Prejudice Against Noodler's Ink

[welch]

Hi Mike! I think we've discussed this before: inks should be tested by product quality assurance methods, rather than as a scientific experiement. Putting that another way, a sample size of one is not useful when testing a product, which can fail one out of five, or ten, or one hundred times. A single test might pass the product, but it would still be a flawed product.

One of our standing jokes: "let's stop testing while it still works".

I've never had an ink sac fail, but I use far fewer pens than the repair experts see. Also: I like blue, and can't find a business use for red, organge, or green fountain pen ink. If the random failures are connected to red dyes, I wouldn't have seen them.

[mhosea]

Hi Mike! I think we've discussed this before: inks should be tested by product quality assurance methods, rather than as a scientific experiement. Putting that another way, a sample size of one is not useful when testing a product, which can fail one out of five, or ten, or one hundred times. A single test might pass the product, but it would still be a flawed product.

Normally I try to be succinct, and I am about to fail...big time. So here's the TLDR version of what follows: People claim that Noodler's Ink melts sacs. The claim is not that a random bottle is defective and that defective bottles melt sacs, rather that this a property of the inks. Therefore, this is not a statistical question about what percentage of bottles of, say, Noodler's Black melts sacs. Scientific experiments are a reasonable way to approach questions about the properties and interactions of substances.

----------------------------

Here's the problem. If you say "Noodler's Ink melts latex sacs" it is a scientifically testable statement. People can believe whatever they want, but they say that not because they know it for any valid reason, rather because they are human, and humans have evolved to draw such conclusions at the drop of a hat. "Ork ate the red berries and he died, therefore red berries kill people. Don't eat the red berries." It's a good instinct for the survival of the species but not so good for getting at the truth because coincidences occur. Maybe Ork's stomach ulcer finally perforated and that was the end of him. We don't really know. Unfortunately, Ork's comrades probably don't know how to perform an autopsy, or they might be able to say, "Look here, that's a perforated ulcer--that's what made him sick, maybe not the berries." Of course with the kind of logic we see applied to Noodler's Ink, it would go more like "Look here, that's a perforated ulcer. Red berries kill people by melting their stomachs!"

Part of my frustration with the issue is that every failure is a missed opportunity to perform an autopsy of sorts. Even if a sac melts there may be a relatively untouched portion of it on the sac nipple, protected by the shellac. If there isn't, then that's a solid clue that shouldn't be so easily glossed over because this area is protected from exposure to the ink (until the sac fails). If there is, we could take this fragment and expose some of it to the exact ink(s) that supposedly melted it and expose part of it to a known-safe control, then we might see that yes, indeed, that ink melts that sac and the control liquid does not. Or we might see both melt or neither. If it is both, why should we blame the ink? If it is neither, then we have to face the fact that our theory that the ink melts sacs is at the very least incomplete and may be incorrect. Instead, though, the sac remnants go in the trash, and the ink goes down the drain, and the proclamation is made that ink melted the sac. That's the perfect way to preserve the status quo, and the status quo is, unfortunately, ignorance. We know almost nothing about what's going on, and it's likely to stay that way unless people start making at least some small efforts when they get the opportunity.

In this case we also have evidence that is often overlooked. If Ork and his brother Indy both the berries and Indy did just fine, then they might not be blaming the berries so quickly. If they all ate the berries and only Ork died, then they probably would have ruled out the berries as the cause to begin with. Apparently this doesn't work with fountain pens. For some reason it seems to be irrelevant that hundreds, if not thousands, of people using Noodler's inks in vintage pens don't experience failures.

That ought to be a head-scratcher. How do we explain that? By what physical mechanism might Noodler's inks can randomly or occasionally melt sacs? For example, by what mechanism is one bottle of Noodler's Black safe for latex and another not? We expect a slight variation in concentration of the various ingredients and perhaps trace amounts of contaminants, but AFAIK, there is no scientific basis for expecting this to have such a dramatic effect. Why should a little more glycerin or a little less biocide change the ink from something safe with latex to something very hostile to it? Melting latex, after all, is not all that difficult. The wood stain I used a couple of weeks ago on my ink vial block would do it, but I guarantee you that it would do it every time. Grab a 100 cans off the shelf and 100 cans will be "defective" in that way, and none of them will take an hour to do it, much less two years.

