Retuck the Tail end through the collar - you may end up with a TIB bowline.

[xarax]

   The nipping loops of those TIB bowlines ( tied with the simple, easy and quick "haltering collar" method, described at the previous posts ) encircle two, only, rope diameters - and this may be a disadvantage (  ) : a wider, rounder nipping turn, encircling three rope diameters, is probably a stronger and certainly a better-looking nipping structure. Also, in the cases of "secure", two-collar ( = double collar ) bowlines, the fact that the divided-by-three gripping power of a "wide" nipping loop is smaller than a divided-by-two "narrow" one, is not important - because, regarding the defence against the slippage of the Tail End, a more complex, double collar structure is always much more efficient than a more tight single, or a more complex double nipping structure . Contrary to one more of the many "popular" knotting myths, a double-collar bowline is always more secure than a double-nipping-loop one. It is always more beneficial to force the slipping Tail End to make one more 180-degrees U-turn ( as it happens in the case of the "Janus" bowline(s)), than to nip it a second time, on a second point, inside a second nipping loop ( as it happens in the case of the "Double" and of the "Water" bowline ).
   There is very easy way, in the eye-knots tied with the help of this method, to dispense with the "narrow" nipping loop disadvantage, but retain the TIB advantage : we have only to transform the TIB bowlines to TIB crossing-knot based loops, as shown in this post. In those loops, the "haltering collar" is not tied on the returning eye leg, but on the Standing Part, before the eye ( see the attached picture, and compare it to the picture at Reply#13 ). And the fact that, by this transformation, the double nipping structure, tied on the Standing Part, becomes a double collar structure, tied on the returning eye leg, means that the first curve encircles two rope diameters - so, compared to what happens in the majority of the crossing-knot based eye-knots, this curve is now much smoother and wider.
   I believe that the crossing-knot based loops have not attracted the attention of the knot tyers they deserve : their nipping structures are very stable and well-balanced, and they can remain "closed" without exploiting the integrity of the collar structures too much. Moreover, if they are arranged to be wrapped around double collar structures ( as the Girth hitch shown in the attached picture ), they distribute the high tensile forces coming from the Standing End to more segments, across a more extended area of the nub, so they may lead to not only very secure, but very strong eye-knots as well. 

[enhaut]

@Xarax
Just wondering if I am finishing the knot the right way.

You see in the second picture, the "back view" that I pulled the eye "sideway" to emulate the behavior around a big round object (a tree), the collar "slips" toward the standing part till it stabilizes itself.

I dont know if it's in the bowline family but it's sure fun to tie.

[alanleeknots]

Hi All,
       Xarax thanks for working on my loops, I have 2 TIB loops from (Chit Chat ? Visual Pleasure Loop Reply # 9)

       謝謝  alan lee

[alanleeknots]

  Hi All,
          One more TIB loops here from(Chit Chat ? Visual Pleasure Loop Reply #44).

         謝謝  alan lee

[xarax]

   The first is very similar to the Scot s TIB bowline, shown at (1) - and I believe that it is no better. ( In fact, it may be worse, because its nipping loop encircles two, only, rope diameters - in Scot s TIB bowline, it encircles three ). The second one is not an interesting knot, because the continuation of the Standing End, from the one hand, and the Tail End, from the other, can slide inside the collar, and swap positions - and when this happens, the nipping loop becomes very narrow, because it now encircles one, only, rope diameter, that of the second leg of the collar. The third one is also very similar to the "left-handed" Ampersand bowline, shown at (2)- but it is funny that, when I had seen it in one of your posts (3), I had identified it wrongly, as one of the many Janus bowlines (4)( it is not : the Tail End does not penetrate the nipping loop ) - and I had not noticed it was TIB ! 

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4517.msg30269#msg30269
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg32239#msg32239
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27100#msg27100
4. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg27101#msg27101

[xarax]

   The beauty of the general TIB tying method described previously ( where a bight, which is tucked through the nipping loop(s) but it is not encircling the Standing End yet, at the end it does, and it does become a collar ), is that the shape of the knot before and after the transformation remains almost the same. If we can arrange the segments of the unfinished eye-knot in the stage where the bight has just been tucked through the nipping loop(s), but it has not become a collar yet, we can immediately and easily visualize the knot as it would look when it would be finished - when the ex-"free"-bight would become a collar. The relative positions of the various segments/parts of the knot before and after the transformation, remain almost the same. Retaining a more or less similar geometrical shape through the tying procedure, until the knot becomes tight and compact, is an advantage - a knot which can be tied by following such a method can be remembered and inspected more easily, than a knot which reveals its finished final shape in a more "spectacular" but tricky way, only at the very end. At the end of the day, what determines the properties of a practical knot ( alongside the material on which it is tied ) is its geometry, and the longer this geometry is stamped indelibly onto our memory, the better !   
   ( This is the method I now use for tying the double bowline in-the-bight ( ABoK#1080 ), because it is conceptually simple, and it can not be forgotten !    )
   See the two attached pictures, which have been taken in different times and with different ropes, but yet the knots look very similar.
   One can describe this method in other words: Let us start from the knot shown at the first picture, where the Standing and the Tail Ends are not yet encircled by the tucked-through-the-nipping-loop(s). How can one transform this knot into a bowline, and end with the knot shown in the second picture ? By tucking the Standing End and the Tail End through this bight, of course. However, the far end of the Standing End is not accessible - in general, in most practical knots we suppose that the rope is not so short, to allow us to manipulate the Standing End, and tuck it through a knot already tied on its end. So, if we can not tuck the ends through this bight, what can we do ? The next best thing - which, in fact, is easier ! Instead of tucking the one side of the rope ( the pair of ends ), we can tuck the other side ( the whole knot : the eye part plus the nipping loop(s) part ) - which is, topologically, exactly the same thing. However, geometrically, it is far easier and quicker to tuck the whole knot, than to tuck one or two very looong ends...
   Ashley represents this operation by showing, by thin black lines and arrows, that the two legs of this bight are pulled to opposite directions and spread out, the diameter of the bight itself is enlarged, and then the whole knot is reeved through this bight - which, at the end, to become a collar, should shrink again around the "neck" of the knot ( i.e., around the pair of the Standing and Tail Ends ).