Noodler's Bottles switching from Glass to Plastic.

[KBeezie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6L0lL-VzSE

Least we'll get more ink (ie: it'll be filled up to more than 3oz due to the extra headroom), and if you're one of those people who leave the bottles out, the plastic is UV Blocking.

And for those of us in the North, we don't have to worry as much about shattered bottles ordered during the winter months.

Noticed on facebook people ranting about the change and how it's for higher profit margins and how they don't like the 'attractiveness' of the bottles and may switch brands etc.

IT's ink... it's noodler's ink... if you want attractiveness in a bottle you go with something like Iroshizuku, Montblanc, Akkerman, Edelstein, J.Herbin 1670, etc.

If you want ink, you buy ink.

[cwent2]

Noticed on facebook people ranting about the change and how it's for higher profit margins and how they don't like the 'attractiveness' of the bottles and may switch brands etc.

IT's ink... it's noodler's ink... if you want attractiveness in a bottle you go with something like Iroshizuku, Montblanc, Akkerman, Edelstein, J.Herbin 1670, etc.

If you want ink, you buy ink.

Evidently "they" did not watch the video and listen to Mr Tardif -- Like your take...

[TSherbs]

The opaque bottle is inconvenient for determining the level of remaining ink (and the color, in some instances--I have trouble reading the color labels on Noodler's). Also, the cost in terms of environmental degradation (in manufacturing and in disposal) is very important to me (but not, I guess, to Noodler's Inc because Mr. Tardiff did not mention anything concern about it). The "cost" to the consumer that Mr. Tardiff is concerned about is not only measured in dollars and cents (although it is also a very American tradition to limit the idea of cost to a corporate balance sheet or a price tag seen by a consumer). But perhaps the manufacturing of glass is even more costly to the environment than that of plastic. I would guess not, but I don't really know.

[mhosea]

From the video it sounded like he was hoping this was a temporary thing.

[jar]

I'd be happy if he would just put a little less ink in each bottle.

[Jon Szanto]

I'd be happy if he would just put a little less ink in each bottle.

This. Thisthisthis.

[Zhivago]

The opaque bottle is inconvenient for determining the level of remaining ink (and the color, in some instances--I have trouble reading the color labels on Noodler's). Also, the cost in terms of environmental degradation (in manufacturing and in disposal) is very important to me (but not, I guess, to Noodler's Inc because Mr. Tardiff did not mention anything concern about it). The "cost" to the consumer that Mr. Tardiff is concerned about is not only measured in dollars and cents (although it is also a very American tradition to limit the idea of cost to a corporate balance sheet or a price tag seen by a consumer). But perhaps the manufacturing of glass is even more costly to the environment than that of plastic. I would guess not, but I don't really know.


Environmental concerns are among the reasons Noodler's doesn't make cartridges for its ink.

[mhosea]

I have great sympathy for newbies and those suffering from hand tremors. But it seems to me that the complaints about Noodler's bottle fullness rather exceed the limits of these groups. It makes me wonder if a PSA is needed because people are laboring along without the right tools and techniques. I don't remember the last time I had any trouble with it at all. If you have normal hand control, then all you need do is remember to keep the bottom of the bottle flat on the table while unscrewing the lid for the first time. Actually, I just got into the habit of opening ALL ink bottles that way. Why not? Put a piece of paper under it for good measure. If you have C/C pens, the converter can be filled directly from the full bottle. If you wish to fill anything else, then just siphon off as much as you like with one of these.

20894

Put the excess in a sample vial or throw it away (since the sentiment seems usually to be that you'd rather not have it in the first place).

[jar]

Put the excess in a sample vial or throw it away (since the sentiment seems usually to be that you'd rather not have it in the first place).

Yup. Rather just not have it in the first place and since there are so many other options I just avoid Noodler's inks. I'll eventually use up all the ones I have now but doubt I will ever buy another bottle of Noodler's ink. Plus, since he does not offer cartridges his inks automatically fall way down the "of any interest" list.

But others do and so all is fine.

