How does our best batch compare against the commercial BYK-9076?21 Aug 03:34
## How the best batch compares to BYK-9076
There is no single declared "best" in the records. The most recent batch carrying an
Batch 48 vs that day's BYK 9076 standard (verbatim):
| Pigment | Batch 48 | BYK-9076 (same day) |
|---|---|---|
| Violet 23 | Viscosity 30 sec; Gloss 53.3; CS 98-99.00%; Resolubility 3; Opaque | 29 sec; Gloss 62; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Violet 27 | Viscosity 31 sec; Gloss 4.6; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Eq to Std | 30 sec; Gloss 5.3; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Black | Viscosity 34 sec; Gloss 30.9; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Eq to Std | 33 sec; Gloss 31; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Blue | Viscosity 32 sec; Gloss 34.8; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Transparent | 31 sec; Gloss 34; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
Verdict: broadly on-par. Viscosity ~1 sec heavier across all four pigments; colour strength and resolubility match (4/4) on Violet 27, Black, Blue. Gloss inferior vs that day's standard on the two high-gloss pigments (Violet 23: 53.3 vs 62; Black: 30.9 vs 31), roughly on-par on Violet 27 (4.6 vs 5.3) and slightly ahead on Blue (34.8 vs 34). One deviation to flag: Violet 23 shows Batch 48 "Resolubility 3" vs standard 4 and "Opaque" vs "Ref as Std" — a real difference, not a typo.
Batch 48 also notes reduced gloss in violet in its own pigment-spread test, consistent with the trial data. Note the same-day "standard" values shift between trials (e.g. Black gloss 41.5 on 05.02.2025 vs 31 on 31.10.2025), so comparisons are only valid within a single trial date. Only failed application reports exist in this drop — absence of a failure elsewhere does not mean those samples passed.
There is no single declared "best" in the records. The most recent batch carrying an
ok outcome and a same-day BYK-9076 head-to-head is Batch 48 (S 9076 #48, trial 31.10.2025, NC-PU ink). Batch 5 also has an ok outcome, but its 05.12.2025 Violet-23 run is the only one where it beats the standard on gloss; its 05.02.2025 Black run was clearly worse. I treat 48 as the best comparable because it is the latest fully-trialled ok batch.Batch 48 vs that day's BYK 9076 standard (verbatim):
| Pigment | Batch 48 | BYK-9076 (same day) |
|---|---|---|
| Violet 23 | Viscosity 30 sec; Gloss 53.3; CS 98-99.00%; Resolubility 3; Opaque | 29 sec; Gloss 62; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Violet 27 | Viscosity 31 sec; Gloss 4.6; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Eq to Std | 30 sec; Gloss 5.3; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Black | Viscosity 34 sec; Gloss 30.9; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Eq to Std | 33 sec; Gloss 31; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
| Blue | Viscosity 32 sec; Gloss 34.8; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Transparent | 31 sec; Gloss 34; CS 1; Resolubility 4; Ref as Std |
Verdict: broadly on-par. Viscosity ~1 sec heavier across all four pigments; colour strength and resolubility match (4/4) on Violet 27, Black, Blue. Gloss inferior vs that day's standard on the two high-gloss pigments (Violet 23: 53.3 vs 62; Black: 30.9 vs 31), roughly on-par on Violet 27 (4.6 vs 5.3) and slightly ahead on Blue (34.8 vs 34). One deviation to flag: Violet 23 shows Batch 48 "Resolubility 3" vs standard 4 and "Opaque" vs "Ref as Std" — a real difference, not a typo.
Batch 48 also notes reduced gloss in violet in its own pigment-spread test, consistent with the trial data. Note the same-day "standard" values shift between trials (e.g. Black gloss 41.5 on 05.02.2025 vs 31 on 31.10.2025), so comparisons are only valid within a single trial date. Only failed application reports exist in this drop — absence of a failure elsewhere does not mean those samples passed.
Sources
confidence: medium