Italian bowline (new knot)

[Joe McNicholas]

The Italian bowline is a new knot invented in 2003.  A modification to prevent slippage in the new syntheic ropes.  It is the easiest of all bowlines to tie.

The figure of eight knot doubled.  The figure of eight has its orign in Italy's house of Savoy.  Appearing on thier coat of arms.  Hense the name the knot is unmistakeblely a bowline.

The knot is a very secure bowline easy to tie knot.

[squarerigger]

Thanks Joe,

We will be posting this in Knotting Matters in December for our members who do not have internet connectivity.

SR
Editor, Knotting Matters

[SS369]

Let's see if we can get a larger picture here please. If it is about server storage space, we can remove it after those who want to save it for posterity  have had a few days chance at it.
Thank in advance.
SS

[roo]

The Italian bowline is a new knot invented in 2003.  A modification to prevent slippage in the new syntheic ropes.

Ok.
 

It is the easiest of all bowlines to tie.

Not even close.  It may not be the hardest knot to tie, but it can easily be mistied.  Although it may not be an insecure knot, there a quite a few easier loops that are more secure.

The figure of eight knot doubled.

I'm assuming this is a typo.

  

The figure of eight has its orign in Italy's house of Savoy.  Appearing on thier coat of arms.

While a figure of eight might be on some coat of arms, it is certainly not the origin of such an elementary knot.  I notice that the loop shown doesn't actually contain a figure of eight knot at all.

Hense the name the knot is unmistakebly a bowline.

 The preceding information has nothing to do with a bowline.  Usually people try to stretch the bowline name on a miscellaneous loop in hopes of boosting its image.  About the only bowlinesque feature of the loop is a U shape in the knot body.  

I'm a little shocked that this will be in Knotting Matters.  What's the justification?

[squarerigger]

Hi Roo,

Regarding justification for entry into KM - none needed.  Editor's decision is final.  Editor can be fired, of course, but is in no hurry to be so.  Ed's decision to enter/omit is sometimes dependent upon:

Perceived interest of members
Value in allowing members to decide
Volume of mail received concerning "new" knots

There appears to be a huge interest in whether or not a knot is 'new' and we wish there were such a thing as a 'New Knot Committee' ad hoc or otherwise.  IGKT members continue to express opinions, even if they do not do so here on-line, by writing to the magazine's editor.  Eventually (and this might take a VERY long time), a decision is made regarding a 'new' knot and that information is then published.  All opinions are welcome but no pronouncement of a knot as being 'new' is made by the editor, that being the prerogative of the Council, whose membership is determined by the IGKT members at the AGM or any specially called SGM.  This, of course, is known to members of the IGKT.

The so-called 'figure-of-eight' on the coat of arms referred to by Joe is closer in shape to the wool it is.  The symbolism on the flag of the city of Sevilla whose motto is NO8DO, where the number 8 refers to the skein (madeja in Spanish) it represents, has been called a rebus and other theories as to its origins include that the word NODO means knot (actually Spanish for 'knot' is nudo) and that the words NO and DO refer instead to Nomen Domini the Latin for the phrase 'in the name of the Lord' or that it (the knot) refers to the Gordian Knot.  You pays your money....

We'll see where the discussion takes us....

SR
Editor, Knotting Matters

[Dan_Lehman]

Regarding justification for entry into KM - none needed.  Editor's decision is final.
Ed's decision to enter/omit is sometimes dependent upon:

Perceived interest of members
Value in allowing members to decide
Volume of mail received concerning "new" knots

Given that OP came so recently, and the sole reply (about to be seconded,
here) questioned the value of the asserted "new" knot, it is fair to ask
how this should be of much interest and given valuable press by IGKT.
Especially in comparison to the considerable forum discussion of such
novel knotting presented under Practical Knots, which has garnered
vastly more interest and given better knots, for that matter --e.g., consider
the most popular thread:  Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes
which has garnered over 150 Replies & 27_000 Views.  -- and in which
far better Bowline variations are presented.
(Nevertheless, this thread shoud be in Practical Knots .)

There appears to be a huge interest in whether or not a knot is 'new' ...

Without much appreciation of what "new" might signify.  In this case,
it presumably indicates that JoeM was not aware of the knot prior to his
discovering it for himself.  Beyond that, the question arises as to whether
others have known it in some way, and especially if some published
information can be found of it.  The former aspect is up to personal
testimony & credibility, the latter is one of literature familiarity.  One
might presume that a great many knots will be "new" on the latter
grounds, as the repertoire of known knots making published places
is largely repetitive (even where the indicated structures are no longer
and perhaps never actually used, or even much possible (mistakes, i.e.)!).
One can be sure that most dubious knots are in this category and so
available to such a "new" assertion.