[mhosea]

To be honest with you, I'm not using Noodler's inks very much anymore, myself. I've been rather annoyed at the long drying time on Tomoe River paper of the ones I still use any (gave lots of it away). The only bottle I still regard as one of my "better" inks is Revolution Blue, and that's such a "stainer" that I can't just use it in any pen that I might want to.

[Kaputnik]

It's unlikely that I'll be buying any more Noodler's inks, but it has nothing to do with this decision. It's just that I already bought rather too many in an early fit of enthusiasm, and now find myself using them much less than Sailor and Pilot inks.

Of course, the glass bottle is more aesthetically pleasing, but the first thing that occurred to me on seeing the words "plastic bottle" was that the greater porosity of plastic might lead to faster evaporation of the water in the ink. My previous exposure to this has been with cartridges that were only a few years old. The video spends quite some time addressing this, however, and indeed, modern plastics may be better at preserving the integrity of the ink.

All rather moot, for me. I'll continue to use a few of my Noodler's inks some of the time, but if I use up any one variety entirely, I doubt if I'd bother to replace it, regardless of the bottle material. Still, it's nice that Nathan Tardiff is doing his best to control prices. I'll let the real Noodler's fans decide whether they'd be willing to pay more to keep glass bottles.

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

I asked on the YouTube video whether there would be water loss through the plastic. Mr. Tardif says "no" though he does concede that he doesn't know what will happen 40 years down the road.

I also asked about recycling the plastic bottles (assuming they are not suitable for use in my lab the way the glass ones are). He did not respond to that part of my question...whatever that means.

[Jon Szanto]

Put the excess in a sample vial or throw it away (since the sentiment seems usually to be that you'd rather not have it in the first place).
Mike, Mike... That isn't my angle on it. I like paying for what I'm getting, and I don't want to lose or toss away any. I just find it a bit ludicrous to jump through hoops, even small ones, when Nathan could simply put 1/4" less ink in the bottle and drop the price a tiny bit. It really becomes a dogmatic exercise in "I'll fill that bottle to the very rim, that'll show 'em!" mindset. I like some of the inks, I'll continue to buy them, but I don't have to necessarily appreciate an unmitigated crank who can't control his own personal ticks when doing business.

That's all, nothing major. :)

[mhosea]

Put the excess in a sample vial or throw it away (since the sentiment seems usually to be that you'd rather not have it in the first place).
Mike, Mike... That isn't my angle on it. I like paying for what I'm getting, and I don't want to lose or toss away any. I just find it a bit ludicrous to jump through hoops, even small ones, when Nathan could simply put 1/4" less ink in the bottle and drop the price a tiny bit. It really becomes a dogmatic exercise in "I'll fill that bottle to the very rim, that'll show 'em!" mindset. I like some of the inks, I'll continue to buy them, but I don't have to necessarily appreciate an unmitigated crank who can't control his own personal ticks when doing business.


Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

[Bogon07]

I also asked about recycling the plastic bottles (assuming they are not suitable for use in my lab the way the glass ones are). He did not respond to that part of my question...whatever that means.

Isn't that a simple case of looking for "the universal triangle recycling symbol and accompanying number" on the bottom of the bottle ?
Or doesn't the US use that system.

[migo984]

Sadly, and there have been oodles of studies and surveys that prove this, people are much more likely to just chuck away plastic containers than glass ones, even if they are suitable for recycling. They perceive empty plastic as rubbish, but empty glass as useful. One reason why so much plastic ends up in land fill, dumped, fly-tipped, and floating in the ocean, where it is broken up into minute pieces and ingested by pelagic inhabitants.

[KBeezie]

I fill from sample vials anyways (transfer by syringe) so wouldn't bother me as much.

[KBeezie]

I also asked about recycling the plastic bottles (assuming they are not suitable for use in my lab the way the glass ones are). He did not respond to that part of my question...whatever that means.

Isn't that a simple case of looking for "the universal triangle recycling symbol and accompanying number" on the bottom of the bottle ?
Or doesn't the US use that system.