So what is going on? It is possible that there is a decomposition of some sort. I know, for example, that antibiotics in the tetracycline class become toxic when they get old. But I know of no correlation between the ages of the bottles and the sac melting phenomenon. Perhaps it is, as some surmise, a random combination. Inks do react sometimes when they are mixed, and it is possible that a byproduct of the reaction might be hostile to latex. Perhaps a cleaning/flushing ingredient is invovled somehow. If it is a combination of ingredients, then there is a chance that by paying attention and asking questions after failures occur we might develop a short list of suspects. Once we figure out what the ingredients are, we should be able to make this happen every time, not just 1 out of a 100. I have no way of investigating this, and I doubt it would be detected by QC efforts, either.

Richard Binder surmises, and I think it is reasonable to do so, that only certain Noodler's Inks are involved. Not that a randomly bad bottle of them melts latex, but that these particular inks, whichever they might be, are inherently problematic. It is this possibility that I mean to address because it is this claim that people are making. At the very least if one claims that it wasn't a bad sac (always with no evidence to that effect, BTW) and that this ink melted the sac in short order, then we at least have to face the reality that we have chemistry mystery to solve before our theory works.

[Simon Pen-Pusher]

No, that is not actually the case. There are very real concerns that any fountain pen user should become very familiar with - especially as the range of "exotic" inks rapidly grows.

Like you I have wondered about "overly critical" statements. But in general there are very good reasons for suggesting care to the unwary. It is plainly logical that adding to inks new chemistry to help achieve what has not been previously possible - colours and robustness - may have short to long term adverse effects. Some effects will be harmless and just a nuisance. But others may very well be harmful.

With about 35 years fountain pen experience and owning a very wide range of fountain pens - brands, types and price categories from budget to high value limited edition pens, I have been a big fan of Noodler's inks. I love the colour range in particular. But in the last couple of years as I expanded my range of colours by Noodler's, I started to experience real problems with ink-flow in particular.

3 of my all-time favourite inks are Noodler's - Blue, Red and Saguaro Wine. These are excellent inks in every respect.

But, for example 2 other favourites very quickly caused big problems of ink-flow (no damage at all) with 2 of my best ink-flow daily use pens. I did my own investigation and tests. The result was the presence of substantial amounts of sediment in the inks - e.g. Polar Brown and Black.

I've also done comparative tests which had the opposite behaviour and had no sediment present. I posted a short essay about this "Be careful about exotic inks" on my website: www.fountainpenbiz.com

The issue is not just about Noodler's - it is equally about any ink supplier that is promoting:
1. very exotic colours;
2. unusually robust ink such as "bullet proof" attributes.

Fountain pen ink is and always has been WATER based for very good reasons. New additives that enhance colours and robustness risk adding undesirable content that can interfere with both the delicate feed mechanism as well as the internal components. Like our own bodies and cars, take care with what you feed them.

There are similar reports that Diamine Registrars will badly stain nibs. I have tested that - it does. So, because I love that ink I use it with a black nib!

There are other reports about damage by "exotic"/robust inks to internal components. These claims are very plausible. DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT CHEMISTRY OF YOUR INK? A chemist will tell you (when you identify the ingredients) how those ingredients can damage a pen's components.

I am NOT a blind advocate of pen brand inks (my favourite range is Diamine). But there is one assurance involved in using pen maker inks, you can be more sure that they will not adversely affect internal components - for obvious reasons.

So, I suggest we all take care and demand full disclosure of the ink chemistry (as we do with foods etc) so that we can judge the potential for any adverse effects - harmless and harmful. And since I ran into a lot of ink-flow bother with Noodler's Polar Brown and others, I am now cautious and pre-test. I've never had a similar problem since.

I hope I have helped.
Simon.

[Sham69]

10/10 post thanks for taking the time to write that, my thoughts exactly expressed in an intelligent and easy way to understand!

[whych]

Here's the problem. If you say "Noodler's Ink melts latex sacs" it is a scientifically testable statement.

I thought that the ink sac part was also down to a batch of sacs that were substandard.
Since the pens were sacced by different people it was not possible to identify whether they came from the same batch of sacs.

I think you need a bit of common sense here: many inks from various manufacturers are highly saturated and will stain almost any pen. If that is the case, don't use the ink in a pen that you want kept in pristine condition.
I have used Diamine inks that are difficult to clean out of a pen and will stain just as badly as Noodlers BSB. Only difference is that Diamine doesn't have the reputation of destroying ink sacs.
I have used Noodlers 41 brown in an old Sheaffer TD with no ill effects, other than it took me ages to clean the ink out of the pen.

