Tag Archives: art supply critic

Review – Crayola Crayons (120 Crayon Box Part 4 – Oranges, Browns, Metals, and Greys + Sharpener)

Posted on by
Reply

Well, this series has taken me much longer to get out than I anticipated, but we’re in the final stretch with the last 30 colors (and the sharpener). Let’s take a look.

Yellow Orange – Indeed, a slightly lighter and unpleasantly toned orange, this color is like a more saturated “Macaroni and Cheese”, with coverage being fine, but spots of unevenness. It could in some cases be used for citrus fruit, but I think its best use would be for fossilized amber.

Vivid Tangerine – A light, almost neon, Orange, Vivid Tangerine looks slightly like the fruit it’s named after, and might be nice for things such as mangos or apricots. It does cover pretty well, but has a lot of variation in the color.

Orange – One of the last classic colors, orange is a nice deep… orange that is a bit off for the fruit but works well for most man-made items that are orange. It’s got nice, even coverage and is generally pleasant to look at.

Mango Tango – Closer to a pinkish-red than to anything related to mangos this color is similar to that of many fruity drinks and some artificially flavored candies. And it’s got decent coverage with a bit of splotchyness.

Red Orange – Aptly named Red Orange is a very reddish orange color (in fact, mostly red) that has okay coverage with some intensity variation. It’s a bit dull but probably a more apt representation of the many red things we have like fire trucks and extinguishers.

Sunset Orange – A little brighter than Red Orange, this color shares many of the same attributes as that color, but, as the name suggests, it might be more applicable for sunsets and hot embers.

Burnt Orange – The most stark on the page of any of the crayons, this color looks almost like an oil sienna, and covers very well but with a lot of color variation. It makes a nice UT (University of Texas) Longhorn and can give a lot of variety to trees or other wooden objects. (It also just kinda feels… sticky.)

Tan – Well-named, but a bit darker than one would expect, Tan is a pleasant lighter brown that covers well and is fairly even. It’s a good rock or dirt color, and can give variety in wood color when mixed with other browns.

Peach – While not looking much like a peach, this very light, orangeish brown does look like the peach we associate with skin or peach ice cream. It’s got pretty good coverage and is one of the few acceptable skin tones in the whole lineup.

Melon – This very faint color has hints of brown and red, but could pass for the color of a watermelon if you squint. It wouldn’t be the most apt representation in the set, though. Coverage is less than average, and there isn’t much variation. It works as a good highlighter color to mix in with reds or browns, and might make a good color for Martian dust.

Apricot – Looking more like an apricot than Peach looks like peaches, Apricot still doesn’t resemble its namesake very much, but is also a good skin tone. It’s quite faint and the coverage is sub-par, but it does looks quit realistic (for “white” skin) and it can serve as a nice highlight color.

Tumbleweed – As a person who grew up around tumbleweeds I can’t really sat this color is accurate, but it is a nice dusty brown with a hint of “gold”. The coverage isn’t the best but that adds to a dirty aesthetic and means the color works very well for dust, dirt, and dried plants.

Desert Sand – Being a very light and pale brown that doesn’t cover perfectly and has a little bit of variation means that this color does indeed look very much like (dry) sand and it would do equally well as dust in the wind.

Burnt Sienna – I don’t really see the comparison to the name here, it just doesn’t “pop” enough, or feel really “burnt”. It’s just a light-ish brown with the tiniest hint of red that doesn’t cover too well and is mostly useful as an additional wood color.

Raw Sienna – More sepia than sienna, this color is a washed-out brown that covers nicely and would be good for old-timey photographs or dirt that’s on the dryer side.

Bittersweet – I don’t think they really nailed the name here, as I can see a few other colors evoking a “bittersweet” feeling, but not this one. This reddish brown covers decently, and has a little bit of variation in there. It’s pretty close to a true brick or clay color, and might work for a candy of some kind as the name implies. (And it’s about as much like the flower as any other flower-based color here.)

Mahogany – Similar enough to the wood to get a pass from me, Mahogany is a deep reddish brown with decent coverage. It works great for old, faded barns and bricks, while sometimes being useful for variations in wood tones.

