Another Baystate Blue anecote? Or?

[mhosea]

I'm an evidence-based guy. I try not to jump to conclusions, and at times I suspect this had made me seem like a partisan, which is actually not the case.

I had BSB in my TWSBI Diamond 540 for a few months, wrote with it at least a little bit a few times every week, and I even flushed the feed a couple of times in that length of time and diluted the ink a little. The ink from the original fill was not tossed, rather "recycled" when the pen was cleaned. Then I decided it was time to give the pen a thorough cleaning and rotate it out of service for awhile, and I decided to inspect it for any deleterious effects. On the pen I found none, not even staining. It's fine. However, this is what the feed looked like

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7583/15637007803_189e29e774_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pPMKCP)

Was the feed always pitted like that? Is the plastic "defective"? Or is was this pitting caused by BSB? The problem with anecdotes is that one really can't answer questions like that (except that the "defective plastic" question might be answerable with further study if one has the lab for it). I think I'm going to cut the feed from a much cheaper pen in half and expose half of it to BSB and half to Waterman Blue, with part of the feed exposed to air, maybe shake them up occasionally...see what happens.

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

All I can offer in return is another anecdote. I've been using my own TWSBI 540 as my Baystate Blue pen for not quite two years now. There is no pitting. There has been cracking, but I don't blame the ink for that, especially as the newest crack is a part of the pen that doesn't contact ink at all.

I have cleaned the pen exactly one time in the two years I've owned it, so I don't know if that makes a difference?

[Neo]

Mike, I for one, am eagerly waiting for the results of your experiment. Anecdotes are not really scientific, after all.

[Jon Szanto]

We've been down this road before: one of the main difficulties in nailing it all down is that fact that the batches of Nathan's ink change, and what might have a bad effect on one pen might not exist in a different batch of ink.

[mhosea]

We've been down this road before: one of the main difficulties in nailing it all down is that fact that the batches of Nathan's ink change, and what might have a bad effect on one pen might not exist in a different batch of ink.

Sure. I bought this bottle on August 27, 2014 from Marketfair Stationery on Amazon. I can't know how old it is, obviously, but it isn't a bottle that I've had lying about for several years. AFAIK, the "different batch" explanation is so far only a "brainstorming" type explanation, one that gets tossed out there as a potential explanation for different experiences. The problem with allowing that explanation to derail all investigation of the matter is that there actually no evidence to support it in the case of BSB. Is a different person's bottle not causing damage because its from a "safe" batch? Do "safe" batches even exist? Or is damage not occurring only because all the conditions for it have not been met?

I can tell you for one thing that feed plastics can be different. I have initiated an experiment with a spare plastic feed, which I cut in half. I had intended to use two spare feeds, but one of them proved so brittle that I ended up sending pieces of it across the room and couldn't be bothered to find them. The plastics were quite different. They even felt different in the hand. This is a difference I actually know exists, and I'm a great deal more comfortable pinning a difference in experience on something that I know exists than something that I do not know exists, namely that there are different formulations of BSB, some of which can cause damage and some of which cannot.

[mhosea]

All I can offer in return is another anecdote. I've been using my own TWSBI 540 as my Baystate Blue pen for not quite two years now. There is no pitting. There has been cracking, but I don't blame the ink for that, especially as the newest crack is a part of the pen that doesn't contact ink at all.

I have cleaned the pen exactly one time in the two years I've owned it, so I don't know if that makes a difference?

Thanks. That suggests the possibility that the feed might have been that way all along or that the plastic on mine is less robust somehow.

The interesting thing about this pitting to me is that it is worse in places that are not even in constant contact with the ink, and places that are in constant contact with the ink look decent. It's a crazy thought, perhaps, but I was also considering whether there is a liquid ingredient in the ink that is only a problem in its gaseous state...when it evaporates, and then how the pen is stored might be a factor.

[mhosea]

All I can offer in return is another anecdote. I've been using my own TWSBI 540 as my Baystate Blue pen for not quite two years now. There is no pitting. There has been cracking, but I don't blame the ink for that, especially as the newest crack is a part of the pen that doesn't contact ink at all.

I have cleaned the pen exactly one time in the two years I've owned it, so I don't know if that makes a difference?

Thanks. That suggests the possibility that the feed might have been that way all along or that the plastic on mine is less robust somehow.

The interesting thing about this pitting to me is that it is worse in places that are not even in constant contact with the ink, and places that are in constant contact with the ink look decent. It's a crazy thought, perhaps, but I was also considering whether there is a liquid ingredient in the ink that is only a problem in its gaseous state...when it evaporates, and then how the pen is stored might be a factor.

Hmmm. Maybe not. If it were the case, I might expect the tail of the feed to be in bad shape since some of the gas would be trapped there inside the barrel in most situations. I don't see that.

[Jon Szanto]

Mike, we know each other well enough. My thoughts on differentiation with regard to ink batch making is *nothing* more than conjecture. We look at all of these elements with equal parts intrigue and hesitation, unsure of where it all leads. How easy would it be for there to be variation between liquid combinations vs. the makeup of plastics involved in feeds? Can the same ink formula not only react to different plastics variably, but also to variations in plastics of *supposedly* the same manufacture?

All conjecture, I concur.

What little we can do, at this point, is document and annotate. Let the reader, and user, decide.

[mhosea]

Let the reader, and user, decide.

Yes, and one must decide what to do in a case like this long before it's possible to know what's really going on. I have a large enough collection of ink now that setting aside a few inks here and there doesn't really affect me. BSB was not a favorite because of the feathering, and after awhile, its vibrance no longer impressed me. It is a nicely lubricious ink, though, very smooth-writing, and waterproof. Maybe I should bring one of my unloved Platinum preppies out of retirement for it.

[Mags]

So far I have been doing well with bleach and water cleanings. No ill effects on my TWSBI mini. I may just be lucky. I love the BSB colour.

[Silverbreeze]

I use Kung Te-Cheng so I have no right to judge :-)