Does Quink ink corrode fountain pens?
Philip Cook
I have been told by a number of salespersons in penshops in London
(UK) that you shouldn't use Quink ink in non-Parker fountain pens. I
was told that this was because Parker add a cleaning solution to the
ink which corrodes the insides of other pens. Some people have told
me that Parker design their pens so that they can withstand this
chemical, others have told me that they don't recommend Quink even for
Parkers for the same reason. I've acquired a few fountain pens over
time trying to find one that works for me, and would like to know if I
could use Quink ink particularly in a Lamy 2000, Sheaffer Legacy, and
Waterman Carene (and whether it is safe to use in Parkers too). I've
looked through this newsgroup to try to find clues to this and haven't
yet, and so would be grateful to anyone who could offer advice.
Thanks in advance.
Phil.
fdu...@aol.com
Whoever told you this is a total idiot and has no business selling pens
to anyone. You can quote me. ALL inks have a cleaning soulution. NO
ink on earth could work properly without one. Its really a wetting
agent without which no ink could be made to flow. Parker had advertised
their solv-x more than others, but Waterman ink and MB ink and Sheaffer
ink also have on occasion bragged how their cleaning agent helps clean
pens. Its a total non issue and its sad to see such total baloney being
spread by people who obviously have no knowledge of pens and inks yet
are employed to sell them. You could soak any pen on earth in Quink for
50-100 years and the damage other than an eventual stain from the inks
dyes would be no more than damage if it was soaked in pure well filtered
water for the same time. BTW tyis silly issue comes up here every few
months, so I don't think you looked very hard. :) No big deal, but
PLEASE go back and tell these fools about the BS they are spiting out.
You can again, quote me, since I am speaking as one who ran ink and dye
labs for 20 years. Frank
Ron Natalie
Philip Cook wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have been told by a number of salespersons in penshops in London
> (UK) that you shouldn't use Quink ink in non-Parker fountain pens. I
> was told that this was because Parker add a cleaning solution to the
> ink which corrodes the insides of other pens.
This seems to be a mismosh of lots of ink issues and lore. First off,
I don't think there's any problem with Quink in any pen. A long time
ago, Parker made this Ink called Superchrome. Not only was it extrememly
quick drying it was corrosive to a lot of pen materials. The Parker 51
pen was perhaps the only pen that could safely use it. Superchrome hasn't
been made in years.
The other Parker inks were Penman and Quink. Penman is one of the thickest
inks around and has a reputation for causing clogging and stain problems.
Never heard anything about corrosion from either one. Their PH's aren't
out of line. Blue Quink is proclaimed by Pendemonium as being "one of
the safest inks around" and she's repaired/restored enough pens to be able
to make an informed comment.
As for the "cleaning solution" I was initially confused at that, but then
figured what they are referring to is a wetting agent. This essentially
is something that decreases the surface tension (and yes common soap is
a wetting agent) letting the ink flow better. I don't know about Quink
but the Sheaffer inks have this and I like the property. Other than
slightly raising the pH, I don't think it will lead to corrosion.
The biggest issue with Quink is that it's kind of bland in it's color
offerings: Permanent Black, Washable Blue, Permanent Blue-Black. I think
they might have added two more now that Penman has been discontinued.
soofuu
Quink.
I also liked to use Quink because it's cheap and I can purchase it
almost everywhere.
But from my personal experience, I won't recommend to use Quink. After
I put it to my L2K, ink flow bacame noticeably sluggish. Same happened
to Carene before. Namiki VP was Ok.
p.a....@lse.ac.uk (Philip Cook) wrote in message news:<ed7865a5.02041...@posting.google.com>...
fdu...@aol.com
>
> I've heard that Penman ink does corrode some other maker's pen, not
> Quink.
> I also liked to use Quink because it's cheap and I can purchase it
> almost everywhere.
> But from my personal experience, I won't recommend to use Quink. After
> I put it to my L2K, ink flow bacame noticeably sluggish. Same happened
> to Carene before. Namiki VP was Ok.
