Hello Knotman… O.K. I don’t know the better way.. even though it is sort of off the thread… tell us, Please. I am not very good with puzzles so always assumed 2611 was all there is.
Look at the second picture of #2611 (and perhaps do this on a coat at the same time). If the eraser end of the pencil is pushed back through the button hole you find that the string tightens before the pencil is pulled out. It seems the string is not long enough; and this is the case. However instead of trying to pull the pencil out of the buttonhole push a little more of the buttonhole flap through the loop of string. In this way the buttonhole will pass off the end of the pencil.
If you make up a pencil or stick with a hole in the end and tie a loop of string through it you’ll find it easier to work with. In fact its so easy to work, you can come up besides someone and grab the buttonhole through the loop of string and put the hole thing on before they see how you do it.
And to those without any comment, I presume there was no review.(Begging your pardon for using this sentence as a launching point...)
An equally likely presumption would be that the rest of us are considerably slower at converting the hordes of textual errata (both real and alleged) into some semblance of useful information, without which any comment would be irrelevant at best.
But just to illustrate that some of us are actually trying, let me “comment” on my “review” of the “original” errata graciously provided by knot_tyer:
The item for p190, IMNERHO, is merely a derisive comment about Ashley’s introductory comment about “the next two pages” of his (Ashley’s, not the commenter’s) book. The commenter apparently didn’t catch the “The next two pages are…” part of the paragraph, and chose instead to point out two of many examples which would fit the “with a bight, on the bight” phrase, but are not on “The next two pages”.
To my tired old eye, that just looks silly. In other words, ol’ Cliff is correct about “the next two pages” (190 & 191), although the commenter is correct that not all knots that can be tied “with a bight, on the bight” are (re-) presented on 190 & 191.
Now I ask you all, is that “erratum” or “mudslinging”? And if that’s an error, what about the error (to my eye) of multiply repeating knots, giving references (forward and backward) in some cases but not others? Those of you looking to revise & extend the ABOK can find many “available” numbers just by filtering out the repeats!
As I was working on another post regarding loops, using the information on those very pages, that particular comment was perplexing at first. I looked it up to make sure I didn’t compound a known error, only to find such trivial BS posing as a “correction”.
I find many of these, comments of the nature of “In My Opinion, Ashley should’ve said ______” listed as “errata”. This makes the filtration process quite difficult.
Needless to say, I will take whatever effort is required to separate the wheat from the chaff, both in ol’ Cliff’s tome and in the addenda provided by others, regardless of the source. IOW, “Love Ya, Mean It”, but I’m not trusting my hide to anyone’s opinion!!
The kink in the cord is the main thing. Failing to appreciate that yields not an “errata”, but an “obituary”.
Looking over this thread and knot_tyer’s scan brings up a Big Question to me, to wit:
Is there any compendium of errata or an index or any sort of precis which we might use to focus our studies on the actual ABOK errors, thereby saving the entangling differences of opinion for “later” - say, once we’ve mastered every nuance of every single knot & therefore have an opinion worth sharing?
Perhaps someone would care to take the whole list & categorize it into “actual errors” and “differences of opinion”, as a favor to us newbies. 
Yes, this is just my opinion!!
(Flame OFF…)
[MSG. 1 of 2]
(Begging your pardon for using this sentence as a launching point...)An equally likely presumption would be that the rest of us …
I read the “those” as referring to the subject errata: i.e., in my review of others’
errata, there are some citations I “concur” in and others for which I make no
comment one way or t’other–and for “those” one might guess that I’ve simply
not been interested or w/time adequate to review. In that case, a safe guess.
(It dawned on me a little slowly that giving “concur” would be beneficial, so as
to add one more reviewer’s weight to the citation.)
The item for p190, IMNERHO, ...which is--for quick reference:
[i] "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?!) [/i]
... is merely a derisive comment about Ashley's introductory comment about "the next two pages" of [ABOK]. The commenter apparently didn't catch the "[i]The next two pages are...[/i]" part of the paragraph, and chose instead to point out two of many examples which would fit the "[i][b]with a bight, on the bight[/b][/i]" phrase, but are not on "The next two pages".To my tired old eye, that just looks silly. In other words, ol’ Cliff is correct about “the next two pages” (190 & 191), although the commenter is correct that not all knots that can be tied “with a bight, on the bight” are (re-) presented on 190 & 191.
[My italics & emphasis.]
I take your point, but on the other hand, what an odd thing to say at THIS point
(i.e., for Ashley to write, here), when the statement in fact could say “THREE” and
be put back one page (and then some)?
