To all the willing critics and others who have denigrated various as-yet unnamed "knot-book authors",
Maybe you could do us all a favor by pointing out the chapter and verse wherein lie these blunders and mistakes that you so reference but without ever saying what they are and where they are? 
This goes a bit off this topic but right to some remark I made elsewhere.
Yes, it might do to produce Errata for some growing list of books,
as was pretty well done for
ABOK -- a book also long-published,
and an accepted standard reference. (BTW, I am tardy, but yet clinging to
furthering the indexing there.)
More to the point here was pointing out both the hilarity of the stated
purpose of a knot enjoined with a tying method, and the seeming birth
of a knot myth (use w/bull nose rings (punk bulls)) -- like CLDay cited
re
Stevedore's knot : named for a company, not profession.
I don't think I've yet come across a textbook that doesn't have some blunders in it.
But it's not a mere
blunder but some ya-gotta-know-they-didn't-know
hocus-pocus. (Unless someone can turn up an actual bull-ring practice ... .)
And re
EKFR, I'll --yes-- enumerate, for it's that sooooo MUCH of that
book just begs the question
Why is <this knot> here?!. -- along with
obvious, traceable mistakes in some cases of known knots.
Maybe this posting topic in Chit Chat is the right place,
I thought it a more general topic than
Practical, and good here.
(Btw, I posted a note about how nicely our limited segregation of forums
is working -- go there for a healthy richness of decorative ideas, or over
there and immerse in practicalities, or generally talk about events in this
old forum. It's a nice time to step back an appraise that organization.)
Really, Roo & SquareRigger, I should assign to you each a starting page
in
EKFR and challenge you to progress from the first numbered
knot with some understanding of
What it is and
Why it's presented and
What value do you give to it . Say, p.84#198 & p.600#1, respectively.
Care to take on this exercise?
I'll start here at p.60, and later try to set out more of my long collection of
scribbled notes on
EKFR -- but the more I thumb back'n'forth in this tome,
the more notes I see to make (cross-references for the same or like knots,
e.g.; other oddities).
0) A general failing is the text's near complete lack of any useful information
regarding a knot. Often there is some simple assertion that the knot can be
easily tied by looking at the photograph; this is in fact not always true. But
the big thing is that for the bulk of the *things* in the book, the text really
does little than give a comical, nonsense name, and often match that in the
*explanation* of the knot. E.g.,
pp.102-3pl.48#348 "The Overhand Sheet
Bend has an Overhand Knot formed in one part, with the other part passed
through the body of the Overhand Knot, as indicated by the illustration."
a) Huh?!
b) There is no hint of which of the 4 ends is to be loaded, although being called
a "Sheet Bend" we might presume that one end on each of upper/lower sides is so.
c) In fact, there are some workable knots that can result from this tangle, no help
to Hansel&Gretel though. Loading
the top two ends works (and brings to mind
a Rob Chisnall-cited (or "invented") "Technical Hitch" (perhaps it was that he cited
another's work as inspiring his discovery?). Again, no help from this book to
What? !
p.61/3pl.24#33 The Topsail Sheet Bend is similar to the Midshipman's Hitch. It is
used as another method of securing a sheet to the clew cringle of a sail, and will not come unfastened,
no matter how hard the sail may flap.
Well, bullfeathers! The photo appears to show the end
seized to the S.Part,
so I hope that that damn well stays flappingly tied; but any knot works if seized.
Otherwise, I say bunk: the finishing round turn is hardly an assurance of security.
p.60pl24#36 The Single Bowline on Bight. Another Method, can be tied quickly,
and forms a secure loop capable of being untied easily after having been drawn tight.
Hmmm, looks quite dubious, and begs the ol' question,
Which end ... ?p.60pl.24#47 The Dutchman's Knot is a relic of bygone sailing ship days,
and is now a curiosity.
Ha! This one could be the prize winner. "A curiosity" indeed -- now and ever.
Well, we have Dutch posters, maybe they can reach into salty imaginations ... .
p.62-3pl.24#38 The Clevis Knot is another rare (!) form of knot, which can be easily duplicated
by closely studying the illustration.
Okay, what is this? Which end is to be loaded (either or, both, neither)?
It looks as though it would be handy for a mid-line eyeknot, except that
it's not TIBight -- a rather important aspect for such knots.
p.62-3pl.24#39 The Interlocking Overhand Knots is a simple method of uniting two Overhand Knots.
Except that is is not -- not so simple, and definitely not two Overhand Knots
(lost count after "one"). Beyond this, ...
what???!! Is uniting Overhands some
common desire (even if one had a whole two such knots)?
And then the rest of the plate covers a bona fide,
Farmer's Knot, then
indulges some old sailor nonsense of the Jury Mast knot -- a most unseemly
supposed solution to rigging, but much razzle-dazzle of shifting bights.
Well, Charles Hamel tried chasing this myth to some firm ground, but he
was left still on shifting waters of just aggregated beliefs that it probaby
was used, but ... . I remain skeptical, as CLDay came to admit. These
knots don't so well grip and hold the supposed mast.
--dl*
====
