I am lucky enough to own a first edition of ABOK. When on my desert island (I wish!) I shall need to update it in order to tackle each and every knot.
Is there somewhere where I can find all the corrections listed?
Thanks in advance …
Just to start this off…
This is probably going to get me excommunicated…
Here’s my Best Advice: Go to a stationery store & stock up on pencils, erasers, and fine-point pens.
Next, go acquire a significant amount of cordage.
Now, when you’re happily ensconced on your island, as you work through your ABoOk, when you find errors, you can supply your own errata, and perhaps leave as great a legacy as ol’ Cliff…
But prudence would dictate you try to swap your First Edition with a collector like (e.g.) PABPRES, in exchange for a “last” Edition.
And if your island needs a caretaker until you arrive, be sure to let me know! 8)
Jimbo
It seems that my post to this forum (in 3 or 4? msg.s) containing a set of errata for ABOK
which I have made. There might be errors beyond what I can see, in the 1st edition.
(Beyond that lie challenges to his judgement or opinion on various knots.)
–dl*
ps: I also didn’t find our more recent discussion about what to do, if anything,
with old threads on this forum which will be lost, in time, if not somehow
preserved.
Dan,
I am afraid that your post is already lost. Maybe it did get lost before I joined, because I do not remember seeing it. (And I did read all available posts at that time.)
If you do still have the information you can re-post it. Or maybe someone did download it and keeps a copy on his computer.
This again illustrates that posts should not get lost, if it does happen by accident it is bad enough, but in this kind of forum most threads have gems that are worth keeping.
Willeke
I have a hard copy of the post in my ABOK at home. I will check it, and see what the thread was. I can scan it, but it would be better to have the original post.
Pat
hello folks…
…Issue #13 of IGKT-PAB Knot News had a very long list of “corrections and observations” to ABOK…i scanned the pages and put them here:
http://knotical-arts.com/abok.html
…if anyone knows of any more corrections please let me know and i’ll add them to this page!..
Dan-Alaska
[20050923: ‘#143(p.130)’ => ‘#143(p.30)’ ]
Ashley’s Book of Knots (ABOK) Citations
#63 (p.16) The reference to p.274 (for test results) should be “273”.
#143 (p.30) Ashley refers to the Bowline Bend as “#1145”;
it should be “#1455”.
#218 (p.41) It seems as though the image should show the end looped
around the SPart instead of vice versa as shown–certainly,
loading will straighten the SPart and put the wrap in the end.
#240 (p.44) The alleged electrician’s loop has the SPart making the
HH around the end, instead of vice versa. (Actually, one can
discern lines in the sketch that suggest that the opposite is true,
but that the two parts half-twist around each other.)
#293+296 v. #1412+1414 (pp.50 & 259) The issue is the (best) referent
for “Water Knot”: the later references put “W.K.” for #1414(293),
the Fisherman’s Knot, but acknowledge Isaak Walton’s conflicting
denotation; while the earlier texts omit the name entirely for the
Fisherman’s Knot and extol Walton as the grounds for applying it to
the Ring Bend.
#296 (p.50) [See joint entry for #293+296.]
#324 (p.53) The sentence “Finish off by sticking the end, as shown
in #316.” makes no sense, esp. by citation (a pile h. to hook).
(The end of fine silk line wrapped around gut & shank has no place
to be “stuck” w/o special provision.)
#466 (p.76) See below, re #467.
#467 (p.76) This is called a RT&2HH, but the lower #'d image shows
the Anchor Bend, seized; also, the upper image with the ring
labeled “#466” should be “#467”.
#514-5 (p.84) The corresponding texts apply to the other–i.e. text
#515 applies to #514, and vice versa.
#532 (p.87) Ashley names “The Harness Loop” but shows the Lineman’s/
Butterfly loop; either knot could do, so it’s not clear how to
correct this (perhaps treat both knots).
#706 (p.124) The complex, righthand image shows 4 strands vs. 3 for
the rope; either of the two rightmost strands should be omitted,
and likely the inner one should be lost by erasing the line above
the horizontally crossing end (which should allow for added clarity
re another such crossing). [from km31:14]
#743 (p.133) The continuation arrow-line is sloppy, and shouldn’t pass
under the whipping. [from km31:14]
#794 (p.143) The center-top crossing or perhaps the crossing at the
point of seizing is opposite between L & R images–in the R, the
two parts make a half-twist; in the L, one part crosses Over at
both points. But this difference is perplexing, although without
effect on the resultant knot. The center image is flawed if taken
literally, and doesn’t help.