More importantly, Ashley is WRONG, by his definition of “WITH the bight”–though,
alas, he doesn’t treat this definition prominently enough to put it where one can readily
locate it (in Glossary, in Index, or even in early front matter of generalities).
NB: Ashley has made deliberate emphasis (with italics) of these “bight” exresssions here!
Firstly, HIS definition of “bight” conflicts with his (and generally, now) use of that
term–cf. #30-2 & 40. Except for the general “without ends” sense, his precise
definitions are not used.
As for with the bight, confer #1074 vs. 1080: the implied special sense
(and why have “with”/“in”/“upon”/“on” distinguish nothing?) of this expression
is what I suggested in my comment; it is that of using a folded/“paired”/“doubled”
part of rope in tying (not merely of not using the ends).
The Overhand & Fig.8 loopknots are paradigms of “with the bight” tying;
whereas the rest of what follows are not. To put it in set terms, what is “with…” is
a proper subset of what is “in”; I’m resigning to seeing “on”/“upon” as mere
synonyms of “in”.
Now I ask you all, is that "[url=http://www.answers.com/erratum&r=67]erratum[/url]" or "mudslinging"?--a gratuitous question. One can simply evaluate the citations for accuracy & value. (But the suggestion of "mudslinging" implies some elevation of Ashley to devine status, and keeping mum when the king IS naked helps whom?)
[ARGH, GOTTA CHOP INTO 2 MSG.S BECAUSE OF MSG.-LENGTH LIMIT]
[MSG. 2 of 2]
And if that's an error, what about the error (to my eye) of multiply repeating knots, giving references (forward and backward) in some cases but not others? Those of you looking to revise & extend the ABOK can find many "available" numbers just by filtering out the repeats!I've elsewhere chided folks who tout blindly that the book contains "nearly 4,000 knots", noting both repetitions and things unlikely to be considered "knots". Cross references are helpful, esp. where added information is available (and maybe it's a different illlustation that proves the reward). These can be captured mostly in the Index, but might be useful in the text(s) as well.
I find many of these, comments of the nature of "In My Opinion, Ashley should've said ______" listed as "errata". This makes the filtration process quite difficult.Specific questions can get specific answers; the citations are presented openly to an open forum, in part with the hope that Other Eyes can see any flaws in them, and the flimsy bits trimmed away. Many of us resort to [i][u]ABOK[/u][/i] as a sort of standard, and it's to our collective benefit to improve our understanding of it.
Is there any compendium of errata or an index or any sort of precis which we might use to focus our studies on the actual ABOK [b][i]errors[/i][/b], thereby saving the entangling differences of opinion for "later" - say, once we've mastered every nuance of every single knot & therefore have an opinion worth sharing?It surprises me--am I alone in this?--that there was no saved list of the errata that the IGKT gave to Ashley's publisher for revision: I'd think that this was regarded (and still would be) as a major act of the Guild which would be preserved for posterity and reference!? In any case, what you see before you now is a 2nd and seemingly more open venture at that. Whether a publisher acts on it, or whether the IGKT might itself publish such an [i]Errata[/i], is a Next Step question for the future. In the meantime, I'd think many of the regular users of the book would have some notes to toss into the pot for consideration, as I have done--why have all those bits of attention lost to others?
Perhaps someone would care to take the whole list & categorize it into "actual errors" and "differences of opinion"Yeah, some sort of split presentation such as this makes sense. For there are things that can be said that stray more into [i]addenda[/i] than properly in [i]errata[/i], though the former easily fills another few volumes!
–dl*
Jimbo wrote, privately, that one of my citations gave the wrong page #;
I’ve edited my post (p.30 not “130” for #143). This is an obvious and simple
mistake, easily corrected (done!). But, Jimbo, why not say it out loud? Anyway,
I will, here. scientific process, peer review, … --good things.
Jimbo also makes what I find a provocative assertion:
And FYI, my "last edition", ISBN 0385040253, whose date of publication is somehow omitted from the Title Page (another "errata"??) already has most of the corrections. I bought it 2005-07-05.(With my conversion of Amer. date form into ISO/worldwide one.)
Jimbo (and others w/new edition), it would be best to have a per-citation list of whether
the new edition reflects the citation (is corrected or adjusted). Frankly, as many of
the citation entail image adjustments, I find this hard to believe!?
Nevertheless, a full list as per the 1st or pre-IGKT/-corrections edition is beneficial
to those of us who own such, and will prefer to slip in a print-out of some errata
vs. buying a new one. Actually, I think many folks will care to know what the errata
are/were, regardless of the particular edition held.
