And Roo’s point is that Ashley has assumed that
he has originated this knot (along with some others
at this point, presented with dates of origination
–which is what Roger is citing–, and then the infamous
constrictor, no doubt Clifford’s favorite!).
((Some many decades later, I too originated it,
i.e., discovering it for myself --a measure of both
inventiveness (aka “too much free time”) and poor
research skills (as I HAD ABoK! :
))
Vs. this “evil impostor” warning, there is neutral
advice to give about the orientations that one can
have for Ashley’s #1452 : the collars can be as
loose as MG shows; more loose, such that they more
run up around the knot body (or less so they quite
do NOT); the collar bight-legs’ crossing pushed
through the nipping turns which really fattens
the knot but I’ll guess too much and not really
getting a broader SPart turn;
and with legs initially crossed in opposite way
such that collars ride over the body AND LOCK/jam
–which is how that old, tied-in-fiddly-little-string
testing turned out to be made; when tied otherwise,
#1425 did NOT jam (as I had argued).
(I can see one choosing the jamming orientation for
joining springy-hard-slick PP cordage where there will
not be so much force as to render the nicely jammed
–to prevent loosening-- knot from being forcibly loosened
(pulling tails apart can do this, or get near to doing it).
It would go a long way towards understanding this knot
(which, IMO by evidence of [u]ABoK, Ashley did not!)
if the tying did NOT show the two-clever-by-half, all-at=
once tucking of (both)tails,
BUT SHOWED ONE END TIED IN AN OVERHAND KNOT
and THEN the other end reeved into this --here is where
the key placement can be shown clearly (and emphasized
verbally)! For each tail should return to the place where
its SPart splits the spline --that ensures non-jamming version.