------[ END 1st INSTALLMENT (of 3) ]---------------
Ashley’s Book of Knots (ABOK) Citations
#803 (p.145) The upper left & lower right curved strands of the knot
should pass behind the vertical strands. [w/km31:15]
#1051 (p.190) “Pull at either end” should be “Pull both legs of the
eye apart, …”.
#1074 (p.194) This knot is like #1150: add a cross-reference.
#1076 (p.194) The rightmost image’s arrow should run through the
prior loop.
#1100 (p.200) The last sentence states “The remainder are … tied
in the bight with the ends …”!?
#1126 (p.205) [See the entry for #1862 re another tying method.]
#1150 (p.209) This knot is like #1074: add a cross-reference.
#1155 (p.210) The lower part of this image has a gap in the rope:
the center part of the bottom knot should be arranged to continue
through the center & u-turn back up on the R.
#1191 (p.217) The reference to “the spot marked ‘X’” is null
–there’s no such mark.
#1412 (p.259) [See joint entry for #293+296.]
#1414 (p.259) [See joint entry for #293+296.]
#1460 (p.265) The 2HH hawser bend’s bottom ends are wrong/backwards:
the END is on the R, the lower SPart on the L.
#1464 (p.265) The image is unseemly–hard to figure, @bottom.
#1499 (p.270) Ashley overlooks how many “bights” (eyes) this bowline
will have–two, so “bight is cut” must be “the bights are cut”.
#1542 (p.273) The reference to the test description should be “16”.
#1726 (p.296) The Bowline’s END looPart should be what has the back
hitch collaring it, not the SPart–consider the tying method!
#1737 (p.298) The completion arrow should cross Over itself,
to form a HH.
#1744 (p.298) The entry of the SPart should run to the 2nd lowest turn,
not lowest.
#1862 (p.311) The knot illustrated by the center/arrowed image is NOT
the “Ring Hitch” asserted, but a Round Turn (on the SParts): the
arrow’s crossings should be reversed (Under->Over). Were the loop
into which the ring is reeved formed with the reverse twist, one
would get a Clove H. (2HH) on the twin SParts. (Ashley should show
and reference this tying method, resp., at #1126 & #1695–where his
words aren’t so sure to describe the method shown at #1126.)
#1896 (p.315) The image of the lanyard’s joint with the toggle is
indefinite; I guess that it’s a round turn, but either the text
should so state, or the image be made clear (or the text state that
a variety of joints is possible–but this course doesn’t seem good).
#2000 (p.326) The text and images can jive, but the images really
should be explicit.
#2024 (p.329) The image of a Spanish Windlass is flawed in three ways,
all for the left side: the cord around the spike should be on the
thick side (in this case, below the bar); the cord should have already
one turn on the bar; and the cord should come from the same side as
that on the right, and opposite the bar (so, in this case, the front).
Also, Ashley says that the cord makes “one round turn” of the block;
but this is a problematic concept, as his “turn” & “round turn” have
the ends together–so 180 & 540 degree turns–, whereas here (and in
some other situations) the ends go in opposite directions–360 deg.);
it’s not clear what is intended, but the illustration of this is
inaccurate. Cf #3154, a similar & flawed image.
#2300 (p.372) The reference to the Jug Sling Knot “#1143” should be
“#1142”.
-----------[ END 2nd INSTALLMENT (of 3) ]-------------
Ashley’s Book of Knots (ABOK) Citations
#2583 (p.416) The assertion that “one more half turn” will beget “a series
of Stevedore Knots” is false: it will yield "Fig.9"s (#521). For the
Stevedore, a full turn extra is needed.
#2771 (p.453) It’s not perspicuous from either the text or the drawing
how to finish the splice: The continuation arrows are ambiguous at
best; the text appears to say the same thing in apparently different
ways–“sticking each end through the same aperture, and then tuck
both ends over and under once”: this amounts to two like tucks!?
#2754 (p.450) [I believe …] #2754 = 2755 (so far as I can see),
and #2757 is the reverse in the sense that the orientation of the
tucked & receiving strands is reversed.
#2755 (p.450) … lacks the strand ID # “1” (the leftside strand).
And I don’t understand what Ashley means by “differently stuck”:
the two splices seem identical except for how strand #1 is put,
but that position is only temporary, and the next tucking must be
the same and … ?!