Thanks,
–dl*
[MSG. 1 of 2]what an odd thing to say at THIS point (i.e., for Ashley to write, here), when the statement in fact could say "THREE" and be put back one page (and then some)?Nay, I say to thee! Nay!
Go ye hither to the hallowed lines of ABOK, and turn ye to the Chapter & Verse of ABOK #1034. Read ye the Firste Sentence therein inscribed.
CWA was obviously not as “mechanical” as some of us (like me) would prefer. His prose is interleaved at a higher (lower order of fundamentality) level than the mere enumeration some of us (me) prefer.
Sorry about the affected style, but I’m trying to point out why it struck me as silly.
Back to reading your post. TTFN…
Jimbo
Firstly, HIS definition of "bight" conflicts with his (and generally, now) use of that term--cf. #30-2 & 40. Except for the general "without ends" sense, his precise definitions are not used.With a kindly nod to Brian, here's Yet Another Newbie Question:
What happened to Ashley’s terminology??
As you point out, e.g., what he calls a “turn” is now commonly called a “loop”. This makes it hard to describe a “loop knot” textually, and that’s just the one obvious example a newbie like me can see.
I’ve stuck a bookmark there (one of my napkin kites) so I can return, grateful to you for showing me, to that page; as soon as I finish reading…
J
But, Jimbo, why not say it *out loud*?Because it was a typo.
One of the “rules” of the Internet is, in the spirit of information exchange we’re all expected to mentally “clean up” the other person’s text to some extent.
It’s hard for me, especially, to do, but we’ll have a hard time communicating if we continually interrupt the other person to nag them over speling erors and typoes.
Errors of fact, you’d better watch your hat, and I will gleefully abuse you over ill logic!! But there’s no reason to ‘clog the flow’ over a typo. That’s IMO, of course!
Back to reading…
Jimbo
Nay, I say to thee! Nay!Go ye hither to the hallowed lines of ABOK, and turn ye to the Chapter & Verse of ABOK #1034. Read ye the Firste Sentence therein inscribed.
Ahhh, okay. So “in the bight” implies that the knot will be loaded on both
ends, at least part of the time. A subset of such knots is known as directional
loopknots, in that the eye is expected/intended to be loaded opposite only one
of the ends not the other (e.g. #1058), as contrasted with the Butterfly.
Well read, Jimbo; thanks for the clarity.
I can see a limited sense for “on the bight”, as well, but … . Still, I prefer
my sense of “with the bight”, that of using paired parts, vs. merely meaning
tying w/o ends (as is suggested in the contrast of those two bowlines). To ME,
“tied in the bight” (which I often write in shorthand “TIB”) means the broadest
set of knots tied w/o using the ends, which I think is a useful distinction.
–dl*
Below are some further errata, as well as some revisions to prior errata.
–dl*
#143 (p.30) Ashley refers to the Bowline Bend as “#1145”;
it should be “#1455”.
#779 (p.140) The arrow in the lefthand image should cross over its own
part as it finishes (as indicated in righthand image).
#794 (p.143) The 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.
#1038 (p.188) The text should refer to knot #2420, not #387.
#1086 (p.197) The leftmost image is missing the continuation of one part
of the looped bight.
#1200 (p.218) As Ashley notes in the text, the illustration for this
knot is bad: the 3rd crossing from the arrow’s end should be
reversed.
#1233 (p.223) The righthand image’s lower arrow should cross over
the lower leftmost part.
#1438 (p.262) The tying & tied images are vertically reversed.
#1458 (p.265) The bottom of this seized structure shows the wrong parts
as end & SPart.
#1726 (p.296) The Bowline’s END eyeleg should have the back hitch
collaring it, not the SPart, given the tying method (cf #1853).
#1795 (p.304) The Backhanded Mooring Hitch is confusingly, ambiguously presented:
(a) the lefthand image exhibits five bights and labels them “a”-“e” but they’re
not referenced in the text(!?); (b) the righthand image is botched, with the
first turn apparently leading into either of the first two turns around the
SPart; (c) the text specifies casting several bights over the post, but doesn’t
refer to the labels of the lefthand image and conflict with the righthand image
which only has the initial bight cast and then ends with round turn. If the
text’s instruction to cast several bights over the capstan is followed, there
should be no need to stop the end–friction and material weight alone will hold
(Budworth specifies but ONE cast bight! YMMV with materials–diameters,surface
frictions, loads.).
Note that this is presented/named as a “mooring” hitch; the brieferstructures
might be better as the more temporary towing hitches!?
