I concur with Dan, the Overhand(s) should be there.

Note that Dan doen't say that

*overhands* are not there,

but that their orientation is like that of #1408 vs. 1452!

(Mind you, they "are there" in this extended format and ... ,

I'm looking at how the working end eventually penetrates

the SPart's initial turn --that central nipping area.)

And please note that Ashley gives this knot #1452 inadequate

presentation : firstly, his image is ambiguous over some few

ways in which the knot can be dressed & set; and tying such

things --as yChan favors-- in a sort of one-fell-swoop,

both-tails-together manner *IMO* is not a good way AT

LEAST to show exact form --

*that* is better done by

tyhing one half fully and then reeving the other through

it. In this particular case, it is where one can show exactly

how the knot should/could be dressed (with arrowed array

of tail tuckings, one can give a couple of possibilities,

though in this case there is further shaping possible.)

--dl*

====