about 98 to 99%
water. Frank

[Paul Faber]

Hi Frank,

I haven't been posting to this group for anywhere near as long as you have,
yet I am also tired of all the misinformation out there regarding ink.

A few weeks ago I started a nice long thread about Sheaffer image problems,
occassioned by a discussion that I had with a salesman (and Omas fan) at a
up-market stationery store. I deliberately did *not* post about the BS I
had to listen to about the "dangers" of Sheaffer ink and the superior
"safety" of Omas ink.

So, I sympathize with you -- but keep up the good work! Your posts on ink
are the best way to educate the newbies. Perhaps you could keep a form
letter on the subject in your e-mail program <g>.

- Paul

FDubiel wrote in message <20000720211933...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...