Good to see your results. I am starting to think Alizarin Crimson isn’t lightfast!

Einion

Even if the Permanent is slightly more intense in tints (I assume it means slightly higher chroma when tinted to the exact same value), are there any good reason(s) any more to use real Alizarin? (And I’m not asking rhetorically, I truly want to know if there are any good reasons).

Unfortunately the answer to that is going to be subjective; anyone like us is going to say no (I think that anyway of course, regardless of there being a ‘suitable replacement’ ) but people in the other camp will generally continue to disagree from what I’ve seen – just look at the professional watercolourists that turn a blind eye to the issue.

Anyway, back to the Gamblin paint, I’d like to take the opportunity to repeat Richard Schmid’s comment, “as far as I can tell, it is a perfect match”. Now I’ve read one or two members’ opinions that disagree but hey, not like there are any guarantees in this world and we all know pigments vary (Ali Crimsons are by no means a single colour).

But all this is really beside the point: one does not need an equivalent colour as a replacement. The thousands of painters that don’t use a crimson paint, but do work of a similar type to those who do, show this with absolute clarity. PR177, PV19 of one type or another, PR264, PR N/A and of course PR122 could all take the rough position in the palette between red and violet; then it’s just a matter of adapting mixing routines/procedures, which really doesn’t take that much effort.

Einion

BTW, those artists that didn’t find Gamblin’s Alizarin replacement to be close enough, in what way did they say it wasn’t close enough? I don’t see a difference in the photo I linked to.

I had a huge problem searching for prior mentions of it with any negative comments about the colour specifically but here are two (from the same thread):

In spite of the fact that Schmid claims the Gamblin is a dead on match, I have not found it to be so…. The Gamblin and my Gamblin immitation mixes (from the same pigments Gamblin uses) came closest in value, [COLOR=”DimGray][b]but none matched the vibrancy and purity of the color alizarin[/b][/COLOR]*. Those that came closest in the vibrancy department lacked the dark value, though some were close.

What I noticed(my eyes only) is that the Williamsburg ‘Permanent Crimson’ retains the warmth, not as blue as the Gamblin, more like true Alizarin C.

I’m sure I’ve read others (since I don’t think I saw the thread the above quotes are from!) but it’ll have to remain hearsay if I can’t locate them.

Einion

*In relation to the bit you highlighted, slightly more intense in tint, I guess this must relate to tinting strength rather than chroma? I also read the wording to mean as you did, supporting the argument for clear, unequivocal language in paint literature. As far as I’m concerned intensity is a synonym for chroma or saturation or brilliance; if they didn’t mean that – i.e. if they did mean tinting strength – why didn’t they just say so?

Oh, this is so very unfair. I want to play too, and my samples aren’t showing anything yet! They’ve been in the window for 7 months. I think I’ll have to move them to an upstairs window, and tilt them too. I was up at the Golden headquarters a couple of months ago, and they had all their tests tilted to face the sun.

In my window are:
Winsor Newton Artist Alizarin
Grumbacher Alizarin
Utrecht Alizarin
Winsor Newton Artist Permanent Alizarin
Gamblin Permanent Alizarin
My own mix using the same pigments as Gamblin
Two other mixes of mine for permanent alizarin matches

I have found the permanent alizarins on the market to have equal chroma straight out of the tube, but less when mixed. The Gamblin perment alizarin is not as clean in mixes as the genuine. The Winsor Newton Permanent Alizarin turns more reddish in tints than the genuine. For me, either is close enough. I’m a little concerned about Marc Hanson’s tests for the Gamblin mix, and so I’m not trusting perylene PR149 at all anymore, until I can see for myself that it’s holding up in sunlight.

Jamie

Jamie, are your samples facing south (more or less) ? Yes, angling will help a bit. But perhaps the most important thing is making sure that the thinnest parts of the sample are drawn down VERY thin, which requires using thinner.

Patrick, they’re in a south facing window, but it’s on the first floor, with a tree outside. LOL….Works fine in winter, but I probably lost quite a bit of sunlight in the spring and summer. I think it will fare better in an upstairs south facing window on the other side of the house. I was trying to avoid plastering lightfastness tests against the picture window in the living room. Maybe my husband won’t notice.

I did not use thinner for the tests. I brushed squares of the samples three ways: thick undiluted, very thin undiluted, and cut half with white, medium application thickness. When I do more, I will take your advice and use thinner.

Jamie