There is no way Quink could cause sluggish flow in a properly made and
adjusted pen. Either there is something wrong with the above pens, or
its a random problem caused by many possible factors, none of which
could be releated to Quink. Penman is another story, and like the old
Superchrome, is best left where it belongs--in gallon buckets at Home
depot. :) However, Penman won't really corrode a pen, it may just
stain or clog it badly. Sometimes the crystals it forms of dried dye
looks like corrosion, but its not. Frank
fdu...@aol.com
However, Penman won't really corrode a pen, it may just
> stain or clog it badly. Sometimes the crystals it forms of dried dye
> looks like corrosion, but its not. Frank
Perhaps this should be explained more. No modern ink, even Superchrome,
really corrodes a pen. Corrosion is caused simply by water. All ink
is 99% or so water. Its possible more salts in the water from
chemicals or dyes could slightly increase corrosion, although thats
more theory than a major concern. However--when an ink forms a dried or
moist curst of dyes or gunk on parts of a pen, something Penman and
Superchrome
are noted for, that crust can trap mositure. Since the trapped mositure
doesn't evaporate quickly the chances of corrosion increase. Its still
caused by water, but the problem is greater if the moisture is trapped
in contact with something by a crust. Frank
BLandolf
> ... No modern ink, even Superchrome, really corrodes a pen.
> Corrosion is caused simply by water ... when an ink forms a dried or
> moist curst of dyes or gunk on parts of a pen, something Penman and
> Superchrome are noted for, that crust can trap mositure. Since the
> trapped mositure doesn't evaporate quickly the chances of corrosion
> increase. Its still caused by water ....
This sounds a bit off to me. Superchrome corroded the material out of
which pen barrels were made (e.g., celluloid), which is what led
Parker to start using Lucite for the 51 in the first place. If water
had been the culprit then 1) all ink-in-barrel pens (Parker vac
fillers, Sheaffer plunger fillers, etc.) would have shown a high
susceptibility to corrosion (which they didn't), and 2) Parker would
have abandoned celluloid before the advent of Superchrome (which they
didn't). Parker went in search of a corrosion-resistant material
because of Superchrome's corrosiveness.
In their wonderful 2000 PENnant article*, Daniel Zazove and Michael
Fultz mention that Superchrome is of alkali composition. Strong
alkaline solutions can, of course, be quite caustic ... more so than
water (which has a neutral pH).
So .... What made Superchrome alkaline, and could that have been
responsible for its corrosiveness?
As for Penman, I just checked Greg Clark's ink sampler, and Penman
inks are pretty neutral or non-alkaline. Furthermore, Penman was
really never associated with corrosion. It fell out of favor because
of its high staining potential and tendency to clog feeds.
Regards,
Bernadette
* http://www.pencollectors.com/pennant/fall00/shakehand.html
Philip Cook
Dear All,
Thanks to everyone for taking the trouble to answer my question. I
certainly trust the accumulated knowledge here and so will use Parker
Quink confidently. I'm sorry to raise an issue that you have
discussed previously, but I enjoyed reading the responses from such an
expert community.
Phil.
fdu...@aol.com
>
> <fdu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ... No modern ink, even Superchrome, really corrodes a pen.
> > Corrosion is caused simply by water ... when an ink forms a dried or
> > moist curst of dyes or gunk on parts of a pen, something Penman and
> > Superchrome are noted for, that crust can trap mositure. Since the
> > trapped mositure doesn't evaporate quickly the chances of corrosion
> > increase. Its still caused by water ....
>
> This sounds a bit off to me. Superchrome corroded the material out of
> which pen barrels were made (e.g., celluloid), which is what led
> Parker to start using Lucite for the 51 in the first place. If water
> had been the culprit then 1) all ink-in-barrel pens (Parker vac
> fillers, Sheaffer plunger fillers, etc.) would have shown a high
> susceptibility to corrosion (which they didn't), and 2) Parker would
> have abandoned celluloid before the advent of Superchrome (which they
> didn't). Parker went in search of a corrosion-resistant material
> because of Superchrome's corrosiveness.