Iron gall inks are meant to be bad for pens, but of the number of German pens I have bought that had been left for years with the old Pelikan blue black in them, very few had the nibs destroyed.

[mhosea]

There was a bad batch, but I think it was quite a long time ago, and those sacs failed very quickly. The consensus among restorers is that these sacs are no longer at issue. I think there are potentially some different kinds of failures:

1. Bad sac: typically a failure of the latex metal inhibitor.
2. Bulb-filler failure: breakdown of latex from external environmental exposures.
3. Ink-misbehavior (misdemeanor): "gumminess" from ink residue or precipitate, perhaps from inadvertent mixing.
4. Ink-misbehavior (felony): melting due to ink exposure.

I think #3 might be getting more and more common and might be mistaken for an early stage of #4.

[dr.grace]

Mike, I'm a scientist by profession, so of course I like experiments. I applaud your desire to do them! The difficulty is that they have to be designed properly to give a meaningful answer. Unfortunately, with latex bits suspended in vials of ink, it's difficult to replicate the conditions found in fountain pens during use (or abuse.) Normally there is some degree of evaporation, which results in concentrated ink and precipitation when the solutes become saturated. Also, as you say, it's possible that different ink remnants become mixed inadvertently. There are many variables that are difficult to control. Also, it sounds like you're using a single observation for each condition. Normally, in scientific experiments, you have to repeat them two or three times, at least, to be confident of the reproducibility.

What you might be able to decide, using your approach, is whether inks in the state supplied by the manufacturer are sufficient to melt latex bits. I suspect you'd find that the inks at their factory-supplied concentrations will have no effect at all on the latex. (That's what Nathan Tardif implied, when he reported that his inks had no effect on the latex tubes used to dispense them in his factory.) If that's what you indeed end up observing in your tests, you could then conclude that gooey sacs would have to result from some other event, perhaps concentration, precipitation, and/or inadvertent ink mixing.

[mhosea]

Also, it sounds like you're using a single observation for each condition. Normally, in scientific experiments, you have to repeat them two or three times, at least, to be confident of the reproducibility.

I completely agree with everything you wrote. However, it is likely that my vigorous defense of doing experiments at all has led you to overestimate my opinion of them, or my plans on how to interpret negative or positive result. In fact, I am keenly aware of the limitations. My plan vis-a-vis this point you make above was to use initial results as a guide to further investigation only. That is to say, if I note anything suspicious, I would go from there. If I can repeat it, I will do it again and also invite you (generic "you") to do it as well. Then we can interpret it together.

If I never generate anything but negative results, I think you will find that I will not over-interpret that as proof of anything, though I do think it should be taken account of when formulating the simplest explanation of a given failure (Occam's Razor). If these inks never seem to melt latex when we are looking, perhaps the policy of making ink the defacto explanation, ignoring the possibility of latex anomalies, should be questioned.

Addendum: You do give me an idea for another experimental approach. I could start doing a repeated-dryout exposure, i.e. put a fragment in a vial, put a small amount of ink in, let it evaporate, then repeat (lather, rinse, repeat? Probably). This might make a difference in some cases. The way we have seen some reports of BSB melting feeds, I suspect it becomes more caustic at higher concentrations. Other inks may also see their chemistry change.

[Cookies]

In response to a few comments that mentioned it was reputation that was the driving idea behind Noodle's melting sacs. To be fair, I had no idea Noodler's had any reputation for melting ink sacs. I simply had a pen that had just been been fitted with a brand new sac and after using it with only two inks, both Noodler's, I noticed it was only holding a drop of ink when I filled. When I opened it up the sac was... goo for lack of a better term. Despite the fact that I try to flush as throughly as possible there's always the chance (especially with Touchdown fillers which I find difficult to flush) that there was a bit of Noodler's Black left in the pen when I filled it the second time.

[dr.grace]

Also, it sounds like you're using a single observation for each condition. Normally, in scientific experiments, you have to repeat them two or three times, at least, to be confident of the reproducibility.

I completely agree with everything you wrote. However, it is likely that my vigorous defense of doing experiments at all has lead you to overestimate my opinion of them, or my plans on how to interpret negative or positive result. In fact, I am keenly aware of the limitations. My plan vis-a-vis this point you make above was to use initial results as a guide to further investigation only. That is to say, if I note anything suspicious, I would go from there. If I can repeat it, I will do it again and also invite you (generic "you") to do it as well. Then we can interpret it together.