... and we wish there were such a thing as a 'New Knot Committee' ad hoc or otherwise.

Oh, to be sure, your remark at km106:11b (=p.11, 2nd/right column) has not
escaped my notice; I mean to make a formal reply.  But suffice it to say here
that neither should my article in KM#67:03b be so apparently forgotten.
And then, that coming back to an old and tired issue of "new" knots is
not terribly welcome, without good deliberation on "new" in re both its
determination (which need not be taken as definite, but just best-effort)
and value (of the knot, considering "new" alone to be insufficient for value
--rather trivial, in fact).

Take as a sort of threat --   -- that I alone could contribute
(in theory; in practice I'm slower) some THOUSAND (10^^3) such "new"  
knots for publication (or whatever).  Xarax on this forum has shown
one sort of exploration that can generate such things (about which
the value can be debated), and there are others; Owen Nuttall over
the years has sets of things published.  -- to what end, we might ask?
(Contemplate one giant issue of KM tantamount to another ABOK
but w/o so much interesting commentary, likely!)

The so-called 'figure-of-eight' on the coat of arms referred to by Joe is

... whatever : Wikipedia shows a bona fide Figure-of-Eight for Savoy.
But, as Roo remarks, that structure doesn't occur in the OP's knot.


Now, to the OP:

The Italian bowline is a new knot invented in 2003.

In addition to the foregoing discussion, I resist giving one person
such power as to name a knot for a country:  the natural reaction
to "Italian Bowline" is to think "Italians do this" + "it's a bowline"
--and neither is true.  Or, only by his own testimony can we infer that
only he has tied it, it being his invention.  And it's to be made Italian
ex fiat from this one person, and based upon a Fig.8 being on some
heraldic structure?!  How many others can give equal claim -- the Fig.8
being hardly an unusual/uncommon structure.

Hense the name the knot is unmistakeblely a bowline.

the question for Joe --for all-- is What makes a bowline ?
Can anyone declare anything to be a bowline --and that does it?
(Recall Joe's "Irish Bowline" -- news to those of the Emerald Isle, no doubt;
and no more a bowline than this pseudo-Fig.8-based eyeknot.)

Beyond this, I'll not (further) repeat but just endorse Roo's remarks.
And continue, looking at:

A modification to prevent slippage in the new syntheic ropes.

How does the pseudo Fig.8 base improve resistance to slippage?
Well, in some rope (flexible), this structure will not enable the
eye leg flowing from the SPart to loosen back into the knot
so much, as it has that hard, 1-diameter turn to make; which turn
will itself be hard to tighten in those moderately firm, kernmantle
ropes most visibly at issue regarding Bowline use.  Indeed,
in old (though smooth condition) 10.5-11mm rockclimbing rope,
this knot doesn't even begin to set tightly, and on shaking becomes
quickly loose; unlike the Bowline, as noted above, the SPart's
side of the eye feeds in only so far, but the looseness readily
enables the simple U-turn finish by the tail to become dangerously
unsecured.  (Note that much of the "Janus bowlines" workings
are to further secure the tail.)

And in some super-slick cordage such as Dyneema 12-strand,
there can be no doubt that loading will pull out the tail (as it
has done even for a Double Bowline !).

.:.  This is not a practically more secure eye-knot than the Bowline.

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Dear Dan and Roo,

Many thanks for your comments, as always.  I think it is fair to say that not everybody agrees with either Dan or Roo on what constitutes a so-called 'new' knot.  Let us try to see by what criteria a 'new' knot could/would/should therefore be declared (and the manner and location of that declaration) and see who else salutes the ideas you propose?  Would either of you gentlemen care to suggest to the Council of the IGKT that you should be declared formally as members of the "New Knot Committee" and suggest some actual criteria by which a knot may be declared 'new'?  Here are some phrases you have each variously suggested (no actual statements):

Never been represented by verbal or other description,
Able to be tied in multiple types and sizes of line,
Must be able to be untied readily
Must not jam,
Must be simple to tie,
Must take shaking/static/dynamic loading, regardless of declared purpose,
Must not be known by any other name or unapproved title

Of course, these are only suggestions and I feel that you both can come up with something more complete that is far more readily able to be measured, quantified against known measures of stress, measurable against some naming conventions (yet to be invented) and so on.  C'mon - you could be doing a real service here!

