Fact Check: Are QoR watercolors good?

Are QoR Watercolors Good? A Detailed Examination

Introduction

The claim in question revolves around the quality of QoR (Quality of Results) watercolors, a product line developed by Golden Artist Colors. Artists and reviewers frequently discuss the performance of these watercolors, particularly in terms of vibrancy, flow, and lightfastness. This article aims to explore various reviews and opinions to assess the overall reputation of QoR watercolors without reaching a definitive conclusion.

What We Know

QoR watercolors were introduced in 2014 and are notable for their use of a proprietary binder called Aquazol, which is said to enhance the paint's performance compared to traditional watercolor binders like gum arabic. The product line has expanded to include 96 colors, with many single-pigment options that are praised for their lightfastness 14. Reviews highlight the vibrant colors and unique properties of the paint, with some artists noting that the watercolors behave differently than those made with conventional binders 56.

A variety of reviews provide insights into the performance of QoR watercolors:

• Doodlewash features guest reviews that include swatching and practical demonstrations, suggesting that the paints are well-received among artists 2.
• Jackson's Art Blog describes QoR as "the first new thing to happen to watercolor in 150 years," emphasizing its innovative binder 4.
• Artdragon86 notes that QoR is a newer product from a company primarily known for acrylics, which may influence perceptions of its quality 6.
• Kim Crick offers a mixed review, acknowledging the unique qualities of the watercolors while expressing concerns about the proprietary binder 8.

Analysis

The reviews of QoR watercolors vary in tone and detail, reflecting a range of artist experiences.

1. Credibility of Sources:

   • Doodlewash and Jackson's Art Blog are platforms that focus on art supplies and techniques, often featuring guest artists. While they provide practical insights, their reviews may be subjective and influenced by personal preferences.
   • YouTube reviews (e.g., 3, 9) can be highly variable in quality and may lack rigorous testing methods. They often rely on personal experience, which can introduce bias.
   • Kim Crick's review is notable for its critical perspective, which adds balance but also reflects personal opinion, particularly regarding the proprietary binder 8.

2. Methodology:

   • Many reviews rely on swatching and practical demonstrations, which are valuable for assessing color vibrancy and flow. However, they may not provide comprehensive testing for aspects like lightfastness or longevity.
   • Lightfastness testing is mentioned in some reviews, which is crucial for artists concerned about the durability of their work. However, the specifics of these tests (e.g., conditions, duration) are often not detailed, leaving questions about their reliability.

3. Conflicts of Interest:

   • Some reviewers may have affiliations with art supply companies or receive products for free, which could influence their opinions. Transparency about such relationships is essential for evaluating the reliability of their assessments.

4. Supporting vs. Contradicting Evidence:

   • Supporters of QoR watercolors highlight their vibrancy and innovative binder, suggesting they are a significant advancement in watercolor technology 45.
   • Critics, such as Kim Crick, express reservations about the proprietary binder and its impact on traditional watercolor techniques 8.

What Additional Information Would Be Helpful?

To further evaluate the claim about QoR watercolors, additional information would be beneficial, including:

• Comprehensive lightfastness testing results from independent sources.
• Comparisons with other leading watercolor brands under controlled conditions.
• User feedback from a broader demographic of artists, including both professionals and hobbyists, to gauge overall satisfaction.

Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The assessment of QoR watercolors reveals a mixed landscape of opinions and experiences. Evidence from various reviews indicates that many artists appreciate the vibrancy and innovative qualities of these watercolors, particularly due to the proprietary binder, Aquazol. However, concerns regarding the binder's impact on traditional watercolor techniques and the variability in review methodologies introduce uncertainty about the overall quality and performance of the product.

While some reviews highlight the paints' advantages, others express skepticism, particularly regarding lightfastness and the subjective nature of personal experiences. The lack of comprehensive, independent testing further complicates the evaluation of QoR watercolors.

Readers should remain aware of these nuances and critically evaluate the information presented, considering both positive and negative perspectives before forming their own conclusions about QoR watercolors.

Sources

1. Doodlewash. "REVIEW: 20 New Watercolors from QoR Artist Watercolors." Link
2. Doodlewash. "DOODLEWASH REVIEW: QoR Watercolors." Link
3. YouTube. "QOR Watercolors - HONEST Review!" Link
4. Jackson's Art Blog. "QoR Watercolours Review." Link
5. Dan Barrett Artist. "QoR Watercolours Review: Are They the Best Professional Watercolours??" Link
6. Artdragon86. "Watercolours: Golden QoR Watercolours (review)." Link
7. Parka Blogs. "Review: QoR Modern Watercolor (Introductory Set of 12)." Link
8. Kim Crick. "Qor Watercolor Review Color Chart Swatch Cards and Lightfast Testing." Link
9. YouTube. "QoR watercolor review and comparison." Link
10. Painters Online. "David Parfitt reviews Golden QoR Watercolours." Link