If I never generate anything but negative results, I think you will find that I will not over-interpret that as proof of anything, though I do think it should be taken account of when formulating the simplest explanation of a given failure (Occam's Razor). If these inks never seem to melt latex when we are looking, perhaps the policy of making ink the defacto explanation, ignoring the possibility of latex anomalies, should be questioned.

Addendum: You do give me an idea for another experimental approach. I could start doing a repeated-dryout exposure, i.e. put a fragment in a vial, put a small amount of ink in, let it evaporate, then repeat (lather, rinse, repeat? Probably). This might make a difference in some cases. The way we have seen some reports of BSB melting feeds, I suspect it becomes more caustic at higher concentrations. Other inks may also see their chemistry change.

Perfectly reasonable!

[Chemyst]

Of course most of these ink-pen interaction problems were obviated back in 2010 with the importation of specially modified and hardened pens for use with Noodler's Ink. You can use any color you desire without hunting down an ebonite feed, modifying the tines or worrying about damage to latex sacs or any other component. A wide range of colours and designs are available. They are also user modifiable and easily disassembled for thorough cleaning. If you haven't yet, do take a look!

[inkstainedruth]

You and dr.grace both make very good points. In particular, I'm now starting to wonder whether there was some sort of negative interaction between the ink (in my case Manhattan Blue) and whatever ink was in the pens before I acquired them. The pens in question are a Parker 51 Aerometric and a Parker 21. I have no idea what ink was in the pens previously -- and in the case of the 21, there was definitely something in it when I bought it -- I wrote a couple of pages of notes about the pen just with whatever had been in it, diluted with distilled water as an initial flush. And in point of fact, before I bought it (which was about 10 months ago in an antiques mall) I had the guy opening the case for me take the cap off because the dried ink had leaked enough that the cap was stuck; I wanted him to do it, not me, simply for fear of breaking something. And 51s and their less expensive cousins are also moderately hard to fully clean (especially if you're like me, and somewhat OCD about getting every molecule of ink out of the pen when flushing, and also don't have a ultrasonic cleaner -- and that of course would also involve disassembling the pen, which is something currently beyond my comfort zone to do myself).
The 51 has since been resacked, and I'm being a little more wary about what inks I put in it (currently Herbin Eclat de Saphir) and in my other 51s. Not sure whether the 21 will also need to have a new sac installed in it (it's currently out of rotation. I would really hate the problem to be the Manhattan Blue, because it's a gorgeous color -- I liked it so well I bought a backup bottle when I was in NYC over Thanksgiving.
As for ptero's comments about the slower dry/smuge times, the only inks I've personally run across that with have been Private Reserve -- DC Super Show Blue and DC Electric Blue. OTOH, I had Noodler's Bulletproof Black in a Platinum Preppy set up as a rollerball for literally several *months* and had no issues with the ink at all. Well behaved up to the very end.
YMMV
Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[RudyR]

Why I don't buy Noodlers anymore:

Lots of feathering from the inks I bought

Nib creep so bad that it looks like the pen was used to slay something

Warden series is such a PITA to clean out properly

As stated in the thread somewhere above, Noodlers will have variations of the same ink throughout its production while I prefer a stable formula I can depend on

I have never thrown away a bottle of ink except for one, the highly praised Noodlers Black. It had turned from black to a vile light tarry color in 3 years of owning the bottle. No amount of shaking turned it black again

That's it for me.

[dr.grace]

Of course most of these ink-pen interaction problems were obviated back in 2010 with the importation of specially modified and hardened pens for use with Noodler's Ink. You can use any color you desire without hunting down an ebonite feed, modifying the tines or worrying about damage to latex sacs or any other component. A wide range of colours and designs are available. They are also user modifiable and easily disassembled for thorough cleaning. If you haven't yet, do take a look!

Well, OK, but I for one don't like the Noodler's pens because IME they tend to dry out quickly and have QC problems. Unless you are particularly fond of the steel flex nibs, I could say that there are a lot of pens that are more enjoyable to look at and to write with, even if they have occasional problems. Then, there are also some, like the Pilot Custom 74 and 823, the Pelikan Souveran models, the Parker 51, etc. etc. that are extremely reliable and also fun to use. I don't want to be limited to the Noodler's pens when there's a whole universe of pens out there that can still handle "interesting" inks.

[mhosea]

Well, OK, but I for one don't like the Noodler's pens because IME they tend to dry out quickly and have QC problems. Unless you are particularly fond of the steel flex nibs, I could say that there are a lot of pens that are more enjoyable to look at and to write with, even if they have occasional problems.

