Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

richardspens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 233 posts

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#51

Post by ajmurmann »

mrob wrote: post #35
flounders wrote: post #23

When I first got into fountain pens, Noodlers was a pretty heavily recommended ink. I wish I had seen this article ten years ago.

Richard Binder specializes in repair and maintenance of old and valuable pens. Recommendations for those pens don't necessarily apply to cheaper modern fountain pens. I've been using Noodler's inks for about 8 years in a Lamy Safari, and I've never had any trouble. The only Noodler's ink I've heard of causing problems with these pens is Bay State Blue, which is unlike any other Noodler's ink. I personally recommend N…

I hear Noodler's House Divided also causes trouble. To be fair they make so many inks, there gotta be some turds.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#52

Post by tzs »

a1369209993 wrote: post #43

Could someone change this to http://richardspens.com/ref/care/inks.htm ? The current link ( http://richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/care/inks.htm ) is a "please allow us to run arbitrary malicious code on your computer" nag page.

That's a serious accusation.

If you actually look at the code it wants to run, there is nothing malicious. It is just a small amount of (clearly written, not at all obfuscated) JavaScript to do innocuous things on the page, such as help with filling out forms, convert between Roman and Arabic numerals, provide a magnifier, and similar things (not all of which are actually used on that particular page).

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#53

Post by TheRealPomax »

mrob wrote: post #35
flounders wrote: post #23

When I first got into fountain pens, Noodlers was a pretty heavily recommended ink. I wish I had seen this article ten years ago.

Richard Binder specializes in repair and maintenance of old and valuable pens. Recommendations for those pens don't necessarily apply to cheaper modern fountain pens. I've been using Noodler's inks for about 8 years in a Lamy Safari, and I've never had any trouble. The only Noodler's ink I've heard of causing problems with these pens is Bay State Blue, which is unlike any other Noodler's ink. I personally recommend N…

Same here, been using it for years in Lamy Safari, Shaeffer 100, and Noodler's own pens, as well as Preppy Platinums. Would I put it in a vintage pen? Absolutely not. Modern <$100 pen? Most definitely.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#54

Post by TheRealPomax »

Feniks wrote: post #9

As someone who writes with his left hand I hate them with a vengeance. Haven't looked at them since primary school.

That... kind of sounds like you need to relearn how to write. Which sounds silly, but there are 100% good ways and bad ways to write (both right and left handed writers suffer from insane 'who taught you to write' hand positions). Learning how to properly hold your pen helps a lot with not smudging ink even when it's a long drying ink.

And not unimportantly, a fountain pen requires writing _without_ any pressure on the pen; the ink gets drawn out simply by there being any kind of contact at all, so if you write with a fountain pen the way you're used to writing with a ballpoint pen, or pencil, both of which require pressing into the paper, you're literally doing things wrong (and probably through no fault of your own other than not having realised there might be different ways you need to write).

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#55

Post by TheRealPomax »

UenoHDTV80 wrote: post #25

If you're not a caligrapher, why bother? Just buy gel pens and get the comfort with way less maintenance.

There is joy in writing. If you want pure efficiency: use a computer, why are you still using pens at all. But if you want to enjoy writing, use whatever makes you enjoy writing, be that the perfect mechanical pencil, gel pens, that parker ballpoint you've been using for 20 years, or a nice fountain pen.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#56

Post by TheRealPomax »

fatbird wrote: post #32

My wife and I both draw with Namiki Falcon fountain pens, which are fantastic, and use Platinum Carbon Black ink, which is a pigmented ink. I don't know if it's nano-particles (i.e., the pigment is ground extremely fine so brownian motion alone is sufficient to maintain dispersion), but we've never experienced clogging, and it has a permanence (and blackness) on par with Noodler's Bulletproof Black. She uses her pen…

Which weight? I had a fine for a while and it was the worst thing to use, it scratched worse than a 4H pencil... (currently using a Bock #6 titanium nib in a $20 Noodler's Konrad and the amount of flex and control is second only to a vintage gold nib).

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#57

Post by sevensor »

freosam wrote: post #34

This articles says that inkjet ink "frequently uses pigment, not dye," but my understanding is that most inkjet inks are actually dye-based, and that you have to somewhat go out of your way to find pigment-based ones (and they cost more). The latter are usually recommended for archival printing purposes (e.g. Epson's "Dura Brite" inks), because they are less likely to fade over time and are better bonded with the pap…

Which one is it that won't run when I put a coffee mug down on my notebook? Because that's the one I want.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#58

Post by a1369209993 »

tzs wrote: post #52
a1369209993 wrote: post #43

Could someone change this to http://richardspens.com/ref/care/inks.htm ? The current link ( http://richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/care/inks.htm ) is a "please allow us to run arbitrary malicious code on your computer" nag page.

That's a serious accusation. If you actually look at the code it wants to run, there is nothing malicious. It is just a small amount of (clearly written, not at all obfuscated) JavaScript to do innocuous things on the page, such as help with filling out forms, convert between Roman and Arabic numerals, provide a magnifier, and similar things (not all of which are actually used on that particular page).

It isn't a accusation in the first place; permission to run javascript at all includes permission to run arbitrary malicious code, and I never claimed (and don't care) whether they actually exploit that perrmission.

And none of that changes the fact that the link is to the wrong page.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#59

Post by rootusrootus »

cyberferret wrote: post #39
UenoHDTV80 wrote: post #25

If you're not a caligrapher, why bother? Just buy gel pens and get the comfort with way less maintenance.

As another commenter mentioned - when writing something meaningful , doing it with a fountain pen adds an air of magic about it. I've just returned from a 'bucket list' overseas trip, and every day, I wrote in a journal about my experiences. Somehow, doing it with a cheap ballpoint doesn't seem as special as sitting down and getting my deepest emotions and thoughts down on paper with a nice fountain pen. To re-frame…

I don't like your analogy much because Windows makes me much less efficient, not more. Everything is more hassle, getting the right tools is a pain, etc. I code primarily on OSX and even though I have PyCharm, I find I go much faster with vim. Yes I am old.

In any case, I love my fountain pen. Not expensive, just a Pilot Metropolitan. I don't have the hand stamina that I did back when I had to handwrite practically everything, so I really appreciate the effortless experience of using a fountain pen.

Re: Fountain pen inks: the good, the bad, and the ugly (2011)

#60

Post by mrob »

tzs wrote: post #52
a1369209993 wrote: post #43

Could someone change this to http://richardspens.com/ref/care/inks.htm ? The current link ( http://richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/care/inks.htm ) is a "please allow us to run arbitrary malicious code on your computer" nag page.

That's a serious accusation. If you actually look at the code it wants to run, there is nothing malicious. It is just a small amount of (clearly written, not at all obfuscated) JavaScript to do innocuous things on the page, such as help with filling out forms, convert between Roman and Arabic numerals, provide a magnifier, and similar things (not all of which are actually used on that particular page).

The page is served over HTTP, so it's permission for anybody who might happen to MITM your connection to run whatever code they like.
Post reply on HN