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 purposeswhich 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
ABOKbut 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
Italianex 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*
====