#2803 (p.459) The left side of the Spanish Windlass should the spike
on the viewer’s side of the bar, with the rope hitched to it above
the bar (so that it would be using the same lever arrangement as
the right side).
#2904 (p.478) The 4th/last prg. should say “In the upper left corner
of THE NEXT page, …”, as the images are #2905 & #2907,
top of p.479.
#2908 (p.479) The interlocking of alternate half-knots is
misrepresented for the R leg of the half-knot whose ends are arrowed
for the next crossing–it should lie behind the part of the other
half-knot. (Frankly, when I try this sinnet it looks nothing like
Ashley’s image!?)
#3151 (p.521) The reference to “#3396” for a Round Seizing should be
to either #3388/3394.
#3154 (p.521) The rightside marlinespike should cross OVER the
crossbar. The cord should join the leftside spike below the bar
(on its thick end).
#3235 (p.528) The vertically center block’s left line should be
attached to a becket in the center of the lowest block–as done in
the preceding image (#3234).
#3390 (p.542) This “Seizing Hitch” as drawn is of two pieces, one of
which is continuous (that shown with dotted connections) and the
other but a singly tucked piece. It’s not perspicuous as to what
the 2nd end should be–presumably it is a continuation from some
frapping or binding turns–, but the rightside dotted connection
should join the upper rightmost part with the lower center,
tucked-out end (which makes the structure a Groundline Hitch tied
in reverse).
#3410 (p.543) It says “… a round turn …” but as per definitions
@#40..42 this is a “turn”.
#3854 (p.592) This text should refer to #1191, not 1192.
Index (p.609) The Clove Hitch reference “70” is null; but add
p.305(#1805), 314(#1887), & 318(#1936).
Index (p.609) The Cow Hitch reference “336” is null; p.306 (for a 2nd
image #1802, of a cow, hitched) should be given, and the likely
error of ‘336’ was ‘536’, where there are three references to “cow
hitch”.
Index (p.609) The reference to "Crown Sinnet, 429-83 => “478-83”.
Index (p.614) The 6th & 7th references read ‘Marling’ but at both pp.
in fact ‘marline’ is used.
Index (p.617) “Spanish Windlass” should cite pp 459(#2803) & 521(#3154).
Index (p.618) The 2nd reference for “Stevedore Knot” should be
“85” (#522).
============[ END 3rd (of 3) INSTALLMENT ]====================
If you see in the list above the smily 8), read it as 8 ).
Dan,
Thanks for publishing the list. I am only afraid that this forum makes any combination of 8 and ) into the smiley 8)
A way round this is to check the disable smilies option underneat the ‘type your message’ window, or to make a space between the 8 and ).
I’d rather not change in your post, (even if I could,) because the risk of accidentally removing valuable information.
Willeke
:
8) :o
…NOTE!!!: Dan is going to re-edit the list he just put on and i’ll be adding it to the ABOK corrections page, etc!!:
http://knotical-arts.com/abok.html
…Dan-Alaska
hello folks... ...Issue #13 of IGKT-PAB Knot News had a very long list of "corrections and observations" to ABOK....i scanned the pages and put them here:http://knotical-arts.com/abok.html…if anyone knows of any more corrections please let me know and i’ll add them to this page!..
Dan-Alaska
And certainly–as surely Nautile will affirm–, if anyone has questions or challenges
to the presented errata, these should surface for deliberation amongst us.
I.p., of the KM-published list, there are flaws.
#366 is correct. Were the “correction” in place, there’d be no sense to his words of revision
“as is customary” (for the indicated Sheepshank). Yes, the Yardarm IS what results;
but the text here is correct, as it denotes the knot derived from. A better sentence
would be “was a Yardarm Knot (#1149), which was a Sheepshank Knot (#1154) …”.
“p.190: Reference in first prg. to ‘the next two pp’ excludes 1035 & 1038 of the
preceding page, which can be tied in the bight.” Yes, and at first I thought that
Ashley intended “with the bight” to mean “using a bight as a unit in tying the knot”;
but the tying of e.g. #1048 deviates from this, in working with various bights
and not as units in hand. But please note that ALL of the preceding 11(!) knots
–viz., #1045 back through 1034–are TIB. (How could this be overlooked, esp. for
e.g. 1040 & 1043?!)
#1102 v.3: “… IDENTICAL” My, grandmother, what poor eyesight you have!