>
Like there were pen cops back then to prevent Superchrome from being
used in any other pen??? No matter what Parker warned, it was. Esp in
Vacs, in spite of Parkers "warning", which was really an ad campaign to
make the 51 and the ink sound special. Many companies even advertised
their pens could use Superchrome, even Sheaffer said their pens were OK
with it in their service manuals, although the manuals would go on to
warn of stains and clogs. Fact is Superchrome was used successfully in
most any and all pens back then. The results varied, as with Penman.
The distinctive Supechrome stained color is common and well known to any
pen repairman and is often found in any pen by any company of the era. I
have never seen any plastic corroded in any way by Superchrome in my
life. Badly stained, gunked and caked up, perhaps stuck together so
well its virtually glued together, but not really corroded.
Superchorme was not new, it was bascially repackaged "51" ink. Parker
advertised that as being used only in 51s, but again it was used in all
pens. Those inks only difference was dye content 3-4 times higher than
normal, and more wetting agents to help the gunk flow. Parker stopped
making the sutff because they found it badly clogged the difficult to
clean 61. That info is in Da Book of course, and has been confirmed to
me by several Parker people from back then. It was obviously
unacceptable to Parker to warn uses of the 61 not to use Superchrome.
The one corrosion problem seems to have been the sterling silver
breather tubes in the early 51s. That alloy coated with ink crust
corroded badly in some pens. Even when not used with Superchrome. So
they switched to plastic tubes. Frank
PENMART01
writes:
>As for Penman, I just checked Greg Clark's ink sampler, and Penman
>inks are pretty neutral or non-alkaline. Furthermore, Penman was
>really never associated with corrosion. It fell out of favor because
>of its high staining potential and tendency to clog feeds.
But not everyone... fortunately I still have five full bottles, two Mocha, two
Emerald and one Ebony... plus one of each that are works in progress. I've
experienced zero clogs and staining to no greater degree than with other inks.
After forty some odd years as a master tool and diemaker it's been my
experience that some folks just seem to experience problems of a greater
magnitude and with a greater degree of frequency with everything they touch,
whereas their ratio of occurance from the general population has been constant
since time immemorial and will continue to be so into the future, forever.
Whenever encountering such individuals, and they are easy to recognize, do not
ever permit them to come into physical contact with any of any of your
possessions... I'm positive those of you who don't seem to experience
unexplainable mishaps have a best friend who when they ask to borrow one of
your power tools you insist on doing the job for them.
It should be interesting to poll how many who perform pen repairs for others on
a regular basis find themselves needing the same repairs with their own pens.
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
fdu...@aol.com
> But not everyone... fortunately I still have five full bottles, two Mocha, two
> Emerald and one Ebony... plus one of each that are works in progress. I've
> experienced zero clogs and staining to no greater degree than with other inks.
> After forty some odd years as a master tool and diemaker it's been my
> experience that some folks just seem to experience problems of a greater
> magnitude and with a greater degree of frequency with everything they touch,
> whereas their ratio of occurance from the general population has been constant
> since time immemorial and will continue to be so into the future, forever.
> Whenever encountering such individuals, and they are easy to recognize, do not
> ever permit them to come into physical contact with any of any of your
> possessions... I'm positive those of you who don't seem to experience
> unexplainable mishaps have a best friend who when they ask to borrow one of
> your power tools you insist on doing the job for them.
>
> It should be interesting to poll how many who perform pen repairs for others on
> a regular basis find themselves needing the same repairs with their own pens.
>
I'd have to pretty much agree with Sheldon on this. As long as a well
designed pen is properly adjusted and maintained properly just about any
ink can be used in any pen for long periods with no problems. The
problems show up faster on pens somehow out of wack or with pen users
who really don't know or sometimes even care how to use and maintain a
pen. This includes adjusting, occasional rinsing, not allowing the ink
to dry in a pen, not leaving it uncapped too long without writing (a few
mins is the max for me), keeping the insides of the cap clean and dry,
keeping the ink bottle tightly closed, cleaning the nib properly after
filling and so on. As I've admitted before I have used Penman myself.