Fuzzy Wuzzy – If Fuzzy Wuzzy was a purplish brown bear then this color’s name would be accurate. It’s almost like the color of the teddy bear from Toy Story after it’s been through a few too many washes. It covers well-enough and can be used wherever you need a dirty, faded purple.

Chestnut – A deep brown with a touch of purple, Chestnut isn’t quite like the nut or the wood, but it does make a good color to add into a set of woods, or perhaps as a very dark wine. The coverage might be a little lacking for that, though.

Beaver – A dark grey with a subtle hint of brown, the name of Beaver here is irrelevant, but this is a very good color for asphalt or faded tire rubber. It’s helped here by the good coverage, with some variation in there.

Brown – Getting close to the end of the classic colors, Brown is just brown, though a slightly lighter one. It’s got good coverage and is there for all your dirt, tree, and brunette needs. (And it might pass as a skin color, but not really.)

Sepia – Much darker and more traditionally “brown” than I usually expect, this Sepia has some good coverage but because of how dark it is it shows up much more than other colors. It makes a good wood or dirt color, but probably isn’t the right choice for old photographs.

Antique Brass – Closer in my mind to dull copper, this brown is slightly metallic and covers decently enough, but looks very flat. Unfortunately it would probably work best as a dirt or bark color, and not as a metal object.

Copper – Surprisingly, even though it’s metallic, this is the only brown color in the set I’d really consider close to a skin tone. It’s a lightish brown with some very good coverage and some nice variation. It could work as a metal, but I’d stick to skin or wood with it.

Gold – Always a hard color to make, this Gold looks like a worn and scuffed version of the metal. And it’s got good coverage, but it doesn’t quite make it. It’s not the best representation, and it’s more akin to less-copper brass, but it’ll do for that and not much else.

Silver – A shiny lighter grey, silver has good coverage, a lot of variation, and plays the part of a generic metal quite well, though I wouldn’t say it’s very good for silver, it’s closer to steel.

Timberwolf – I like the name, and this pale, warm grey does resemble some types of wolves (some times). It’s not got the best coverage, but some variation in there makes it good for fog or sleet.

Grey – On the darker (and cooler) side of grey there is… Grey, which has decent coverage and decent tone. It works quite well for concrete, ashes, or shadow.

Shadow – On the other hand, Shadow doesn’t work well for shadows. This warm, mid-tone grey is a very strange color that I really can’t place. It’s almost like it has a bit of green in it too. The coverage is fine but the variation makes things a bit stripy and weird.

Black – And now for the final of the classic 8 colors, Black isn’t as dark as I remember it being, and it does have problems with coverage that I do remember, but it is the darkest crayon here, and it works well for nighttime, shadows, writing, and just being an antithesis for white.

Sharpener – The Sharpener that was included in my package is a fascinating little (it’s not very little, actually) thing. It’s a 4 ½” tall statue of the character “Tip”, who is an anthropomorphic crayon. The tip of the crayon here is the sharpener, which is all plastic. The given hole is much larger than the crayons provided, but the “blades” do sort of self-index toward the center as you insert the crayon. Rotating the crayon with a little pressure does effectively shave off the sides of the crayon until there is a cone of about the same length as the factory crayons, and an equally blunt tip. It works easily and smoothly, and all the shavings are stored inside until you remove the top bit (just above the character’s eyes) and dump them out.

And there we have it, the 120 crayon Crayola box. Is it worth it? For the price, sure, it’s quite inexpensive, but the colors leave much to be desired. And while I do think a child’s bragging rights are worth something, as far as making art goes, this set is unnecessary. Crayons (of the school variety) are imperfect tools that are hard to make art with already, and many of these colors are useless on their own while being unable to really mix with any of the other colors. It just doesn’t really help that much, and kids can easily become overwhelmed with choices (they’ll basically either just use the same crayons they would get in smaller packs until they’re gone or use any “green” as green). The sharpener is neat, and having a bunch of crayons around is “cool” (I think it’s cool… maybe “fun”), but I don’t see a significant upgrade here from the 48 or 96, especially since there are a few manufacturing defects regarding the paper wrap, holes in the crayons, and receiving duplicate colors. But also it’s like $7 and I can’t tell you how to live your life.

