A brief review of Aurora Blue ink
The prelude
The review was done on 90g Oxford optikpaper (a high quality coated paper, reminding Rhodia and such papers).
For reviews I am trying to choose a pen that in my opinion fits the particular ink the best. In this case it was S.T. Dupont Classique (the 1st gen. from 70s) with a very wet OB nib. I wanted to show this ink in a wetpen because I sincerely hate the appearance of this rather unsaturated ink in dry pens.
Water test was performed via leaving huge drops on this (coated hence non-absorbent) paper for 3 hours.
The photos were taken in a natural daylight (in several intensities of the sunlight and in a shadow) and in artificial light (cool 4000K white light - without/with a flash).
The background
Aurora Blue is a famous ink (though the black sibling is more famous) made in Italy for many decades. Originally it was one of the 2 inks the company offered (along with black), a couple of years ago they added a Blue-Black ink and later a special edition of some other colours.
Since Aurora is a famous maker of piston fillers Aurora inks are supposed to be good for piston fillers... and indeed they are.
The ink comes in a tall 45ml bottle (nothing spectacular but good for filling from the bottle) and in cartridges (more or less Parker style but a tiny bit longer).
About Aurora Blue you may read in some reviews (beside everything else) the following claims:
- it is very wet (no, it is not, but flows consistently),
- it is a lubricated ink (nope, sorry, but it feels smooth),
- it is purplish (yes and no, please read below).
The review itself
Below you see 7 photos of the very same paper - 5 were taken in a natural daylight (in several intensities of the sunlight and in a shadow) and 2 in artificial light (cool 4000K white light - without/with a flash).
The ink has a very consistent flow but overall not wet. Many claims regarding this ink wetness are probably based on a prejudicial analogy with Aurora Black (which indeed is very wet) and the fact it takes quite a while before the written text stops smudging (for many it is the usual way of judging the wetness but I cannot quite agree), the latter in my opinion is due to the nature of the dye used, not because of the supposed wetness. I would hesitate calling this ink dry but it definitely isn't wet. However it has an amazingly consistent flow almost in any pen and it flows better (more consistently and without skipping) than a plenty of inks that are actually objectively wetter than Aurora Blue.
It has got NO water resistance. At all. Not in the slightest.
The colour is medium-dark, but not saturated (darkness and saturation are two completely different things) purplish blue. In the bottle it looks purplish, so it does before it dries on the paper - then in becomes a lot bluer. So while I call it Royal Blue, it looks less purple than many other Royal Blue inks. Considering it is neither a saturated ink, nor it is much wet, in dry pens it often looks pale and dull (my apologies if you like such appearance, I do not).
This ink is trouble free. Completely. Easy to clean and very safe for vintage pens.
It is a reliable and calming ink with good properties (except literally zero water resistance). But if you expect an appealingly saturated blue ink, vibrant and lively... look elsewhere. If you used Aurora Black and think Aurora Blue has to be something like it, you are wrong - no, it is not - it is not any near as wet as Aurora Black, it is not as saturated as Aurora Black (by far) and lacks any kind of permanence. It is a good ink though :)
Thank you very much for reading.
Natural daylight - sunlight (different intensities)
https://i.imgur.com/cJP7aI2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/sBOxDPO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/F4HbKUG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nBLyEUr.jpg
Natural daylight - shadow
https://i.imgur.com/fXbDcNU.jpg
Artificial cool 4000K white light - without a flash
https://i.imgur.com/nCoEP2H.jpg
Artificial cool 4000K white light - with a flash
https://i.imgur.com/rAwgaje.jpg