Yes, it would and did clog or dry out faster than other inks for me if I
kept it in the same pen for weeks without writing out the ink therein.
But when used up in a few days, it never gave me problems at all.
However, the fact is I don't write that much and its common for me to
fill a pen and since its one of many pens I have filled, that filling
may last a month or even a few months for me. Thats really too long
for an intense ink in many pens, and its where Skrip really does its
best. I've left the same filling of Skrip in a pen over a year with no
problems at all. It will write darker after so long, but otherwise its
fine. I don't think Penman could stand up to that. Frank
Ron Natalie
fdu...@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps this should be explained more. No modern ink, even Superchrome,
> really corrodes a pen. Corrosion is caused simply by water.
If you are talking about metals in the pen (there are other forms of
corrosion, but water is the primary culprit in the common corrosion
involved).
Further more the trapping of water in an area where corrosion has
already started forms what is called in the materials science as
a concentration cell which can cause additional problems.
However, the other comment about Superchrome is that it attacked
celluloid (technically corrosion, corrosion is any removal or
conversion of material by interaction with its environment),
which was (if you believe the Parker hype) the reason for the
51's use of Lucite.
fdu...@aol.com
> However, the other comment about Superchrome is that it attacked
> celluloid (technically corrosion, corrosion is any removal or
> conversion of material by interaction with its environment),
> which was (if you believe the Parker hype) the reason for the
> 51's use of Lucite.
As I said since, I have seen literally 1000s of Vac barrels with dried
Superchrome in them. I never saw any corrosion at all in the celluloid.
Same goes for 1000s of Sheaffer transpapent barrel piston fillers,
although far less than transparent after Superchrome as with Vacs. I
won't say I have never seen plastic in a pen damaged by some liquid, but
in virtually all cases there was no telltale sign it was from ink.
Obviously there is no way to know what the pen may have been filled with
either to write or clean it, be it paint, lacquer, mineral spirits,
paint thinner, alcohol or for all I know yak urine. Frank
Juan
This issue has been already treated, but I hope Philip has got his
question answered. Frank is an amazing database on fountain pens and
inks, but again I find him labeling someone as a "total idiot". Sure,
those guys are the ones who keep pen urban legends alive, but maybe it
is not his/her fault, so I don't think that kind of language is
necessary. Pens are used to show our language after all.
Sorry, Frank, but your opinions would sound (even) more interesting if
expressed in a different way
Juan
PENMART01
Another brand new fucking newbie greenhorn fresh off the banana boat, eh... yer
one day on the net and already you're thinking yer entitled to special
dispensation.
fdu...@aol.com
> Sorry, Frank, but your opinions would sound (even) more interesting if
> expressed in a different way
> Juan
Hey Juan--do I tell you how to talk and what to say? I really don't
care to have you tell me either. OK? Frank
William Bruce
care to have you tell me either. OK? Frank"
This is an amusing response from someone who squeals like a stuck pig when
someone disagrees with his pompous posts to this newsgroup.
Juan
Ok, Frank. Again your language proves what i said before. Next time,
don't try to mend it. You may believe it or not, but I still find your
knowledge and opinions on pens extremely interesting. It's only the
way you treat other people's opinions that upsets me. Sorry that this
bugs you.
Juan
<Thaddeus L.
>or for all I know yak urine. Frank
Hey, it makes great invisible ink. Allthough it does advertise the
fact that there is some invisible ink being used.
<Thaddeus L.
>However, Penman won't really corrode a pen, it may just
>stain or clog it badly. Sometimes the crystals it forms of dried dye
>looks like corrosion, but its not. Frank
Not corrode, but I've seen it erode a pen.