Review – Parker Classic Pen and Pencil Set (GT)

Posted on by
Reply

Have your eyes ever glanced over something where you “knew” what it was but had to double take because something was just “wrong” about it? That’s what happened to me when I first came across the Parker Classic pens. I thought they were Jotters, Parker’s very popular, least expensive pen, but something was just… “off”. And indeed it was, after purchasing it and comparing it to my Jotter at home I discovered that it is a bit different (mainly in thickness), but does that improve anything?

My version (the GT, which I think stands for “gold trim”) is a super simple design. The barrel is a cylindrical piece of stainless steel that screws together in the center. The front third tapers down to a hole, through which the nib protrudes when activated (on the pencil there is a small lead pipe here, extending the length slightly). And the back section of the pen ever so slightly tapers down to the click mechanism. Both the top clicker and the arrow-shaped clip are done in a gold-colored, chrome-like finish, and “Parker – Made in U.S.A.” is very minimally engraved at the separation (on the back half).

The clip does a very good job, being more detailed but just as strong as the clip on the Jotter, and actually affixed to the metal and not on its own separate (if unremovable) band. The clicks on both the pen and pencil are quite satisfying, the pencil more so because it is slightly shorter (thus having less traveling distance) and more firm (it also has rings near the top to help distinguish between the two in the pocket). Because of its length, the pen one does seem a bit floaty. The pencil’s click button also pulls off to reveal a usable pink eraser (it’s nothing special), and when that is removed, the lead reservoir (for .5mm leads). The design of the pencil here means that the mechanism is fully attached to the front part of the pencil, and unscrewing the back does nothing to hinder the operation (other than making it less comfortable) or allow for any maintenance.

I haven’t mentioned the ink/lead yet because there isn’t really much to talk about. The black, fine cartridge (standard Parker type) and HB .5mm lead the two come with is exactly as you’d expect. Relatively smooth, almost dark, and mostly break-and-water-resistant. The main difference in handling comes from the size. They are a bit longer than the Jotter, at 5¼” (pen) and 5 3/8” (pencil) long, but it’s really the diameter that makes the difference, being 1/8” smaller at their widest of ¼”. This doesn’t make them much lighter, but it does make them nicer to use for someone like me who likes smaller barrels on their pens, or is trying to store things more efficiently.

It is an upgrade from the area of 3rd tier pens (like the Jotter, which is above semi-disposable pens, which are above fully disposable pens). It has more refined, nicer feeling, and is just as durable. But it isn’t too much of an upgrade unless you really like the slim dimensions (like me). The fact that it’s apparently been discontinued is a hint at whether or not people really thought it was worth upgrading, but I’m a fan, and at a decent price I think they are serious competition for the Jotter in the pencil case. I’m keeping mine around, and it’ll probably last me a lifetime.

Comparison – Wite-Out Vs. Liquid Paper pens (Shake n’ Sqeeze, Correction Pen)

Posted on by
Reply

Correction fluid is quite a useful tool and an art supply in its own right on some occasions. But those bottles are hard to lug around, and the brush tips difficult to manipulate to really cover what you want. Both of the major correction fluid brands have attempted to rectify this situation with pen applicators for their product. But how well do they really work in comparison? And how do they look head to head?

Both are rather fat, pen-sized items at a little over 5 inches in length. Each is roughly cylindrical with a cap on one end, a squeezable bulge in the middle, and a posting step-down at the other end. The amount of fluid contained in each is surprisingly similar: being 7ml for the Liquid Paper and 8ml for the Bic Wite Out. But despite having only a slightly larger capacity, the Bic pen is noticeably larger in almost every way. It is a little bit longer, the tube diameter is about 125% that of the other, and the squeezable bulge extends out in two humps rather than the one of its smaller counterpart. Each one has a cap with an integrated clip, through the Bic one is translucent and more brittle-feeling than the LP which matches with the rest of the pen. The main color of each pen is an off-white, the differences of which mirror the differences in the colors of the fluids inside, with the Wite Out being a “warmer” and the LP being a “cooler” white. There’s a lot more information on the Wite Out pen, which is printed on a label wrapped around the bottom as opposed to the Liquid Paper which has just enough info printed directly on the plastic. And both pens have a strange “arrow” (triangle) pointing toward the tip molded into their plastic.