 SR

[JD~TIAT]

I find it interesting how much pomp is given to "new knots". Its as
if human creativity hit a wall sometime back and a new thought only
comes along every ten years or so. I see new knots and ties all the
time, over the past year nearly weekly.

Knot tying is not a finite endeavor. It has no boundaries, other than
the tenacious creativity of the tyer. Still we get all worked up about
an added twist or turn, usually to an already established knot, as if
the doors of our world have been blown away.

This "new" bowline is effectively an added note to a symphony that has
already been written. And frankly speaking (in my opinion), the added
note over complicates the elegance of the original piece.

JD ~ TIAT

[Rrok007]

As something of a side-liner, I can see both sides of the fence here.

The importance of being able to say something is "new" has relavance to the individual as well as the community. There's a certain pride in being able to contribute to the group and the recognition for such. There's also the mere fact that our knowledgebase has increased even the slightest. It makes us more resourseful by having more information to draw on.
There's also that anything "new" draws attention not just to oneself, but to the community as well.

However, the word "new" is something that can sometimes be used a bit too easily. Especially when all one has done is figure out a way to shorten rope without purpose, and in a way that others have already discounted years ago.

I think the only true way to pass judgememt on new.or old would require a current, extensive catalog of all knots in known existance. Yes, I do realize that there is a certain lack of practicality to that statememt. However, it is the simplist, most logical way to determine if a knot is new, or even simply a new variation of an old knot. Or neither one at all.
Even if it is only a variation, it should be celebrated with the same acceptance and rejection as a new knot should.

[Dan_Lehman]

I think it is fair to say that not everybody agrees with either Dan or Roo on what constitutes a so-called 'new' knot.

... including themselves,
but I didn't see direct revelation of those beliefs here
--i.p., to the OP's claim, Roo just moves on with "okay".
And I only tried to open light onto the difficulties ... .

Let us try to see by what criteria a 'new' knot could/would/should therefore be declared (and the manner and location of that declaration)

THIS is part of the problem : you begin with the notion that
new is to be declared in some special manner, suggesting
some value ipso facto.  Rather, I submit that making "new" is
rather trivial, and so wants no declaration or award or celebration.
(It might even be, perhaps, mistying the intended, worthwhile knot!)

Here are some phrases you have each variously suggested (no actual statements):

Never been represented by verbal or other description,
Able to be tied in multiple types and sizes of line,
Must be able to be untied readily
Must not jam,
Must be simple to tie,
Must take shaking/static/dynamic loading, regardless of declared purpose,
Must not be known by any other name or unapproved title

Only the first and last apply to newness; the others address qualities
of a knot that might be desirable.  I certainly don't believe that some
knot must meet all of those (and maybe not any! ).  But it could be
that some good rockclimbing tie-in knot is presented for consideration,
and it should be able to be tied rather easily in appropriate ropes and
not jam and not come untied.  And, if meeting those criteria --which
is fulfilling the need--, then it would be worthwhile to give notice of
the knot.  And we might believe that it is "new" to much of if not
all of the world.  (Conceivably, it might be a case where a knot that
was used in some other arena was discovered to have value in a new
one --no question that the knot was "new", but nevertheless it's
use in the new task coming about as a sort of discovery.

--dl*
====

[Sweeney]

I'm with JD on this - why do we make so much of so-called new knots? To me a new knot is one I have not seen before - similarly a new method of tying. Somebody somewhere may well have discovered a knot configuration long ago and now because the latest discoverer is unaware that such a knot exists we have a claim to newness. No committee has access to the detail of every knot that has been discovered so exactly what will this committee do? I am far more interested in knot evaluation of practical knots given that new materials are available. Do existing knots work and are there configurations which work better? If the IGKT is to have an influence then a committee should be looking at evidence of the strength and security of knots and perhaps sponsoring research where evidence does not exist, drawing attention to it where it does.

Simply deciding whether a knot is new or not is a pretty pointless exercise though publication of a discovery on this forum does give an opportunity for feedback to the discoverer and the knot may prove useful in provoking debate and innovation. What we never did was to complete the index of ABOK so that we do not have a list to which knots can be added (useful or not is irrrelevant - many of Ashley's are downright dangerous and he says so) so unfortunately in say 5 years or so many knots can be rediscovered but finding their prior existence will be as difficult as ever. And so on ad infinitum.