In 1103 the ends each pass through a center bight of rope, in opp. directions;
in 1102, the leftside end makes a TURN AROUND this bight, but doesn’t enter it.
.:. Ashley is right(er), the citation wrong.
#1171: The images DO work (though the leftside one’s arrow path can be a bit
confusing; it’s a matter of tensioning and the shift of the turn.
#1200: The center image might be wrong, but the RIGHThand one certainly is
–it is NOT the symmetric, and surer-holding version of the Dbl.Constrictor shown
as #1253 (the arrow goes wrong in the 3rd ROPE crossing–should go Over,
under, Over, under, under).
#1467: This is clearly NOT the Constictor, #1249! Ashley right, comment wrong.
–dl*
I hope and assume that these errors were corrected in the Ashley that I bought (new) a few months ago.
Further finding re the KM-published errata: Errat’ling the Errata.
#1056: Ashley is correct; the knots ARE identical (and can be show as such
in the orientations given (i.e., they’re not mirror images).
#1076: concur
#1077: I wonder in what material the commenter found this to be true? trying
the knot in a fine (2.5mm?) nylon (?) braided cord, with (only) 3 eyes, I don’t get any slippage. --in 100#? test monofil w/5 eyes, ya, slips a bunch, quickly;
but in used 0.25 inch laid PP, w/6 eyes, loaded w/some pulley help, no/little slippage.
#1080: eh, debatable
#1083: “Bad” is in the eye of the user?! Perhaps the object is to make an eye with multiple
strands for the sake of comfort against one’s body (as opposed to connecting to many
objects). In any case, the images are correct EXCEPT for the uppeRight one, where
the loop cast in the SPart is shown in reversed crossing (the SPart should be hindmost,
as in the lower left image). One can position the eye-to-eye continuation part differently,
more down in the SPart’s loop/turn.
#1086: concur
#1100: ??? 1100 comes on p.200, not 201. This comment refers to
#1110 & 2569. Yes, the righthand (completing tying) images are intended to be
identical, but at 1110 the lower close end of the arrow should extend to the 3rd line
from the left (i.e., crossing over one part & spanning the GAP before going under/behind
the part to the right (and then out of sight). And thus it shouldn’t be shown in front
of this 2nd/rightside part.
#1121: Certainly topologically the knots are the same, and given Ashley’s arrow
for how to tie 1121 it is to become the same. But in angler’s images & instructions of
tying the “grinner” or “Uniknot”, one can wonder if the symmetric, multi-overhand
form is intended, by the shifting of slick material, or … what.
#1122: Given the truth about 1121 & 20, Ashley is correct, though referencing
the earlier and conspicuously formed knot would’ve been more perspicuous.
#1142: Ashley is correct, and the image beneath the star follows exactly as his
arrow indicates from the image above. [Again, it’s surprising that some of these
citations got so far as hard ink–where are the eyes … !!!]
#1155: Yes, a botched drawing (more a sort of graphical typo than an error).
#1182: Okay, cross-ref. (There’s a reason the Strangle isn’t so great for a line
of bindings: it’s not easily tied tight w/o working and pulling on each end, which
will loosen material between hitches. Rather, the Seizing H. is used (though
this occurs but ONCE in Ashely, and not for such an application!).)
#1191: concur
#1200: Again, the righthand image has a bad crossing; the knot should be #1253,
which is a good binder (better than #1252, IMHO). The center image as a rough
approximation of appearance is okay; otherwise, it’s imprecise & wrong.
#1209: Eh, in many cases of casual use, the finger-on-knot is needed against some
flat surface, and the extra twist here is of little help there.
#1223: Hmmm, the setting isn’t right for a Sheet Bend; but then, I don’t see how
Ashley expects to get this topological equivalent of that asymmetric knot so “that
the parts are symmetrical.” !?
#1233-4: The arrow in the rightside image for #1233 that finishes at the bottom
should have its rightwards finishing run be OVER-under (a non-crosing in fact)-under,
to match the 1234 lower left image (and the corresponding upper end).
#1250: Two aspects: firstly, the assertion that using a slip-tuck makes a knot
easily untied should be soundly rejected: many hard-loaded practical knots will make
budging that jammed slip-tuck impractical, and even if the end is hauled outwards,
likely the slight bulge of the bight tip will be sufficient to impede freeing the slip-tuck;
but I think that here Ashley intends the ring to attach to the rightmost image,
#1251 tied with a bight-flip. (His placement of such rating symbols varies.)