Both pens are used in the same fashion: shake it up, remove cap and any little dried bits (there always is some, no matter how well you wipe it off), press down firmly, and then write with it like it’s a pen, squeezing and pressing to increase the flow when needed (then wipe the tip off and re-cap). Both do a pretty good job, but each has its own quirks. The Bic pen is harder to start as the tip is wider and the fluid dries more rigidly. It tends to cover nicely in one stroke but the width of that stroke is a bit unpredictable, and it’s pretty poor at “writing” on its own. The fluid is basically the same as the Wite Out quick dry (or regular), drying fairly quickly and smoothly over the paper, but noticeably sitting on top of it because it is a warmer white than the average piece of paper. The Liquid Paper produces a thinner line that is easier to write with, but can sometimes require multiple, finicky applications to really cover a mistake. The fluid does start to dry pretty fast, but it quickly becomes a bit “gummy”, and if you need multiple coats and aren’t fast enough this can easily lead to unsightly bumps in the finish. If you can get it down smooth, though, it blends in much better with the paper, being closer to the cool white of office copy reams.

Both clips are serviceable when the pen is capped, with the Liquid Paper’s being a little weaker when clipping, but less brittle. As mentioned, both caps have posting stumps on the back. The Wite Out posts quite tightly and securely, while the Liquid Paper, even with no fear of falling off, seems a bit wimpy-er. Both pens have worked for me and not dried up over several months, and I happen to be in possession of another Liquid Paper pen dated 1989, which surprisingly still works (but not as well). I don’t know if that will apply to these new ones, but it’s a good omen. (The differences between the old and the new are minimal: the cap has had ridges added on the sides and a droplet shape on the clip, between the cap and body there is now a green band, that aforementioned triangle has been added, the applicator tip has been modified to add more metal, and the old has an applied label rather than material printed directly on the barrel).

Neither pen is clearly better than the other, so it mostly comes down to personal preference. The Wite Out has: a larger capacity, a thicker line, simple application, and is easier to hold. While the Liquid Paper is: smaller, easier to start, and has a much more true-to-paper tone. If you’re just looking for a correction pen, you can’t really go wrong with either, so I wouldn’t go out of my way to find one or the other. As it stands, I’ll be using the Liquid Paper in my pencil case for on-the-go stuff and the Wite Out at the desk for when I need something more fine than the sponge applicator. And I think both’ll be lasting me a pretty long time.

Review – Sharpie Clear View Stick Highlighter

Posted on by
Reply

I would imagine that somewhere within the companies that produce writing implements there is an R&D department or team, whose task it is to come up with new products that will sell and grab market attention. I would also imagine that this job is fairly difficult at this point. Not only are physical writing implements perceived as being on the way out, but those that are around have been honed for decades to be exactly what the markets are looking for. In other words, I’m not entirely sure the motivation behind “improving” highlighters with the Sharpie Clear View highlighter was actually an intention to make the product better. But maybe it does. Let’s take a look.

The main bodies of the pens are a matte plastic matching the color of the ink. They’re more ovular, rather then entirely cylindrical, and they taper down to the end more in one direction than the other, making their ends appear squished (or chewed on, like the ends of many pens I’ve seen). Underneath the cap is a shiny black plastic section that is slightly more slippery than the body but doesn’t really impede use. This tapers down slightly and from it protrudes a very angular, chisel-shaped felt highlighter tip. Inside this tip is a similarly shaped piece of clear plastic that both holds the tip in place and allows the user to see through it. The cap is made of a frosted plastic to allow one to see the special tip through it and the packaging, while being soft enough to not shatter easily (like many clear plastics would). It has an integrated clip and posts securely, but with a strangle wobbly feel from the “squished” rear.

