The Guild did have a new knot committee but as far as I know Dan Lehman is the only remaining member and I think he would regard the committee as defunct. Rather than resurrect such a committee the forum seems to me an ideal place to garner views (I would be particularly pleased if Dan were to contribute) and the Guild can then express a view on the knots concerned based on the opinions posted. The Guild are not the arbiters of whether a knot is 'new' nor do they claim to be but if a knot appears to have value and is not generally known then the Guild should perhaps use some of its resources eg this website to bring it to the attention of Guild members as well as the public generally.
Barry
Barry,
I quite concur in this, generally. Seems reasonable, beneficial, to use this site
for putting such a question to broad view -- kind of like a ratchet: whatever
good observations, responses come in should only move things forward; any
person keen to the particular task can simply pay extra attention and effort
on responding (as though they belonged to a special committee ...). What
is made of it is yet left to the IGKT to decide (such as cataloguing into some
database which then can become our practical measure of "new").
Beware that much engagement of "new"ness runs some risk of encouraging
what is of oftentimes dubious value (making "new" for the sake of recognition
(and then that's about it for the cited knot-entity -- big whoop, eh?)).
(Consider e.g. Ashley's #1425 (not "a") bend to be new; it is even published,
and in a prominent, long-lived, oft'-cited book: and yet, has even this quite decent
ends-joining knot gained favor? (seeming strong, secure-when-slack, non-jamming)
How much enthusiasm can one have for a vast display of less-practially-viable
knots? -- perhaps, with savvy indexing/fetching, the vastness can be surmounted,
and value can be cited & found where it exists; that's some good effort to do. )
The problem of using "published" as a measure is that so many things are not
published, and for good reason many other things will likely not ever be, or
only in some form --such as an IGKT "Catalogue"-- readily done w/o involvement
of traditional means of "publishing". =>
recorded , then. And IGKT seems
JUST the body to do this (as much as any other), conceptually. (No awards per se.)
There are likely many knots that can be harvested from
"the wild" qua "new",
and which then have the benefit of established practicality. (There are some I've
seen, however, that are better left unharvested! -- comical efforts at something,
falling short (short of desirable qualities).
-------------
Mr. Chan does a beautiful presentation, but with a couple of flaws:
1) the Clove's red-line finish needs to go Under vs. Over ...
[edit: in the topmost (1st page), not bottom, diagram]
and
2) the "Alove"'s central crossings are not clearly diagrammed -- there is
definite ambiguity re whether the end passed Under BOTH or just one part
(I'm assuming the latter).
But, otherwise, this has the sort of thoroughness of an old C.Warner & P. vdGriend
hitches presentation, where many options were indicated, from a common start
-- a Hydra's view.
Here is an interesting case, also, of the effect of
dressing /
positioning
of parts on the knot -- topologically (simply, so, here), these are the same
structure (given my assumption re Alove's form, noted in (2), i.e.).
Note that this problem of knots discrimination is arguably tough, even defeating,
for some notational representations! (I have never gotten into such things.)
I can say that, yes, Alove has been tied, more or less: I have used the alternation
of French Whipping's Half-hitches with Overhands, liking the way an Overhand
more pulls down on the HH feed into it, and then the HH more jams beneath
the Overhand's feed -- although I admit that the former behavior is not quite
so readily tight as should be ideal. (A HH into the next makes a Clove and in
this the "crossing part" goes over
two parts, so "feeds" readily over the
succeeding HH (across & down-bearing) whereas an Overhand's end must
come UP from the pinch the crossing part bears upon it (up-over-down);
but this coming up seems to too easily resist the crossing part's pressure
(making me wish for a Dbl.Oh = Strangle, but that is not a readily formed
& tightened structure for whipping -- more working than is good (though possible)).
But this use in whipping is not quite the sort of
hitch structure that Chan
presents (call mine more a
"binder-hitch" -- while it has some tension on its
ends (like a mid-line hitch), it is really likely to endure w/o such, and brings its
ends into the knot at particular angles befitting a binder, along the object).
--dl*
====