It's in the US, and on most of the white opaque bottles (usually #2) for things like tylenol/aleve, Omeprazole, etc. So I'm going to guess it's going to be #2 on the noodler's bottles as well which would be HPDE considered one of the safter plastics that are less likely to leach into the fluid. (but not sure about evaporation). The ones to be avoided are 3 [V], 6 [PS] and 7 [Other] (and for some applications, 1 [PETE]), the 'good' ones being 2 [HDPE], 4 [LDPE], and 5 [PP], though I'm not sure which is best for a liquid substance like ink.

If it was plastic for the 30ml size, I'd find that better in the long term since I can get thru 30ml faster than 90ml.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

I have to admit, I find it silly that Nathan doesn't like the idea of measuring ink in milliliters just because it's "European" or whatever other excuse he has.

Never mind that the Imperial (which he refers to as "American") units are defined, by US law, according to their metric equivalents, i.e. ounces are legally defined in terms of grams or milliliters depending on whether they are ounces of weight or volume.

[rafapa]

Another myth fallen. What will be next? "European" cartridges filled with Noodler's ink?

[TSherbs]

I have to admit, I find it silly that Nathan doesn't like the idea of measuring ink in milliliters just because it's "European" or whatever other excuse he has.

Never mind that the Imperial (which he refers to as "American") units are defined, by US law, according to their metric equivalents, i.e. ounces are legally defined in terms of grams or milliliters depending on whether they are ounces of weight or volume.

you must be commie :laser:

[TSherbs]

The opaque bottle is inconvenient for determining the level of remaining ink (and the color, in some instances--I have trouble reading the color labels on Noodler's). Also, the cost in terms of environmental degradation (in manufacturing and in disposal) is very important to me (but not, I guess, to Noodler's Inc because Mr. Tardiff did not mention anything concern about it). The "cost" to the consumer that Mr. Tardiff is concerned about is not only measured in dollars and cents (although it is also a very American tradition to limit the idea of cost to a corporate balance sheet or a price tag seen by a consumer). But perhaps the manufacturing of glass is even more costly to the environment than that of plastic. I would guess not, but I don't really know.


Environmental concerns are among the reasons Noodler's doesn't make cartridges for its ink.

yes

[TSherbs]

Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

Screw govmental interpertations!

[mhosea]

Put the excess in a sample vial or throw it away (since the sentiment seems usually to be that you'd rather not have it in the first place).
Mike, Mike... That isn't my angle on it. I like paying for what I'm getting, and I don't want to lose or toss away any. I just find it a bit ludicrous to jump through hoops, even small ones, when Nathan could simply put 1/4" less ink in the bottle and drop the price a tiny bit. It really becomes a dogmatic exercise in "I'll fill that bottle to the very rim, that'll show 'em!" mindset. I like some of the inks, I'll continue to buy them, but I don't have to necessarily appreciate an unmitigated crank who can't control his own personal ticks when doing business.


Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

I'm going to have to retract my statement on the 3 ounce bottles. I measured one awhile back, but I just re-measured a couple and found that they hold about 90ml. Given that he's used 4 manufacturers in the past, perhaps there has been some variance...or maybe not.

[Armstrong]

Well I can understand his choices and actually applaud his reasoning. I grew up in that period and concur with is conclusions. I lament that in order to maintain his level of service and his principles that he has been forced to this action. But, I can't really see any other course. Plus, keep in mind the cost of shipping, which is usually weight based, and the dramatic increase in shipping cost we have suffered over the last decade or so. I believe his choice is sound. I am glad he is not increasing cost and decreasing quantity which has been the choice of many manufacturers in the recent era.

I use Noodler's ink almost exclusively. I have used other inks, but I enjoy the saturation in Noodler's. The performance of the ink has been consistent and I like his 'bullet proof' formulations for its purpose. I tested it myself and found it does as advertised. Still, I am glad I have a selection of glass bottles available to use if I choose.

[TSherbs]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR="#008080"]Well I can understand his choices and actually applaud his reasoning. I grew up in that period and concur with is conclusions. ...

Which "conclusions"? I don't recall that he made any.

