The Vice-Versa Bend, as named in 1989 by Harry Asher, was in turn effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend first published in 1928 by Wright & Magowan.
Not really: Asher's knot can be seen as a derivation from the SheetI did say the Vice-Versa Bend was effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend. I stand by that remark.
Bend, and hence its asymmetric loading ; the Reever was as
you note presented by W&M but --as for various of their other ideas--
seemingly not adopted by anyone.
Then there must be some difference in understanding what
is between us. For me, the difference in loading
between these two-named lookalike structures distinguishes
I don't recall there being any notice given, expressly, to the
symmetric loading of the knot-form; in a quick scan of some
things now, there is none (but perhaps some comment was
made in KM
Roger regarded the structure as a "lanyard bend" -- i.e., a union
of two ropes in which two "ends" of equal status
opposite ends of the knot. So, he saw neither of the loadings above!
And to my eyes, Harry Asher's variant is closer - a lot closer - to the 1928 Reever Bend than it is to your Sheet Bend.
Well, again, the shape/geometry/"knot-form" is identical to the former;
but the loading isn't, and --to quote Asher's wording of origin from one source:"Start as for the Single Sheet Bend
[nb: Asher does this bass ackwards to how it is usually presented:
he forms loop, reeves bight into that]
, but then make a complete turn round the dark standing part ..."
One can see it as a bight with a twist being the extension of that
part of the Sheet Bend, and then the tucking of the opposite end
out through this bight as that end's extension (i.e., both halves
the Sheet Bend do something extra). Preceding Vice Versa in his
"System" were the Simple Simon knots, which also played off
of the Sheet Bend idea.
... their Reever Bend failed to catch on. It effectively disappeared for a generation. I note from Dick Clements' KM article on the Reever / Vice-Versa that Asher's variant was announced in 1989. It was reproduced by RE Miles in 1995. But only in 1996 did Charles Warner point out (with evidence) that the Reever Bend had been published in 1928. It would seem logical to assume that Asher and subsequently Miles were simply unaware of the Reever Bend
Oh, the emergence & limited recognition or use of knots is interesting
to realize. Consider that Wright & Magowan presented "their" "Butterfly"
as novel --though acknowledging possible prior discovery-- and yet it
had been presented across the Atlantic some years prior, and that
presentation was by an author only recognizing some extant in-use
knot of linemen. (Would that we find some linemen manual or other
knots documentation!) The date you give for Asher is that of his bookThe Alternative Knot Book
, but he published Vice Versa first in 1986
in A New System of Knotting (v.1)
-- not a work likely to be much seen.
I hadn't come across the term "Grapevine Bend" before. I Googled '"Grapevine Bend" knot' and found 426 entries. (I added the word "knot" to the Google search as otherwise Google came up with things like names of river bends). I then Googled the name I was familiar with, '"Double Fisherman's Bend" knot'. This had 45,600 entries. It would seem "Double Fisherman's Bend" outnumbers "Grapevine Bend" more than one hundred to one.
Which is a good indication of the (poor) quality of the Net
-- mostly empty echoes!! (And please note that "Fishermen's Bend
is the venerable name of a hitch
and so "Dbl.Fish.B." really should
not be returning much of anything (as there really isn't any accepted
"doubling" for the hitch). Of course, you didn't check to see if each
of those cited occurrences matched the presumed knot; there are
some cases where that name is used to refer to a noose-hitch,
where the knot part is a Strangle/Dbl.Overhand knot, or to the
use of it to tie off an end (of a Bowline, say). "Grapevine" is cited
by Ashley for old angler usage, and today is fairly well adopted in
I then wondered if it might be possible to tie it around something - such as a mooring ring....
Well, of course, any eye knot can be, though not necessarilyThen it would seem I have wasted your time Mr Lehman. For that, I apologise.
easily so. Just back out the end and you'll have at that point the
step leading to tying through a ring.
No need to take such offense at what is a simple point
to ask: How could it be otherwise?
! -- that it couldn't be tied?!