Some photographies I did just for the forum :
Freshy not salty these !
You will even get a rear view of Brigitte Bardot, fair dinkum!
Happy “walking” along La Seine à Paris.
Thanks for sharing,
Willeke
Imagine, here on the far side of the pond I can take a leisurely stroll along the
Seine! --and a tour that looks at the beauty of all the important things!
Quiz (Name That Knot!): what’s shown in 156_blackringhitch ?
[That’s 5 down & 9–rightmost–across; black hawser to ring.]
(Winner gets to ask the next NTK question.)
Ditto, THANKS for sharing!!
But two points come to mind:
1: Ol’ Brige is getting a little broad in the beam, a little sharp in the prow… Not a good look for a washed-up starlet.
2: SOMEone, whose name rhymes with “NAUTILE” needs to get BUSY teaching some Seinemen some knottery!!! Tell them it’s a cultural pride thing. “Vive la France!” ??? Vive l’embarrassment, more like it! Sorry Seine boatmen, but … ewwww! :o
3: I see (again) why so many people love Paris!!
My guess on DanL’s challenge: Double Shamu. For those times when only “tying a lot” will do. ;D
Thanks again for the most pleasant diversion, mon cochon!!
My guess on DanL's challenge: Double Shamu. For those times when only "tying a lot" will do. ;DYou get a half point for finding the right image (I presume)--or at least avoiding the wrongly specified one, which at FIVE down is an eye splice. ::) SIX down and nine across (rightmost), THAT is the quiz at hand. One (wrong) guess so far, that's all? Is this a knot tyer's forum? Names or Ashley #s (I think it'll take two), please.
???
Hi !
There you get the 156_blackringhitch.jpg
Or just let your mouse pointer hover on the thumnails and their name will appear. Photographies are ordered in ascending numerical order.
Hmmm – looks like a cow hitch on the bight of a pretty untidy bowline to me . Nos 209 to 212 show something similar that didn’t quite make it home.
After some research I can confidently say it’s a cow hitch (ABOK 244) otherwise called bale sling hitch or ring hitch (ABOK 5) or lanyard hitch or deadeye hitch (ABOK 3317) formed in the loop of a Double or Round Turn Bowline (ABOK 1013).
Have I qualified to join the IGKT now? 
hmmm looks like a cow hitch on the bight of a pretty untidy bowline to me . nos 210 to 212 show something similar that didn't make it quite home.
Okay, we’ll take this vote–finally, someone steps up! --give it a bit of air time
to inspire others …
With “210 to 212”, also 209, you refer to 10 down, 2..5 over, which is the bottomost
full row. Good eye!
(I wonder if the particular arrangement is as intended, which divides the load
over the 4 parts to the unfriendly hard edges of the anchor? Nautile, did the
photographer raise the upper eye on the post?! !! --tampering w/evidence!)
Thanks,
Thought for the day: do not edit defeat from the jaws of victory!
Hi Dan et al,
I hesitate to say this because I have no way to affirm what I see other than to recreate it. I have tried fifteen ways to Sunday to make a bowline as others have suggested, but none can be forced to come out like the photograph. When I make a round turn through 540 degrees in the Spart of the line clockwise and bring the working end behind the Spart then down through the RT, I then wrap the loop in a Lark’s head around the ring and take the Wend again down through the RT, crossing the first pass, to end up with the Wend behind the face as seen in Nautile’s photo. Now - the name? I have looked at ABOK for single loop knots and cannot say that I recognize it. Do I think it is a useful knot ??? - NO :o! The last tuck of the Wend down through and crossing the first pass leaves the Wend susceptible to pullout.
Now - you have asked us what we make of it - what do you make of it? Have you reproduced it? Have you used it? Do you know its name?
Anxiously awaiting,
Lindsey
How do I add my photo of the knot I made?
Hi !
Dan_Lehman : NO tempering with evidence, would have been “acrobatic” to do so to say the least, I was already sufficiently near the point of no-return leaning to have a clear view!
Squarerigger/Lindsey :
If you want send me a picture ( jpg format ) I will put it on my WebSpace and send you back the link to it so you can make your post with it.
[quote author=Dan_Lehman
With “210 to 212”, also 209, you refer to 10 down, 2..5 over, which is the bottomost
full row. Good eye!
(I wonder if the particular arrangement is as intended, which divides the load
over the 4 parts to the unfriendly hard edges of the anchor?
Thought for the day: do not edit defeat from the jaws of victory!
[/quote]
Thanks Dan,
I wondered if the arrangement in 209 to 212 might be deliberate , I have reproduced both these arrangements in a piece of 1/4" dia hemp and the second one seems pretty stable due to the bulk of the double bowline. Wouldn’t expect it to last in any kind of sea though. Lindsey, I agree the double bowline doesn’t seem to have any particular advantage over a standard bowline and seems less stable to me, although see Ashley #1013 for a discussion of this knot. He says it’s suitable for " stiff or slippery rope", and won’t capsize as easily as a “carelessly drawn up Single Bowline”.
IM(NS)HO anyone who is careless about settling his knots deserves to lose his sail/boat/whatever(as long as he isn’t doing it on my ship), and isn’t likely to use the double bowline anyway!
Dan, no offence taken or intended, but does your thought for the day refer to my edit of the post? Is the latter info wrong in some way I can’t see? Or just too much information?
Another question, is it OK to quote directly from copyright material such as Ashleys here, or can we only “reference” it?
