A question about ink colour and signing.

[HUF]

Unless you use a modern scanner or copier. The requirement for blue ink is really lost with modern equipment.

Right.

 

[Toothpick]

IMO it's pretty easy to tell a copy from an original. Any color that is reproduced is going to always be a slightly lighter shade on the copy than the original. But I guess to someone inexperienced you might not tell. Or if you don't have the original present.

I used to always write with red ink at work just because no one else did. If something was wrote in red then i knew it was me and everyone else did.

In my experience with any legal docs it will specify if you are to sign with a certain color. "Please write with blue or black ink only"

If it doesn't say so then I'd assume any color would work.

 

[Hirsute]

I'm an attorney, and always use blue or blue black for signatures. Legally, it rarely makes a difference. But I initial all final versions of memos so it's clear that it's a final version from me. With signatures, I typically use inks with some shading. Photocopiers and scanners don't capture all the detail in shading, so it's easy to tell an original. But, there rarely a legitimate dispute about which version is the original.

 

[Doc4]

Lawyers I know strongly recommend that all legal documents be signed with blue ink.

That way it's easier to tell if you are looking at the original.

Unless you use a modern scanner or copier. The requirement for blue ink is really lost with modern equipment.

Interesting topic.

I suspect there are lots of places that still use the old-fashioned photocopiers that just do black, so a blue signature is probably a good idea. Well, a non-black signature, anyhow.

Of course, if one is also filling out pre-printed forms, which seem to be always in black, then blue ink will stand out and show where the actual handwriting is more easily.