Inflation is a fact of economic reality. Over time, Noodler's Ink prices will either rise, or he will take lower profits, or he will infuse revenues from elsewhere, or he will sell the company, or simply stop production. Or he will reduce the size of the container. Or maybe strike a well of ink reserves under the continental shelf! :) The $12.50 we get charged will be worth less and less in terms of purchasing power over time as well. It's the way it is, like our mortality. There are not many choices, really, over time. Only short-term mini "fixes." Like plastic.

[Armstrong]

I have seen the general trend for many manufacturers, over the time period of my life, has been to protect the bottom line above all considerations. With this situation as an example, moving to a smaller, more expensive glass bottle would maintain the expected appearance and would mean less ink being produced. Cost of the bottle passed on to the consumer and savings in ink production kept by the company. The consumer is the loser, but the product looks good. So, going that route would be 'good' bottom line thinking if one compares it to past examples of corporate thinking. But, he has chosen to go the route of trying to maintain value to the customer. Yes, it varies from tradition which I think is why so many people howl about it since fountain pens collection tends toward a traditional approach. However, I would rather maintain the value for dollar. If I want the ink in a pretty bottle, I'll just buy a pretty bottle an reuse it. Ink is the consumable in this hobby so maintaining value to the consumer is important. Also I think it demonstrates a certain level of integrity. Those conclusions.

[TSherbs]

Thanks. I thought you were referring to something about the 1970s, some "time" that you grew up in. My point is that cost increases are inevitable over time, in whatever decade you are talking about, unless revenue comes from another source or a resource drops significantly in price (all other things being equal). Over time something must give. "Maintaining value for the dollar" is a short-term consideration, and actually a relative one, since "value" is a relative term determined by the purchaser. For you it seems to be a quotient of price over volume. For others it is different (aesthetics of packaging, for one). I have argued on behalf of environmental "costs" in decisions all along the production and supply line. But only a few others here have seemed to care much about that. <shrug>

[Bogon07]

I'm hoping the new plastic bottles come with "child proof" caps to make opening a new full bottle real challenge. :)

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

Actually, according to a thread on another forum, he claims that selling by weight is what is required according to US trade regulation because his inks aren't straight-up liquids, but non-miscible mixes of liquids and solids. He admits that straight-up liquids must be sold by volume, but since his inks aren't straight-up liquids, then regulations require selling by weight.

[TSherbs]

Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

Actually, according to a thread on another forum, he claims that selling by weight is what is required according to US trade regulation because his inks aren't straight-up liquids, but non-miscible mixes of liquids and solids. He admits that straight-up liquids must be sold by volume, but since his inks aren't straight-up liquids, then regulations require selling by weight.

yes, what he termed a "non-miscible" liquid, which some of us found puzzling

I actually don't care how he labels the bottles, but I agree that "oz" is vague term because it is used for both weight and volume in different circumstances. So, in this regard, mls and grms do a better job of keeping things clear. We don't teach anything in our science classes at my school (in Maine) but mls and grms. If students want to know what this means in ounces or ounces, they have to do the calculation on their own for curiosity's sake.

[mhosea]

Well, far be it from me to explain anything Nathan does, but I might surmise that he has a subtle reason for filling the bottles. He already sells a liquid product by weight, which violates US trade regulations. If you take the 3 oz. label as liquid, which is incorrect by his intention but is in fact the required legal interpretation, he's already under by at least 0.1oz because the bottles hold about 85ml at most, not the 88.7ml that would be required to make up 3 fluid ounces. IIRC, the discrepancy is even larger on the 4.5 oz. bottles.

Actually, according to a thread on another forum, he claims that selling by weight is what is required according to US trade regulation because his inks aren't straight-up liquids, but non-miscible mixes of liquids and solids. He admits that straight-up liquids must be sold by volume, but since his inks aren't straight-up liquids, then regulations require selling by weight.

I don't think that's what the regs mean, but my core point is in doubt, either way.