The three colors that come in the package are your standard highlighter colors: pink, yellow, and green. Each is quite bright and visible, but doesn’t block whatever is being highlighted. Green is the darkest, and is a color almost unusable in some highlighters, but here it is serviceable, if my least favorite because of the “shading” pools that tend to form at the start and end of a highlighted line. Pink is slightly better at this, and of course yellow trumps both in the visibility of words beneath it, its own visibility (in good light), and lack of shading. Sharpie’s smear guard is still working as good as ever and most inks can be highlighted without trouble (but some water-based inks are more unhappy about it than others). And then there’s the main feature. After using it, I don’t get it. It is technically possible to see through the highlighter so you know what you’re highlighting and when to stop. But if you didn’t know that going in what were you thinking? And the angle you have to hold the pen at to see well isn’t a very comfortable one. I mean, I can’t fault it for “not working”, but I just don’t understand how it’s supposed to be used. It doesn’t make anything easier or better, it’s just there.

If you’re looking for a set of highlighters, these work, and if you find them at around the same price as normal highlighters (the price fluctuates) I’d say get them (it doesn’t hurt). But I wouldn’t go out of my way for them, or pay much more. I can’t see their gimmick as anything more than that, and it doesn’t work for me.

Review – Bic 4 Color Original Pen

Posted on by
Reply

For as much as they are almost “looked down” upon in the world of writing implements, and for as cheap a product as they are, Bic pens are very sturdy and reliable line-making machines, with newer ink formulations making them smoother than any pen in the price range seems to deserve to be. Their simple and effective designs have endured the tests of time, making the Cristal ubiquitous, and others, like the 4 color pen, an oddity many have toyed with and some people swear by. Is combining 4 pens into one really necessary? Probably not. But does it have convenient uses for those who still write thing down? Let’s take a look.

The body of the pen is quite simple, with a retro vibe that probably comes from the design being relatively unchanged from its introduction decades ago. The main barrel is a light blue (or orange for the fine version) cylinder making up 2/3 of the length that begins to taper as it gets closer to the writing end. On top of this is a black band, which connects to the white top. This top section has a very “angular” molded-in plastic clip, a lanyard hole/rotary telephone dialer on top (rather intrusively), and 4 slots in which 4 plungers of different colors sit. When one of the plungers is depressed, a pen tip of a corresponding color pokes out of the front. Unscrewing the blue portion reveals that the mechanism here is quite simple: the 4 ink tubes (with tips) are situated equally distanced from each other inside the barrel. When one pushes the plunger, an ink tube is moved forward and bent via the barrel taper to come out the hole in the center, and a catch holds the plunger down until depressing another one causes it to spring back up. Unfortunately, the way things are constructed, the ink tubes are not replaceable, so if you run out, you’re stuck. The only other thing on the body is the Bic logo and “made in France” molded into the side of the white upper portion. It’s nice that it won’t rub off, but it doesn’t give you very much information to go on.

The performance is decent. The inks are quite smooth for a ballpoint, and don’t cramp the hand too much, but there is more blobbing than I would like and some of the lesser-used colors (like green) often have startup problems from dried ink on the tip. Despite being a shiny plastic, the pen holds well in the hand. Being a bit larger than your average pen to accommodate 4 ink tubes, it has more surface area to hold on to and it isn’t slippery. It might not fit in some smaller pencil holders, though. I’ve taken a look at the more common Bic colors before, and they aren’t changed here. All are a bit more wimpy than I would like, especially the green, followed by the red, but they go down well and are recognizable while having the standard ballpoint advantages like being water-fast. The clip is pretty bad if you ask me, having almost no flex, but it will probably do its job.

For art, this pen probably isn’t worth considering unless you’re challenging yourself. But for those that like stay organized with different colors in their planners, need a red pen and don’t want to keep track of 2 pens, or don’t want to run out of ink on the fly, this is a pretty good option. It’s got a nice retro feel if you’re into that sort of thing (understanding that it’s a little unprofessional) and even through it’s disposable, the materials are quality enough it won’t fall apart on you. For someone like me, who carries around 4 pens in 4 colors this might be a lifesaver. It’s not the end-all pen, but it’s a nice office-weight pen, designed to be inexpensive and get things done, which it does quite well at.