There appears to be an inconsistency with the Alove drawing1 top right p1 and left under on p2 wrt to the other Alove Hitches.
Yes.
The initial ("1") illustrations of the Alove are incorrect in the penultimate (3rd)
crossing of the arrowed completion, and this alone distinguishes it from Blove.
This is as Roo believed & I conceded must be the case.
Dan Lehman has a problem with different definitions and cannot make a choice?
Dan, ... , so far I see you are left empty-handed.
And thus unburdened, on the bright side.
In my experience for now some 25 years I can't think off the top of my head
of any "new" knot that has been submitted as such that has impressed me as
having much of any value -- though "off ... my head" might be overlooking
something, admittedly. I.p., not the "Irish Bowline", nor either of Mr.Chan's,
nor "Trident Loop", nor a host of others (to which I could triple the number).
Hmmm, well, --juices trickling to older grey matter-- a John Smith bowlinesque
TIB eye knot in KM#19-20 (IIRC) is interesting (and has appeared in other
versions 4 more times in KM); his Icicle Hitch got some attention, and an
adaptation (loading both ends, i.e.) by arborists, but when I want a friction
grip I am usually building it with compound structures vs. a single "best" one.
Roger Miles turned over some stones to find an interesting interlocked Overhands
("Symmetric") bend or few -- one of which got re-discovered by a Mr.Graves(?).
My personal favorite "new-to-me" knot found
in the wild has been the
"Reverse Groundline Hitch", which though well-known & much in use, does
not surface in its used manner in readily available documentation. Another
neat knot so far (to me) seen only in a replicated Samson Cordage photo
is what I regard as the paradigm "anti-Bowline"; this sort of thing IS shown
in
EKFR p.70pl.28#94-5 (mirrored on vertical axis) --sort of-- but
in typical, know-nothing Hansel&Gretel make-believe fashion, lacking any
hint of which end to load (which determines whether this eye knot is a
*bowline* or *anti-bowline* in my thinking (anti-bwl loads #94 on left).
And also the fascinating variety of things that can result from different
forms of the "Fig.9"
structure -- bend #1425 (arguably an abbreviated
such knot -- i.e., its interlocked Overhands being truncated Fig.9s),
and a corresponding eyeknot (the S.Part making the full Fig.9 here),
and mid-line stoppers (qua dockline markers?!) and in noose-hitches.
There are many other things yet to be revealed that my pen has traced,
but I've not seen much worthwhile outside of this.
Which brings me to one of Barry's points I neglected to reply to
fully as I'd thought:
"1. It must be useful."
We might not perceive this day the use some knot might serve,
so this criterion should not guard the door. But, again, there
just isn't much to gain in crossing through the "maybe *new*"
door anyway, and if all we can muster is some verbal
shrugof admitting our ignorance of said knot at the time of consideration,
then that's it.
To put it another way, there is this pressure to make some kind
of
binary & weighty determination re "new" which I believe leads us
the most off course -- off any good course. "New" as in "new to us"
is pretty trivial; "not published" is both impractical to determine,
but also rather readily agreeably met by all sorts of simple extensions
and combinations. Consider e.g. --:
| "The Interlocked Round Turn Loop",
| "The Round Turns With Interwoven Half Hitches" ("has no practical value"),
| "The Round Turn Overhand Knot and Half Hitch",
| "The Stevedore's Twin Loops Knot"
| (which
some people might see as structurally equal to the Constrictor!),
| & "The Double Looped Interlocked Overhand Knot"
These are all supposed "knots" out of that make-believe world of
Hansel&Gretel's
EKFR. Wanna jump up'n'down and shout "Hooray"
for any of them? -- count them ? -- classify them? -- even
tie them?!
And yet this book has contained and published them and it has been
reprinted for decades. To what good end? To me, the authors have lost
damNear all credibility for the amount of nonsense they have presented
-- which thus renders any actual-factual presentations suspect, alas.
( And as far as the
publisher's hyping some
clearly bogus knots
tally -- be it 3600 (latest ed., post-Ashley, for H&G) or 3900 -- , the sad
part is how many times both reviewers and other knots-book authors
have repeated the numbers as some kind of fact (irrespective of the
dubious value of even an accurate count in the bigger scheme of things),
rather than responsibly pointing out how obviously wrong they are! )
So, be prepared to say "maybe *new*, but ... <shrug>"; don't think
that there must be a Great Judgement rendered on behalf of society.
(And plenty of stuff will keep going on behind our backs, anyway.)
--dl*
====