[Kaputnik]

Well, it seems I have learned one thing from this thread. I had just assumed that the ounce measures for Noodler's inks were fluid ounces, and if I wanted to compare price per volume with another ink, I converted to milliliters. The bottles of Noodler's that I have just say "oz", while the bottles of Coke and soy sauce that I just checked say "fl oz", so the information has been there all along. I guess one shouldn't make common sense assumptions based on context. I'll have to see if I can spot any other things I think of as liquids that are sold by weight.

[EDIT] It just occurred to me to check a bottle of Speedball India ink, which certainly has solids in it. The amount shown on it is 2 fl oz. So either Speedball is misunderstanding the USTC regs or Noodler's is.

[KBeezie]

I'm hoping the new plastic bottles come with "child proof" caps to make opening a new full bottle real challenge. :)

Full to the brim and "fun" to open ... :P

[Dragonmaster Lou]

yes, what he termed a "non-miscible" liquid, which some of us found puzzling

Well, according to the dictionary definition, a "non-miscible" liquid is one that doesn't mix in equal proportions. An example of a non-miscible liquid would be oil and vinegar salad dressing. Oddly enough, I looked it up and found that salad dressing is sold in fluid ounces...

Anyway, I dig some googling for the regulations (from the NIST) on it, and it says something like this:


6.4. Terms: Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count.

The declaration of the quantity of a particular commodity shall be expressed in terms of:

(a) weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid;
(b) volume measure if the commodity is liquid or dry, if the commodity is dry;
(c) linear measure or area;
or
(d) numerical count

However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may be expressed in its traditional terms, provided such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity. Any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden.

6.7.2. Units of Two or More Meanings.

When the term “ounce” is employed in a declaration of liquid quantity, the declaration shall identify the particular meaning of the term by the use of the term “fluid;” however, such distinction may be omitted when, by association of terms (for example, as in “1 pint 4
ounces”), the proper meaning is obvious. Whenever the declaration of quantity is in terms of the dry pint or dry quart, the declaration shall include the word “dry.”

So it looks like Noodler's is correct here, assuming that his ink is considered "viscous" or a mixture of a solid and a liquid. The salad dressing example I gave may fall under the "general consumer usage and trade custom" class, however.


I actually don't care how he labels the bottles, but I agree that "oz" is vague term because it is used for both weight and volume in different circumstances. So, in this regard, mls and grms do a better job of keeping things clear. We don't teach anything in our science classes at my school (in Maine) but mls and grms. If students want to know what this means in ounces or ounces, they have to do the calculation on their own for curiosity's sake.

I agree that "oz" can be a vague term, but, legally, it's legit as fluid ounces have to be labeled as fluid ounces or "fl oz," according to the regs, where as ounce weights are to be labeled simply as "oz".

Back when I took science in the 90's, and in college (engineering major here), it was pretty much all mls and grams or similar units, like ccs (1 cc = 1 ml) and kg. It's the international, medical, and scientific standard for measurements. However, Noodler's doesn't seem to hold those units in high regard, apparently deriding them as "European" when complaining about the changes from his glass supplier, instead of just simply stating he was dropping them because the new bottles were smaller and more expensive.

[mhosea]

So it looks like Noodler's is correct here, assuming that his ink is considered "viscous" or a mixture of a solid and a liquid. The salad dressing example I gave may fall under the "general consumer usage and trade custom" class, however.


Well, for any mistakes I have made in this area, I am sorry, but perhaps we could discuss this a little further. It is certainly not "viscous". The cellulose reactive inks are "mixtures of solid and a liquid", but I'm not sure that description works for the standard inks. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Where it works technically, given the nature of the product, the interpretation seems fastidious to an almost ludicrous extreme. By this argument, any undissolved solid in a liquid, no matter how insignificant, would imply that the item ought to be labeled in terms of weight. Consequently, your strained orange juice is sold in fluid ounces and the one with pulp is to be sold by weight (if we do not apply the exception)? That you can do this by the letter does not make it compliant in spirit. It would seem that all of Noodler's competitors label by volume, even pigmented inks, so labeling using a solid measure seems hostile to price comparison. That this is not Nathan's actual intention is, I think, made manifest by his insistence on filling the bottles very full. That was really my point.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Ah, gotcha... Yeah, I don't think Nathan is purposely out to make price comparisons difficult. I think the worst you can say about him is that he's kind of a contrarian that likes to do things his own way, other ways be damned, and he'll just be in compliance with the letter of the law because he has to be. Fortunately, he seems to truly care about offering a good product at a fair price, so his contrarian ways don't hurt consumers in a significant manner, if at all.