#1298-9: agree that the digit ‘8’=>‘2’.
#1432/40/43: agree w/reference =>273.
#1458/60: concur
#1467: Again, hogwash! (-:
p.273 table, ref.s: concur
#1697: Ashley is right, the comment wrong. I suspect that in reasonably flexible
natural-fiber rope such structures jammed practically tight with wet rope,
and that e.g. the oft’ presented “Killick/Killeg/…” hitch was intended to similarly
jam tight around something–not used in the spaced Timber H - & - HHitch form
that might be used for hauling (valid use; just don’t combine & confuse w/K.H.).
#3267: It’s hard to tell what’s right here. Certainly “in opposite ciruits” sounds
like the citation is correct; but the lefthand image is unambiguous. One COULD
see the binding as simply splitting the ends on either side of the initial Girth H.
(Bale Sling H.), and then one (lower) end brought from behind & below the wraps
to begin the crossing with the other.
===============================
–dl*
Thanks to the two Dan mainly.
Wish that this sort of information will be safely tuck away to be retrieved at will for a loooooong time.
Best regards to all.
Phew, that started a correspondence! Thanks everyone for your help - Jimbo, I’ll let you know when I’ve found my island.
Meanwhile, I’m off to a corner with ABOK and my pencil and all your suggestions.
Deckhandiana.
Hi Everyone,
I am coming in late but: Knot News issue #13 was compiled form “Knotting Matters” 1, 28, 31, 32 & 33. When I got #13 of Knot News I ripped around cursing at trees and kicking rock. Many of the eratta are in error! I revised my copy of ABOK and I revised issue #13. Then came Knot News # 15 which revised some of the errors in the eratta of #13 and even corrected some, but then made new errors, so # 15 needs an adendum.
I started collecting ABOK’s. Things got worse. There is an UK version. I am trying to get one on Ebay.. Just got outbid.
Tomorrow I’ll print out this whole thread, over the next weeks I’ll go through it line by line. But you know?.. I make mistakes too. So after I am through reading all the comments and pontifications… will I be further ahead? Maybe we need to take it (that is to say the ABOK) one by one. After all there are only 3854 (first edition) numbers to deal with… 10 per day and we could be done in a year. I just looked at 1 to 10… I am pretty happy. Any naysayers?
Splended things have come of working with ABOKas it is. I published a variation of #788 due to a misunderstanding on my part. That is my misunderstaning lead me to a useful variation.
I am sure that everyone who tried to revise ABOK was really sincere and I know that the talent was there and it got into print… but just look at the eratta of the eratta. There never should have been a revised edition… simply an adendum of opinion… a list of possible eratta. Just glancing at my anotated copy of Knot News #13 I see 8 rather robust margin notes. That was before I got too upset to continue. I even have margin notes on issue # 14! Of course, as you all know.. when I am wrong I am always wrong at the top of my lungs. If you look at #788 the A and B diagrams don’t match. I resolved this problem, to my satisfaction, and ended up with a wonderful lanyard knot where the buried ends disappear.. first published in Knot News # 27. ABOK errors are just a part of your learning process. When you work with an aparent ABOK error and solve it (not that it should not have ever been there) you have grown and advanced your skill. ABOK is not perfect. My not too humble advice is: Be very careful when you choose to find fault. Therefore you will not find a PABPRES list of eratta.
Therefore you will not find a PABPRES list of eratta.Yes, but would you trade a "last edition" for Deckhandiana's First Edition, thereby saving him/her the ignominy of defacing ABoOk?
IMNERHO, some of the errata are just silly, but I'm grateful for some others. A lot are in my 3 month-old last edition already, but some aren't and some can't be. I like to think of the so-called "errors" as little mini-exams in AKU (Ashley's Knotting University). Fail them at your own peril, as your survivors may knot understand...
No, no - you can always write comments in books. It make them so much more personal (ever read 84 Charing Cross Road?). If I do in my 1st ed. ABOK though, I promise to use pencil.
Deckhandiana (female, actually!)
PABPRES raises an interesting point about opinion when it comes to errors. In my mind #2611 is clearly wrong; not in the tying but in the untying. However, what Ashley says and proposes is correct. I just believe that if Ashley knew the far better solution to this he wouldn’t have published what he did.
I wouldn’t propose changing anything Ashley wrote in this case, and probably wouldn’t even add in the better solution; I only raise it out of interest.