Author Topic: Loop Knot Recognition  (Read 632 times)


  • IGKT Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Knot Botherer
    • ALbion Alliance
Re: Loop Knot Recognition
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2018, 12:16:04 PM »

As for JD's query
I have to ask, how did you know where to find this one in ABoK, did you just sift through all the single loops knots?

For me, the answer to that question is simple - Dan Lehman is an encyclopedic Genius of Knotting - and we are all damn lucky that he chooses to share his passion with us.

Dan has guided me patiently (mostly) through my own knotbothering travels, and for that I thank you Dan most sincerely.



  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3683
Re: Loop Knot Recognition
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2018, 08:37:54 PM »
Dan Lehman is an encyclopedic Genius of Knotting -
Who can RE-invent a particular *new* knot,
having forgotten about it since the prior *invention*
--maybe even twice!!  (egadz <sigh>)

But what must become better understood is that so much
of esp. *general* knotting literature is regurgitated, "parroted"
hearsay, where whatever *research* was done by the author
was done only in then-available-to-him (few hers) literature
--and this often doesn't mean that there was much of any
"literature search"/review!!
(To have just discovered in the 1904/5 book of knotting by
Paul Nooncree HASLUCK a replicated mistaken figure
reference from his nearly exactly copied source materal
--text & images-- from the 1891-2 Work magazine,
even though this reference had to be adjusted in exact
# (as the book had omitted one knot --hangman's) and
the figures in the book were presented page by page
and not, as in the magazine, in a big block all together,
is . . . a m a z i n g (ly inept) ! ! !
One L00k at the mis-cited image is enough to say
"oops, wrong thing!".  (The magazine had "69" vice "79"
--chalk that on up to a typo, okay; in the book's copy,
this was I think "57" vice "77".)

And so on.
A common e.g. is that most books re the constrictor
parrot Ashley's assertion that it grips so well that
it will often need to be cut off (!) --nevermind the use
of <gasp> tools, say.  Brion Toss's Rigger's Apprentice
shows a fellow set to tighten a constrictor using two bars
tied to its ends, one between feet and the other in hands
and . . . for a full body-strength setting of the knot!!!
Now, I ask you, with THAT sort of setting,
how many other knots should carry advice
about needing to be cut off?
 (Or, from in another tact, if the c. is all so darn tight,
  why ... so much effort to set it?!
(And, of course, these same books go on to suggest
the constrictor as a temporary whipping :: if it's
all so tenacious, why the "temporary"?!)