#1869 (p.312) The upper tuck wrongly is of the SPart through the end.
#2952 (p.485) The images and instructions for this simple sennit are botched:
(a) the leftmost image should show the arrow going Over the bight;
(b) the central image creates a sort of Crossing Knot within the structure (wrong);
(c) the tying will impart torsion to the bight, so instructions should be to
pre-twist the bight and then to reeve the ends into the twisted bight (which
might make the tying easier to follow); (d) the start is asymmetric, and
doesn’t lead to an easy symmetric continuation–rather, the bight should be
simply closed with a Simple knot!?
#3106 (p.516) The first/upper image associated with this coiling method
has the visibly left-handed rope coiled clockwise, the opposite of what
is specified in the text and shown in the bottom image.
============================================= *
An old thread, yes, but a continuing topic (though one we might hope to exhaust/complete).
Here are some further errata, just found (by me, at least).
#1727 (p.296) This text refers to “the hitch which follows”, but this should
read “#1730” which follows two other knots. (In both cases, Ashely’s claims
about closing or opening (resp.) easily are conditional re material.
[20090818t]
#1731 (p.296) The illustration for the finished hitch is bad; the hitch itself
is dubious, so far as one can surmise from the tying instruction. The hitch
depends on relatively firm/stiff rope, as by the text it amounts to a bight
loaded by the S.Part drawing against the end qua toggle between it (lying
snug to object, “under” the other bight) and the first-formed bight (the end’s
turn & tuck) make the 2nd bight upon pushing the bight “to the back.”
#1732 (p.296) The text reads “Three round turns …” but the illustration shows
just two, or three turns – an old issue re such terms.
–dl*
#1204 (p. 220) - Recently I was tracking down Ashley’s claim that the reef knot was mentioned in Smith’s Seamans Grammar in 1627. I found a 1691 edition, but was unable to find any mention of the reef knot. Given the printer’s near-reverent prefatory note, it doesn’t seem likely that the newer edition would have had substantive material removed.
I also notice in this thread on 16-18th century knots and ropes that the reef knot is absent from the list, with Smith’s work having been searched by the poster. I must admit I didn’t read every single word of the linked PDF, but it wasn’t in any of the obvious places. Maybe I’m just missing it, but does anyone see the reef knot in Smith? If not, I say that would be another correction to add to the list…
The reef knot does appear in Steel’s 1794 The Elements and Practice of Rigging And Seamanship on page 183. Since Ashley refers to both these works a few times in ABOK, I wonder if he mixed them up when writing #1204?
I take it you have looked under “Square Knot” (not a modern name arising from Marcrame as many like to think) and “Double Overhand Knot”.
Talking of overhand knots, I see in some of the older publications that the currently named Figure Eight Knot was also known as “Overhand or Figure Eight Knot”
Fairlead
Yep, I tried to keep an eye out for anything remotely resembling a description of a reef knot. Though the specific claim at #1204 is that Smith uses the name reef knot. Once I got to the second part of the book, a very detailed account of naval gunnery of the time, I kept browsing through but it seemed highly unlikely it was going to be in that part of the book.
The other issue with this work is it is so old that the orthography and typography differ quite a bit from modern standards. This makes it more difficult to quickly scan as one might a more modern work. But the actual section directly discussing knots wouldn’t cover a single page (lower half of p. 25 and a few lines on 26). The reef knot is definitely not mentioned there. My thought is that it may be alluded to while discussing reefing sails or some other procedure but I’ve been unable to find it. Unfortunately the PDF is made up of page images rather than OCR’d text – though with this old typeface and non-modern spelling OCR would be very challenging indeed.
I hope and assume that these errors were corrected in the Ashley that I bought (new) a few months ago.A big mistake! Why not look and tell us (which seems an obvious thing to do even before making any expression of hope or belief)?
knudeNoggin
If you look at #788 the A and B diagrams don't match.Or they do, by rotating A about a quarter turn clockwise.
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.May I suggest that this is a non sequitur? Or are you claiming that you cannot be careful? Actually, what one may take from this airing of critique at some prior Errata is the benefit of a forum such as this. In a way, the care that should be exercised in making such critiques (and perhaps they are presented first as mere questions of understanding) can result from [i]community[/i] thought. Some of those supposed errors previously cited really smack of a lack of attention/reflection, and of too few people taking any care in them.
So put forth your questions concerning ABOK and evaluate the responses.
(I think it good that in the review of others’ Errata there are “concur” notes,
to add a vote, one might say, to that opinion. And to those without any comment,
I presume there was no review.)
knudeNoggin