The first paper is an ordinary cheap spiral pad paper.
The second paper
is banana paper. It's quite rough and
doesn't absorb ink as much as most office papers does.
This isn't a scientific test, partly because I haven't used archival paper -- which I didn't think was important as this isn't a long duration test. So you can't rely on it if you have professional reasons to use archival ink nor if long term storage is an issue. I just made it to guide myself and maybe someone else finds it interesting too.
The first paper is an ordinary cheap spiral pad paper.
The second paper
is banana paper. It's quite rough and
doesn't absorb ink as much as most office papers does.
The first column in the images is paper which has been stored dark for 4 months, the fourth column was thoroughly soaked and rinsed in water for 10 minutes. The second and third columns were exposed to light by being taped to the inside of a window for 3 weeks and 3 months. I messed up and their positions are switched between the papers.
No fountain pen ink was used in this round of testing, only ballpoint and rollerball. Inks/pens used:
We can see that without surprise none of the gel inks could handle water and nor are they especially light fast. One thing which surprised med was that the M66 rollerball stood up to water quite well, even on the non-absorbing paper. (Due to the nature of the test, all inks were let to dry for a day before being subjected to water.)
Another things which doesn't surprise us is that inks marked for document use really are more permanent. One could have thought that the Parker refill from an "Urban" pen, which isn't so marked, could have been the same as the others, but without the marking -- but it's clearly not but something else.
The 19 year old Ballograf refill gives a slightly different colour in use, but regarding fastness it's just as good as a new. As expected, as the documentary standard also specifies a 10 year shelf life of refills.
One surprise of the test is the Slider refills, because the black one is marked "for documents". Even if this isn't a proper long term test I'd expected it to do much better regarding light fastness.