This can be seen as Ashley's #1452 with the tails drawn out of the collars;
Or ( in the supposedly "weaker" reversed form ) Ashley s #1451 s symmetric cousin with the tails drawn out of the collars.
And I say "cousin"(*), because its mechanism is exactly the same with the ABoK#1451 s, only its tails are leaving the knot towards opposite directions ( as they should

: the Standing ends are converging / approaching / coming / entering from opposite directions, and an end-to-end knot is but a knot, not a permanent union/merge of lines ! - so the "natural", and prettier, IMHO, thing, is Tails diverging / distancing / leaving / exiting towards opposite, too, directions. In this sense, the
re-tucked through the collars ABOK#1452 is also a streamlined, pretty ABoK#1452...

).
What I wish to hint is that ( in its supposedly "stronger" normal form ) this knot is Ashley s #1452
bowled-over-by-retucking, not
bowled-over-and-re-tucked, as the knot presented in (1).
Many knot tyers say "retucked", and mean "retucked through the central opening", and they believe that this is the more secure and stronger retucking of all the possible ones. ( That is wrong, and, among other things, it may even be a cause to miss important knots....). Stronger it may well be, because it increases the volume of the central core, around which the Standing parts will make their first turns. However, regarding security against slippage, the convenient retucking-through-the-central-opening can be weaker !
The tails can be driven through any of the openings the 'parent" knot presents, "collars" being two of them. In fact, the central opening may offer some "protection" to the choking of the Tails, because of the amount of material swirling around, which can absorb, by its inner friction, a great portion of the forces that are meant to play the role of the last line of defence against slippage. ( I am speaking about the behaviour of ordinary, and rather stiff, material here, of course, not about the easy flattened slippery Dyneema...). The same reasoning had lead me to question the security of some forms of "Link" bowlines, where we have exactly the same situation, with two O-shaped interweaved nipping loops :
maybe prefer taking the tail out through the *center* of the turNip, which shows as an inviting hole-target;
Nooo ! This is an inviting trap ! Beware of its seductive siren song ! I have sensed, seen, felt and measured, that the tail can not be nipped efficiently there - because the other segments that would encircle it would also play the role of a weaved cocoon, of a protective knitted shield. They will absorb a great portion of, and they will obstruct the constricting power of the nipping loop [ read : the core of the bowl formed by the embracing Standing parts ], to reach and bite it hard. ( I am always talking about kermantle, stiff climbing ropes, of course.) I always deliberately drive the tail away from this black hole - even if this would have been the unstrained, "natural" path a less curved working end would have followed, or if it, by the very bulk of the tail placed there, would had allowed a less curved standing part.
So, to secure the tail in the more efficient way, we must find a place ... where it will be bitten hard by the standing part s... first curve(s) - AND where it will not pass through those two dangerous spots : This central black hole ( when there will be other segments that will encircle and "protect" it ), and the "soft spot" near the nipping loop s crossing point ( where it will be nipped by the two converging legs of the nipping loop only, and not by its rim ).
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.0(*) Curiously, it is also the reverse of "
Carrick s cousin", named by H. Asher ( The Alternative Knot Book, p.63-64 ) - so, is a cousin of both

. Miles calls it "
Spherical bend" ( M. A14), and says that it "
forms the most ball-like" of all the symmetric bends he presents in his book - but I really wonder why ! Even in its capsized form, in which he shows it in p.104, it does nt look soOo spherical to me...