"BLandolf" wrote:

| 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

Somewhere, Frank Dubiel is smiling....

john cline ii, who admired Frank, but still prefers Aurora Black (but
loves his Quink Blue-Black as well...)