The crystals dry up in channels and exert pressure causing the
channels to widen. Like water flowing into a crack and then freezing,
makeing the crack larger.
I've seen one nib where the crystals exerted enough pressure to force
the nib slightly away from the feed.
geert
"Juan" <jjtele...@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:500c2486.02041...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
> > >
>>>but maybe it is not his/her fault,
>>>so I don't think that kind of language is necessary
Sorry Juan, that won't wash, since Philip wrote about salespersons.
Call me old-fashioned, but if someone sells something
I expect him/her to have a good knowledge about what
he/she is selling. For all I know the same salesperson(s)
might advise the use of indian drawing ink or
ink for rubber stamps in fountain pens.
Geert
fdu...@aol.com
Great post! I hadn't remembered that, but its 100% correct. Thanks
for mentioning it. Frank
fdu...@aol.com
>
> Ok, Frank. Again your language proves what i said before. Next time,
> don't try to mend it. You may believe it or not, but I still find your
> knowledge and opinions on pens extremely interesting. It's only the
> way you treat other people's opinions that upsets me. Sorry that this
> bugs you.
What bugs me is you cannot mind your own damn business since what I say
is none of yours plain and simple. Mind your own manners--not mine.
Anyone selling pens giving out crap like what was posted is a TOTAL
IDIOT and has no business selling pens. How would you feel it if a car
salesman told you that filling your car with Shell gas would corrode the
engine unles you had a Ford in which cases the engines are designed for
Shell? Same style mis-information and an equally total idiot.
Perhaps you don't care if sales people lie or mislead you--but they are
PAID to tell you the facts and knowledge you need to have to use the
product. Frank
fdu...@aol.com
>
> Sorry Juan, that won't wash, since Philip wrote about salespersons.
> Call me old-fashioned, but if someone sells something
> I expect him/her to have a good knowledge about what
> he/she is selling. For all I know the same salesperson(s)
> might advise the use of indian drawing ink or
> ink for rubber stamps in fountain pens.
Perfect point. The next pen salesman could tell you to clean your pen
with pain thinner perhaps, or boiling water, or gasoline. Its one thing
to make a minor mistake, but I never met anyone in my life that knew the
slightest thing about pens that would even dream Parker makes its pens
any different for anything in Quink. Thanks Geert. Frank
Juan
I agree with you, (and I also agree with Frank, even if he doesn't
believe me), but I have also found people who have been selling pens
for ages who think and act the same way. That's why I apreciate ALL
the info I get from this group.
Now, let's think... If any of you tell me not to wash my celluloid
pens with acetone, You can be sure that I won't do that. What if a lot
of guys tell you not to use parker ink in a non parker pen? Would you
do it?, or would you give the pen a try?. Those salespersons are doing
their job the way they think is right. Of course, they're wrong, and
we could tell them that parker ink is not different from any other fp
ink.
As Frank said, the solv used in Quink is present in every fp ink. My
opinion is that the origin of that urban legend lies in the fact that
Parker puts "with solv X" in their boxes, which seems to make it
different from other inks.
john cline ii
As opposed to Mont Blanc who advertises its inks as containing SC21
(SuperCleaner 21)?
By the way, many in the pen business, who should and often do know
better, advise that one should NEVER use ink that is more than a year
old. Just to be careful because the salespeople are doing what they
think is right, you wouldn't use vintage ink? Just what happens to ink
in exactly one year? (as opposed to a century!) About as credible as
Quink damaging pens (I seem to remember an Omas repairman just
insisting that Quink damaged Omas's special goo used to weld the dern
things together!) Ever occur to you that motives are here: sell more
ink, avoid warranty repairs, sell one's own brand?
By the way, new Quink packaging makes no reference to Solv-xx or any
other cleaner...that doesn't mean it doesn't have any. Wetting agents
are a necessary ingredient in ALL fountain pen inks.
john cline ii who learned a long time ago that many if not most
salespeople are about the least reliable source of product information
and have either goals of their own or precious little knowledge--this
what makes the Sams and the Chucks and the Normans and the Ann Marie's
of the world so special, to just to name a few!