[Scrawler]

I was a bit surprised that a new bottle of Habenero was in a plastic bottle. In Noodler's case I am buying the ink not the bottle. I thought it may have been because plastic bottles are lighter for shipping. Once I felt it and realized it was plastic, I also realized that I would have to grip it differently when opening, to avoid squeezing the sides and so squeezing ink out when I took the top off.

[TSherbs]

Well, according to the dictionary definition, a "non-miscible" liquid is one that doesn't mix in equal proportions. An example of a non-miscible liquid would be oil and vinegar salad dressing. Oddly enough, I looked it up and found that salad dressing is sold in fluid ounces...

Anyway, I dig some googling for the regulations (from the NIST) on it, and it says something like this:


6.4. Terms: Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count.

The declaration of the quantity of a particular commodity shall be expressed in terms of:

(a) weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid;
(b) volume measure if the commodity is liquid or dry, if the commodity is dry;
(c) linear measure or area;
or
(d) numerical count

However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may be expressed in its traditional terms, provided such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity. Any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden.

6.7.2. Units of Two or More Meanings.

When the term “ounce” is employed in a declaration of liquid quantity, the declaration shall identify the particular meaning of the term by the use of the term “fluid;” however, such distinction may be omitted when, by association of terms (for example, as in “1 pint 4
ounces”), the proper meaning is obvious. Whenever the declaration of quantity is in terms of the dry pint or dry quart, the declaration shall include the word “dry.”

So it looks like Noodler's is correct here, assuming that his ink is considered "viscous" or a mixture of a solid and a liquid. The salad dressing example I gave may fall under the "general consumer usage and trade custom" class, however.


I actually don't care how he labels the bottles, but I agree that "oz" is vague term because it is used for both weight and volume in different circumstances. So, in this regard, mls and grms do a better job of keeping things clear. We don't teach anything in our science classes at my school (in Maine) but mls and grms. If students want to know what this means in ounces or ounces, they have to do the calculation on their own for curiosity's sake.

I agree that "oz" can be a vague term, but, legally, it's legit as fluid ounces have to be labeled as fluid ounces or "fl oz," according to the regs, where as ounce weights are to be labeled simply as "oz".

Back when I took science in the 90's, and in college (engineering major here), it was pretty much all mls and grams or similar units, like ccs (1 cc = 1 ml) and kg. It's the international, medical, and scientific standard for measurements. However, Noodler's doesn't seem to hold those units in high regard, apparently deriding them as "European" when complaining about the changes from his glass supplier, instead of just simply stating he was dropping them because the new bottles were smaller and more expensive.

roger that

thanks for sharing this

[mhosea]

I'm going to have to retract my statement on the 3 ounce bottles. I measured one awhile back, but I just re-measured a couple and found that they hold about 90ml. Given that he's used 4 manufacturers in the past, perhaps there has been some variance...or maybe not.

Just for closure on this, I actually bought a graduated cylinder to measure in a more accurately. Using this cylinder, I couldn't imagine them being filled to more than 88ml, more likely 87ml.

[tragique]

I don't buy ink for the bottle, but these plastic bottles look a bit ugly.

[Monty_Verde]

I don't buy ink for the bottle, but these plastic bottles look a bit ugly.

They do, they now look like medicine bottles.

However, I still like Noodler's Ink because I really want to try out their Bernanke Blue or Revolution Blue.
But since they are starting to move away from Glass Bottles, J. Herbin now looks like a very nice suitable replacement. J.Herbin is alot more costly though.

Monty

[Armstrong]

I think what I may do is find a nice ink well or bottle(s) and use those if I have inks I want out on display or just visible. Otherwise, as long as the original container is air tight and durable I really don't care what it is. Makes me wonder if a secondary market will develop for Noodler's glass bottles...