Barry
(Personal view)

[Transminator]

Interesting discussion so far.

I am personally always interested in learning new knots, but the most important criteria for me is not whether the knot is new (or perhaps only: new to me) but how it compares to other knots of the same category.

If somebody presents me with a "new" loop knot, I ask the following questions:

What are its characteristics?
*ease of tying
*ease of untying
*security / safety / stability etc.
*behavior in different materials
*the list goes on

How does it compare to other knots of the same category?

* i.e. how does the presented loop knot compare to other loop knots?
*I compare the ease of tying and security with that of the bowline
*It is slightly less easy to tie then the bowline but does it make up for that with increased security and safety?
*If it is more secure, how does it then compare with the double bowline, water bowline, janus bowline, yosimite bowline, zeppelin loop etc. with regard to the above characteristics?

All that in order to determine whether it is worthwhile learning this new knot and adding it to my repertoire.

As Dan already pointed out, it is impossible to determine whether a knot is indeed new. How do we know that a farmer 200 years ago did not tie his hay bundles together with the "Gleipnir", which he learned from his grandfather, who learned it from...
The only thing we can determine is whether it has been documented or published before.
But the more important question is, whether this new knot is worth being documented/published (it already has been in the form of this forum) and as a next step: Is it worth learning or even recommending this "new" knot to somebody to use instead of XXX ?
 
I personally am interested in the question: is this "new" knot better in some way then the knots we already have. Is it a candidate to replace another knot or be a good alternative?
Is it as secure as xxx, but easier to tie or less jam prone then YYY etc.

The Gleipnir e.g. is imo worth learning and teaching, because it fills a niche. It has certain characteristics that other binding knots don't have therefore it is now in my repertoire as an addition to other binding knots.

Does the same apply to this "new" knot?

[SS369]

I want to throw in here just a word or two. In a certain case (and perhaps many others), I came to the IGKT in search of an answer. Was/is the knot I had invented/discovered/came upon/accidentally tied and was excited about, indeed a new knot?
I hadn't set out originally to do it for a specific purpose, just was tying therapeutically, so to speak.

Eventually I got the answer to my question and it was by a learned fellow right here. Though a little deflated at that, my ego is still robust because it took so long to arrive at the quest's end.

A point that is being made is that the question I searched an answer for led to this forum and eventually a membership to the Guild. I am here every day without fail, checking the goings on and adding my two cents worth as it needs spending.

New or previously discovered, I think a welcoming of these inquisitors (I do truly believe that they are asking for validation) should be of the utmost importance. We should not be condescending nor high and mighty.
I feel that even in my own fields of skill and expertise that I should teach to the point where the "student" will want to embrace the seeking of more.

I still claim the "new' knot as my own. It was discovered by another, but the evidence of it was difficult to find and the only way it was to be found was by an IGKT member who was interested in looking for it. He ultimately found it in one of the obscure publications called "Knotting Matters.
Even the tomes readily available for public purchase (and yes I did) and all the famous and obscure websites (which I hunted in till wee hours) neglected to include it.

So to conclude...  Let's welcome the "newbies" and rope them into wanting to know more and more.
And to say it: Thank you to all who have the larger knowledge base in this our passionate art. I for one want to see it live on.

Scott

[JD~TIAT]

No disrespect to the ?newbies? intended, but if every new painting created was
praised by and accepted into The Metropolitan Museum of Art. I?d think less of
the Met.

There needs to be a standard of excellence greater than newness. As mentioned,
new knots are commonplace, people create them all the time (I do it nearly weekly).

Newness is a very low bar. Quality, uniqueness, contributiveness, these (I believe)
we should consider far more.

JD ~ TIAT

[SS369]

"The Metropolitan Museum of Art". Hmmm, I wonder what the hidden spaces contain?
Is the Guild only for the best of class?
I should think that those best and those worst have merit each to their own.
I have seen knot work that I can only drool over and some that looks like it is "In the Wild".
I can see where some (who?) would take offense when a "newbie" jumps into the collective face and shouts "New Knot!", but let's not douse their flame too quickly or harshly.
It is pretty exciting thinking that after perusing the many books and sources out there, that just maybe one new one has been found.
The ego is a valuable tool as long as it isn't contorted.
I wish I had the talent to construct a new knot daily, weekly, yearly or at any interval. At least one of some value, beauty (JD's) or practical (Lehman's .

How can we know of the greatness of a knot if it never passes before our eyes. Let them scream "New Knot" and let's take a look.

SS