Zippy
Geez, why do you get so upset with a guy who's agreeing with you? Is
your day not going well?
Sabine & Johan
"john cline ii" <jwciit...@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:wb1w8.1133$uV...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> By the way, new Quink packaging makes no reference to Solv-xx or any
> other cleaner
Yes, it does. At least my box of Quink Turquoise mentions SOLV-X (R)
explicitely. But it doesn't say that it is a cleaner, color enhancer,
anti-mold agent or just soap.
john cline ii
"Sabine & Johan" <jth...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:a9r4jc$jnm$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
> "john cline ii" wrote:
> > By the way, new Quink packaging makes no reference to Solv-xx or
any
> > other cleaner
>
> Yes, it does. At least my box of Quink Turquoise mentions SOLV-X (R)
> explicitely. But it doesn't say that it is a cleaner, color enhancer,
> anti-mold agent or just soap.
Is this the newest packaging? If so, it is possible there are
international differences. By the way, in the US turquoise isn't even
available any more, unless it was JUST added! The Qunik marketed in
North America is made in the UK and does not have any references to
SOLV-X on the box. (I believe Frank has told us in the past that at
the US Plant it was actually ALL liquid laundry detergent, sometimes
referred to as A 2 L (A and two l's, get it?)
john cline ii who remembers a subtle difference between Quink turquoise
and Sheaffer Peacock Blue (just saying peacock blue as a youngster
would get one in a lot of trouble at my grade school!)
Juan
When someone in this group mentioned a MOntblanc Redneck LE...was it
meant to be a joke??. Obviously pen maker don't have u in mind
(luckily) when designing something like a Omas MILORD for example
john cline ii
"Juan" wrote in part:
> When someone in this group mentioned a MOntblanc Redneck LE...was it
> meant to be a joke??. Obviously pen maker don't have u in mind
> (luckily) when designing something like a Omas MILORD for example
I wouldn't be so sure. As a matter of fact, I think "My, Lord!" was
very close to the reaction I had when I saw the thing and its price!
john cline ii who hasn't run for his room in a very long time...
Philip Pemberton
news:925c8355.0204...@posting.google.com...
> I've heard that Penman ink does corrode some other maker's pen, not
> Quink.
> I also liked to use Quink because it's cheap and I can purchase it
> almost everywhere.
> But from my personal experience, I won't recommend to use Quink. After
> I put it to my L2K, ink flow bacame noticeably sluggish. Same happened
> to Carene before. Namiki VP was Ok.
Hmm... Never noticed that when I used the "double size" Quink cartridges
(washable blue) in my Parker Frontier (translucent blue). I have since
switched to Pelikan 4001 "Brilliant Black" and it (my Frontier) does seem to
feed ink better. Maybe that's just because I gave it a good clean first,
though.
Once again, 4001 is what I use and it works for me. YMMV.
Later.
--
Phil.
phi...@bigfoot.com
http://www.philpem.btinternet.co.uk/
Vincent Fatica
<jwciit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>sometimes
>referred to as A 2 L (A and two l's, get it?)
I visited Parker/Janesville many times. At that time (~1980) they called it
"A eleven". It was never suggested to me that it was put into ink. I'm not
up-to-date on the history of laundry detergent but I wouldn't be surprised
if "Solv-X" pre-dates "All".
- Vince
fdu...@aol.com
>
> I visited Parker/Janesville many times. At that time (~1980) they called it
> "A eleven". It was never suggested to me that it was put into ink. I'm not
> up-to-date on the history of laundry detergent but I wouldn't be surprised
> if "Solv-X" pre-dates "All".