Cheers
Peter H
A quote, just a few lines (and at most one picture), can be used everywhere as long as you add the name of the writer and the book/publication it is in.
We do normaly just reference Ashley to avoid a lot of typing.
Willeke
Hi !Dan_Lehman : NO tempering with evidence, would have been “acrobatic” to do so to say the least, I was already sufficiently near the point of no-return leaning to have a clear view!
Well, SOMEthing has moved parts of the evidence in each
of the 4 photos: the upper leg of eye is raised, in one; the end
variously caresses the nearby cable or points different ways;
and the flora decorating the stone wall moves! :o
–quite a bit of activity for inanimate objects (esp. the rope!!)
:
I wondered if the arrangement in 209 to 212 might be deliberate , I have reproduced both these arrangements in a piece of 1/4" dia hemp and the second one seems pretty stable due to the bulk of the double bowline. Wouldn't expect it to last in any kind of sea though. Lindsey, I agree the double bowline doesn't seem to have any particular advantage over a standard bowline and seems less stable to me, although see Ashley #1013 for a discussion of this knot. He says it's suitable for " stiff or slippery rope", and won't capsize as easily as a "carelessly drawn up Single Bowline". IM(NS)HO ;-) anyone who is careless about settling his knots deserves to lose his sail/boat/whatever(as long as he isn't doing it on my ship), and isn't likely to use the double bowline anyway!Okay, we'll give PwH the win and he can ask the next quiz question re these pics. The structure in question above is a girth hitch to the ring (and various other names, but leave "cow" for the structure loaded on just one end), and a Bowline--partially capsized! The latter was the main quiz point. This sort of thing I've seen fairly often, and have wondered if it is even intended, both because some Bowlines are left in mooring hawsers much more loose than the material would coerce, and there are in use some other knots that look a bit like the partially capsized Bwl (presumably tied directly to make the gradual [i]dog-leg[/i] in the SPart).
So, yes, Lindsey, there IS a way that Bwl can be forced … .
(And big boats: the Force is with them!) In the photo, the SPart
runs in, under collar, then back & up in a twist with the end-leg
of collar, to emerge just in time to sport one light marker yarn
as it flows into its eye.
The Dbl.Bwl is more secure esp. when slack, as the bit if loosening
feed of material has then a full round turn to loosen thus vs.
just a turn.
As for setting Bwl.s, all I can say is that one can see Bwl.s with
quite loose collars used in yachting lines–from hasty tying?–,
and in hawswers the setting might be similarly ignored for some
convenience, or simply is done with a manual force so far less than
the forces broght to bear in use as to be insignificant.
Also, some tying methods such as the whiz-bang “slip-knot”
(marlinespike hitch) one imply an occasion devoid of dressing.
Hearing that the Dutch(?) navy preferred the so-called Lefthanded
Bwl leads me to wonder if big-ropes behavior & capsizing might
be why?!
–dl*
“SOMEthing…”
Well the something is most probably River Seine itself, that can get quite choppy at times ( say a foot or a foot and a half of wave high) when police boats - they don’t ALWAYS observe regulations they enforce - and the heavy cruiser boats that can have a good “teeth” at the bow when going full tilt in some segment of the Seine. You can in those circumstances see a whole moored barge tap tancing!
Ok , next question. This may be too simple but here goes…
In picture 120_mooring_f.jpg there are four “fender suspenders”, only one of which appears to me to be a genuine named and classic knot. Which one is it and what is it? Bonus points if you can identify and name the others!
this is the url for the pic
http://charles.hamel.free.fr/AMARRAGES_SEINE/target19.html
cheers
Peter H
Hmmm, to my eye, there are a couple knots in good standing,
and all are variations on an old theme.
This thread’s too inactive, so I’ll put in my answer to PwH’s question.
From left to right along the rather sharp-edged rail, I see:
Clove h. w/ Half-h. on SPart, SPart & end turned around object;
Clove h. w/extra Half-h. (around object) w/Overhand stopper in end;
Rolling H.;
Clove H. w/Half-H. around SPart, end/SPart NOT turned around object.
And I think that both of the last two are in Ashley, explicitly.
–dl*
My apologies for everyone that I misled without wanting too.
Dan_Lehman wrote
[I]With “210 to 212”, also 209, you refer to 10 down, 2..5 over, which is the bottomost
full row. Good eye!
(I wonder if the particular arrangement is as intended, which divides the load
over the 4 parts to the unfriendly hard edges of the anchor? Nautile, did the
photographer raise the upper eye on the post?! !! --tampering w/evidence!)[/]
Here is a belated answer putting things straight after, at last, I understood
the question. ( do not be in a hurry!!!)
The sequence in the slide show is not the sequence in which the pictures
were shot as far as I can ascertain by reviewing the originals.
I modified 2 photographies of the slideshow to show where the modification was made :
In the AFTER http://tinyurl.com/pcffl one ( which in the slide show is 211 )
in order to show clearly that one part of the knot was not a turn
I extended what was curved : the tail and laid it on the cable.
BEFORE http://tinyurl.com/syx3o
It that is modifying the knot ( IMO it is not since this do not alter the true nature of it but
makes only for a clearer view but changing only its “attitude”) ) then yes I modified the knot.
Be sure that just as I do at the seaside : putting rocks as I found them
when I upturn them for observation sake I put the knot as they were before leaving.
Cheers