It is possible to have a little of both worlds.



With the Triumph nib and feed, the Ebonite Konrad doesn't have a dryout problem. I have been thinking about trying an acrylic Konrad and doing the same thing, but I worry that it might have the same dry-out issue as the regular resin Konrads, which I could not tolerate.

[WirsPlm]

In response to a few comments that mentioned it was reputation that was the driving idea behind Noodle's melting sacs. To be fair, I had no idea Noodler's had any reputation for melting ink sacs. I simply had a pen that had just been been fitted with a brand new sac and after using it with only two inks, both Noodler's, I noticed it was only holding a drop of ink when I filled. When I opened it up the sac was... goo for lack of a better term. Despite the fact that I try to flush as throughly as possible there's always the chance (especially with Touchdown fillers which I find difficult to flush) that there was a bit of Noodler's Black left in the pen when I filled it the second time.

Have you reported it to the pen seller you got the sac from? Some time ago, a whole batch of sacs was badly manufactured and these sacs will melt easily just from being exposed to ink. They were made some time ago, but some are still around due to slow throughput (FP sacs aren't a high volume product, to say the least), and crop up every now and again.

I've mixed Noodler's black with other Noodler's inks and with ink from another brand and not had any problems, and so have others, so it's likely that the sac was at least part of the problem. So frustrating, and we're probably never going to figure out the chemistry behind these things.

[Pterodactylus]

Who manufactured this bad badge of sacs?

[79spitfire]

Some of the sacs came from Woodbin in Canada, and (as I understand it) the Pen Sac co.

I also understand that is was over 10 years ago at this point.

One assumption to all of this is that latex is a perfect material and it cannot fail. That coupled with some pen restorers putting Noodler's on their troublesome inks list and the fact that many don't like Nathan's vocal political points of view has brewed a situation where Noodler's inks are becoming a target. I have had sacs fail when using other inks. My personal conclusion is that in every batch of latex rubber (a natural material, it comes from tropical trees) their will be variances that cannot be accounted for. The sacs that should be tested are the ones that failed, but those aren't available.

Lets be honest with ourselves, guys, when we were young and in school, we were warned about 'failing prophylactics'.... Guess what those are made from...

[Cookies]

In response to a few comments that mentioned it was reputation that was the driving idea behind Noodle's melting sacs. To be fair, I had no idea Noodler's had any reputation for melting ink sacs. I simply had a pen that had just been been fitted with a brand new sac and after using it with only two inks, both Noodler's, I noticed it was only holding a drop of ink when I filled. When I opened it up the sac was... goo for lack of a better term. Despite the fact that I try to flush as throughly as possible there's always the chance (especially with Touchdown fillers which I find difficult to flush) that there was a bit of Noodler's Black left in the pen when I filled it the second time.

Have you reported it to the pen seller you got the sac from? Some time ago, a whole batch of sacs was badly manufactured and these sacs will melt easily just from being exposed to ink. They were made some time ago, but some are still around due to slow throughput (FP sacs aren't a high volume product, to say the least), and crop up every now and again.

I've mixed Noodler's black with other Noodler's inks and with ink from another brand and not had any problems, and so have others, so it's likely that the sac was at least part of the problem. So frustrating, and we're probably never going to figure out the chemistry behind these things.

I didn't tell them about it since I decided I'd like to try replacing it myself. It's definitely possible it could have been an old stock sac. Though they do quite a few refurbishments so I'm sure they go through stock petty quickly.

[raging.dragon]

A brand new sac in my Sheaffer Touchdown turned to goo after a couple weeks with Noodler's inks.

Please provide us with a list of these inks and any other inks or flush ingredients you may have used with the pen during that time frame. Also, was pure talc used to dust the sac, graphite, or something else? I just want to replicate your results. I'm sure you can appreciate the effect it will have if we can!

Sorry mhosea, but I didn't attach the sac myself (though I'm going to try and fix it myself for the first time). I can assume it was done to the best standards since I've ordered many restored pens from the same people and they've been top notch. The inks I used were Noodler's Black and either Bad Blue Heron or Kingfisher. Unfortunately I can't remember. I don't use any pen flushes but it was probably flushed with a drop of dish detergent when I first received it. I always use Mrs. Meyer's brand if that helps.
Of course it could just be a bad sac, I'm sure there are a few floating around. But I'm thinking better safe than sorry when it coms to future pens containing sacs.

Is the dish detergent coloured and/or scented? It could be something in the detergent that killed the sac.