It probably does. I'm sure they used many other things over the years,
more so now that Quink is not made in Janesville. A eleven is easy to
say. How does one easily say A-Roman numeral II? Although I've heard
it called simply A2 by Parker people. Workers at Parker dipped every
nib/feed/section in this stuff to promote easy flow upon the very first
inking. As usual this ain't rocket science and just about any sort of
wetting agent can and does work fine in ink. BTW it was around 1980, or
3-4 years earlier that Parker stopped making bottled Quink in the US,
except for cartridges. All bottled US Quink was discontinued for
several years but resumed just after 1980 or so. I have a few Parker
catalogs from the era and the only fountain pen ink listed is Quink blue
and black cartridges. Nothing else. Frank
john cline ii
<fdu...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3CC17C...@aol.com...
Wasn't this during the dreaded Manpower days? When they wanted to turn
Parker into a mass marketer of cheap pens, a la Bic?
john cline ii who thinks, bad as they were, Gillette was miles better
for Parker than was Manpower
Sabine & Johan
> Is this the newest packaging? If so, it is possible there are
> international differences. By the way, in the US turquoise isn't even
> available any more, unless it was JUST added!
Sorry, my fault! It is actually an old bottle.
But I don't have any new Quink, so I cannot compare.
Turquoise isn't available here anymore too.
Johan
(who misread your post and thought you were talking about any Quink bottle)
Reuben S. Pitts III
I hadn't thought about the interruption of bottled ink production in a while. I
lived in Europe in 1981-83, but came to the States about 3 times a year. When I
realized that bottled ink was disappearing from the shelves of my local stores, I
started buying ink at every opportunity in Italy, France, and Great Britain. I
didn't realize how much I had accumulated until we were ready to pack to move home
and I must have had over a hundred bottes. At least a two month supply!! ;-)
After moving back, I visited Fahrney's one day and was given the usual line about
not using ink that was more than a year old---the clerk even carefully dated the
box I bought that day (Mont Blank Royal Blue). When I got home, I threw away all
but a few bottles I kept for souvenirs. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. We still only have
basic inks here in Fredericksburg, VA, but the internet has opened vast new color
horizons. Now I can get what I want from any one of many sources, but have to
admit that I'm an Aurora Blue sort of guy. Thanks for the reminder. I just
opened my spare drawer and found a bottle of Mont Blanc Royal blue with a price
tag from Selfridges in London. The price is smeared and I can't read the it, but I
do remember it was cheap compared to US prices. One forgets how bad it was for
pen folks from about 1975 to 1990 or so.
Reuben
Vincent Fatica
several colors of Quink from the 1950's which I found in 1980 in the
basement of a derelict stationery store. I also use turquoise Quink that
goes back to the 70's and several vintages of permanent blue Quink from the
mid 70's up to a couple of months ago.
- Vince
fdu...@aol.com
>
> Frank,
>
> I hadn't thought about the interruption of bottled ink production in a while. I
> lived in Europe in 1981-83, but came to the States about 3 times a year. When I
> realized that bottled ink was disappearing from the shelves of my local stores, I
> started buying ink at every opportunity in Italy, France, and Great Britain. I
> didn't realize how much I had accumulated until we were ready to pack to move home
> and I must have had over a hundred bottes. At least a two month supply!! ;-)
> After moving back, I visited Fahrney's one day and was given the usual line about
> not using ink that was more than a year old---the clerk even carefully dated the
> box I bought that day (Mont Blank Royal Blue). When I got home, I threw away all
> but a few bottles I kept for souvenirs. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. We still only have
> basic inks here in Fredericksburg, VA, but the internet has opened vast new color
> horizons. Now I can get what I want from any one of many sources, but have to
> admit that I'm an Aurora Blue sort of guy. Thanks for the reminder. I just
> opened my spare drawer and found a bottle of Mont Blanc Royal blue with a price
> tag from Selfridges in London. The price is smeared and I can't read the it, but I
> do remember it was cheap compared to US prices. One forgets how bad it was for
> pen folks from about 1975 to 1990 or so.
