KCat wrote:
of course "value" is subjective to some degree - if you dislike the
ink and won't use it.. than it's still wasted $. ...

Value is subjective, for sure, but price is not. The fact that Aurora's
retail price is 22¢ per ml and Quink's retail price is 10¢ per ml (at $6
per bottle... the IP was getting it for less at Staples) is not
subjective. That someone thinks Aurora black is somehow more attractive
than Quink black is subjective. That Quink has been around since 1931 is
not subjective. I just bought 20 4-oz bottles of cir. 1940 Quink (Perm.
Royal Blue and Perm. Blue-Black), and it's still perfectly useable. Some
folks might not think it's as pretty as some currently available
boutique inks (although others might think it's prettier); however, the
fact that it's still in perfect shape after 60+ years is, I think,
relevant to the IP's question Is there a better ink than Quink. (Bet
Dr. Seuss could have had fun with that one.) Quink's been around a
long time. You're not going to find stuff precipitating out of it or
slimy stuff floating around inside the bottle. It's not going to gunk up
your pens. There are many inks available without as long or as good a
track record. But, those other inks sell for good reasons to those who
buy them... shrug.
--- Bernadette