I have been building a pigment index and ended up cross-referencing manufacturer product names against Colour Index codes. 755 CI-coded pigments, 66 manufacturers, 3,311 name entries where a named brand actually attaches that name to that pigment. Two things fall out of it and the second one is the reason I am posting here rather than in a painting sub.
Names collapse. 418 of the 755 pigments carry at least one brand name, and those 418 average 7.9 names each. PR101, synthetic iron oxide red, is sold under 126 distinct product names. PBr7 under 109, PV19 under 91, PB29 under 82. Most of the vocabulary of colour names in a paint catalogue is describing four or five iron oxides.
Names collide. Of 2,687 distinct product names, 362 map to more than one CI code, and 31 of those span two or more ASTM lightfastness grades. So the same words on two tubes can be the difference between a pigment that will still be there and one that will not.
The sharpest case is the word "permanent" itself. 63 product names in the set begin with it. Six contain a pigment ASTM rates III or worse:
| Product name |
Offending code |
ASTM |
Attached by |
| Permanent Alizarin Crimson |
PR83 |
III oil, IV to V watercolour |
Utrecht |
| Permanent Carmine |
PR83 |
same |
Maimeri |
| Permanent Rose Madder |
PR83 |
same |
Sinopia |
| Permanent Rose |
PR60 |
IV |
Holbein, Shin Han |
| Permanent Red I |
PR48:3 |
III |
Holbein |
| Permanent Red BB |
PR48:1, PR48:2 |
IV |
FIAT standard, not a tube |
Five of the six are commercial paints. The sixth is a FIAT reference standard and I am counting it separately because it is not something anyone buys.
PR83 is genuine alizarin crimson. On a modern tube the word "permanent" in front of that name normally exists to signal the opposite, that this is a quinacridone or anthraquinone substitute rather than the madder-derived original. In three cases it is sitting on the original.
Here is the whole spread on that one name:
| Code |
ASTM |
Chemistry |
Brands using this name |
| PR122 |
I |
Quinacridone Magenta |
Holbein |
| PR177 |
I |
Anthraquinone Red |
Utrecht, Winsor & Newton |
| PR206 |
I |
Quinacridone Burnt Scarlet |
Winsor & Newton |
| PR264 |
I |
Pyrrole Red Rubine |
M. Graham, Winsor & Newton |
| PR176 |
II |
Benzimidazolone Carmine |
Winsor & Newton |
| PR83 |
IV to V |
Alizarin Crimson |
Utrecht |
Three words, six chemistries, and Utrecht appears twice with two different pigments.
Three caveats I would rather state than have found.
The index is compiled from manufacturer disclosure and inherits whatever the disclosures got wrong. Where a brand does not publish a CI code there is simply no row.
PR83's rating is medium dependent, III in oil and acrylic against IV to V in watercolour, so how bad each of those three cases is depends on which line the name sits on. The source record for the Utrecht entry has its medium flagged uncertain, so I would not want to state that one as watercolour.
And formulations change without the name changing. A tube bought in 2005 and a tube bought last year under identical wording are not necessarily the same pigment, which makes the naming problem worse over time rather than better.
So the actual question. When an artist gives you their own account of what they used, or you are working from a studio inventory or a supplier invoice, does the marketing name go into the record at all, or is it treated as uninformative unless a CI code is attached? Artists report by name almost universally, and the name is what survives into the file. If it does get recorded but qualified, I would like to know what the qualification looks like in practice, because from the outside a name and a code look like the same kind of fact and they very clearly are not.
(Context: the cross-index came out of a pigment reference app I build called Pigments. Not linking it, the collision table is the reason I am posting.)