There was never a US lasp in production of bottled ink since Sheaffer
never stopped making Skrip. By the mid 1970s it was only Skrip and
Quink still being made. Then Quink production was stopped. In the US,
I don't know about foreign markets. But Skrip continued on in blue,
blue-black, black and red. There was no ink but Skrip. It sold for
49cents or less. Many stores still had the older stock marked 29 or 25
or 19 cents a bottle in fact. For that matter old Waterman, Caters,
Sanford and Quink was still somewhat easy to find at the original prices
of around 25 cents or less each 25 years ago. Many stores would sell it
in bulk for far less, some gave it away for free for the asking. I
know. I asked. :) I received sealed cases of ink free from several
stores. Hell, no one else wanted it and fountain pens appeared to dead
for all time. Then Cliff Lawrence wrote a book. A few years later a
pen show was held in Chicago. Shorthly after a show was run in NJ. Six
months later Pier Gustsfson and myself ran one in Boston... Frank
<Thaddeus L.
<rpi...@va.prestige.net> wrote:
>Frank,
>
>I hadn't thought about the interruption of bottled ink production in a while. I
>lived in Europe in 1981-83, but came to the States about 3 times a year. When I
>realized that bottled ink was disappearing from the shelves of my local stores, I
>started buying ink at every opportunity in Italy, France, and Great Britain. I
>didn't realize how much I had accumulated until we were ready to pack to move home
>and I must have had over a hundred bottes. At least a two month supply!! ;-)
>After moving back, I visited Fahrney's one day and was given the usual line about
>not using ink that was more than a year old---the clerk even carefully dated the
>box I bought that day (Mont Blank Royal Blue). When I got home, I threw away all
>but a few bottles I kept for souvenirs. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. We still only have
>basic inks here in Fredericksburg, VA, but the internet has opened vast new color
>horizons. Now I can get what I want from any one of many sources, but have to
>admit that I'm an Aurora Blue sort of guy. Thanks for the reminder. I just
>opened my spare drawer and found a bottle of Mont Blanc Royal blue with a price
>tag from Selfridges in London. The price is smeared and I can't read the it, but I
>do remember it was cheap compared to US prices. One forgets how bad it was for
>pen folks from about 1975 to 1990 or so.
>
Boy you got stung really bad!
At least most salesmen push the myth that it goes bad one year after
opening, you didn't even get the after opening part!
I suppose that salespeople have to say something. Especially with open
bottles, not properly closed, that:
1) Allow in mold spores.
2) Allow evaporation of water.
A year wouldn't be a bad estimate, after all salespeople are trained
to deal with morons not intelligent people.
<Thaddeus L.
> By the mid 1970s it was only Skrip and
>Quink still being made. Then Quink production was stopped. In the US,
>I don't know about foreign markets. But Skrip continued on in blue,
>blue-black, black and red. There was no ink but Skrip. It sold for
>49cents or less. Many stores still had the older stock marked 29 or 25
>or 19 cents a bottle in fact. For that matter old Waterman, Caters,
>Sanford and Quink was still somewhat easy to find at the original prices
>of around 25 cents or less each 25 years ago. Many stores would sell it
>in bulk for far less, some gave it away for free for the asking. I
>know. I asked. :) I received sealed cases of ink free from several
>stores. Hell, no one else wanted it and fountain pens appeared to dead
>for all time. Then Cliff Lawrence wrote a book. A few years later a
>pen show was held in Chicago. Shorthly after a show was run in NJ. Six
>months later Pier Gustsfson and myself ran one in Boston... Frank
Can someone put dates on these? I'd like to correlate them to my fp
use.
fdu...@aol.com
>
Lawrence book 1977. 1978 Lawrence forms Pen Fanciers Club, PFC holds
some small local pen shows in private homes, church basements, VFW halls
and such 1979-82. Chicago, after some in home meetings about 1982-4.
(held at a race track grandstand) NJ (Day's Inn, Newark)1984, Boston
first show announcd 1984, held 1985, Midtown Hotel, downtown Boston. LA
show first held 1986. Dates are best I can recall, should be correct
within a year or so. Frank