I have been thinking about the Rolling Hitch (v1 and v2) for awhile, and come to the conclusion that it makes more sense to call v1 the “Double Clove Hitch” and v2 the “Rolling Hitch” as its most well known.
Both are finished the same (with a opposing half hitch), but the roundturn is made differently.
An funny enough, the Rolling Hitch v2 roundturn can be made accidentally by making it normally as if tying v1, but pulling on the line abit, resulting in it rolling over.
Now, this are my observations. Fellow knot tyers, what are your thoughts on this topic?
“Dbl. Clove H.” has is IMO a more compelling name
for the CH with a 2nd --doubled-- crossing part
(which knot makes a better binder; absent the bound
object, it’s an overhand).
–dl*
/====
I agree with Dan, and I think that trying to change the name to something with the phrase “clove hitch” would be confusing with Ashley’s #1739, which does start out with a Clove Hitch.
Actually, most people now consider that there are three variations of the Rolling Hitch, #1734, 1735, and 1736. Yes, Ashley gives the name Magnus Hitch to the last one, but notice that this is also an “old name” for a Rolling Hitch. These three give us three adjustable hitches in #1856, 1855, and 1857. Clearly, Ashley recognized these as close variations of the something similar.
1 Like
Thank you both @Dan_Lehman and @Dennis_Pence for your insights.
Sorry for the late reply, was busy.
Also, i didn’t know (or maybe forgot?) about ABOK #1739.
Ironically, in Slovenia, the Rolling Hitch (both v1 and v2) is called the “Double Clove Hitch” (dvojni vrni vozel). Which i though before to be a more fitting name for the Rolling Hitch v1, but yeah, you both got good points against a (unnecessary and counterproductive) name change.