New (better?) way to tie an elegant loop knot

[SpitfireTriple]

Hi everyone

First post so go easy on me!

I was intrigued by the beauty of the Versa-Vice Loop when I read about it on Dick Clements' article in Knotting Matters.  Mr Clements provides a very clear description of how to tie the Versa-Vice Loop, together with an insightful discussion of its merits.  Personally, I don't care for the name "Versa-Vice Loop", but Mr Clements was following on from RE Miles' 1995 Symmetric Bends.   The Vice-Versa Bend, as named in 1989 by Harry Asher, was in turn effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend first published in 1928 by Wright & Magowan.

Anyway, I will first post images of how I followed Mr Clements' instructions.  Once I have laid out Mr Clements' method, I will show my different method, and point out an advantage.  

Note: Just to be awkward, I reversed the orientation (is that the right phrase?) used by Mr Clements, as I like to start knots a certain way.  

Original method: Step 1: Form a small loop


Original method: Step 2: Form the eventual larger loop, and bring the working end behind then back over the standing part


Original method: Step 3: Bring the working end behind the main loop, and behind and up through the small loop


Original method: Step 4: Pass the working end across to then down through another loop,  bringing the working end alongside the standing part.


Original method: Step 5: Put a twist into the original small loop, and prepare to pass the main loop (as a bight) down through it.


Original method: Step 6: Pass the main loop bight down through the small twisted loop


Original method: Step 7: Pull tight. NB In order to make it easier to see, I haven't pulled very tight in the photo


Original method: Step 8: (Not really a step) turn the knot over to see its prettier side


To my eyes, this is a beautiful knot.  And from what Dick Clements says, it is a strong and secure knot too.  I will add, Mr Clements' method feels beautiful to the hands somehow.  

His method seems to have one disadvantage however.  His knot cannot practically be tied around anything.

I played around with the Versa-Vice Loop for a while (weeks actually!) then wondered if it might be possible to tie it around something - such as a mooring ring....

[SpitfireTriple]

New method for tying the Versa-Vice Loop

Here's what I came up with

New method: Step 1: Tie an overhand knot in the rope, then pass the working end around the item to be attached(?).  Not having a handy mooring ring, I used a sellotape ring.  A little thought will confirm that it does not matter that my sellotape ring is not itself fastened to anything (such as a quayside)


New method: Step 2: Pass the working end back into the overhand knot, alongside its original route out of the overhand knot.  It's probably best to align the working end as shown, below its "earlier part"(?) Failure to do it this way could cause problems later in the process. Then lie the working end over the standing part


New method: Step 3: Pass the working end behind the standing part, then back over the standing part (and over its own "earlier part")


New method: Step 4: Pass the working end up through the original overhand bend, alongside the standing part


New method: Step 5: Reversing direction through 180°, take the working end under the "cross" sitting atop the standing part to bring the working end alongside the standing part.  Note: just as we did in Step 2, we should keep the working end below the standing part (as the image is oriented).  If instead we were to take the working end and lie it alongside the standing part but above it, we will soon have problems dressing the knot.


New method: Step 6: Pull tight, dressing if necessary (sometimes the centre of the knot will need a little nudging into place)


And there you have it, a Versa-Vice loop, but tie-able around something such as a mooring ring.


I have a photo of the wrong way to do Step 5, and could easily take one to show the wrong way to do Step 2 if anyone thinks it worthwhile.

I have only limited knowledge of knotting - mostly gleaned from Geoffrey Budworth's ultimate book - so am not qualified to evaluate the new method.

Is it of any interest to anyone?
Does it have any merit?
Has it ever been published?

PS Please excuse my "SpitfireTriple" username.  It's a motorbike forum thing that somehow stuck.  My real name is Andrew.

[roo]

Both methods are way too complicated by my estimation.  It's complicated enough that I find myself uninterested in the qualities and characteristics of the final product.

[Fairlead]

Thank you Andrew - Another knot to add to my list of knots that can be started with an overhand knot

Gordon

[Sweeney]

The Rosendahl/Zeppelin loop starts in a similar fashion but is quicker to tie and far easier to draw up. I like the vice versa as a bend in very slippery rope eg polyethylene sheath and polypropylene core but the loop is too much effort for me I'm afraid.

Barry

[SpitfireTriple]

Both methods are way too complicated by my estimation.  It's complicated enough that I find myself uninterested in the qualities and characteristics of the final product.

The Rosendahl/Zeppelin loop starts in a similar fashion but is quicker to tie and far easier to draw up. I like the vice versa as a bend in very slippery rope eg polyethylene sheath and polypropylene core but the loop is too much effort for me I'm afraid.

I know what you both mean.  I would agree, all else being equal, simple is best.  But sometimes, when we run out of simple knots, it's fun to consider more complex ones.  And personally, whilst more complex than a Bowline or Zeppelin Loop, I think the Versa-Vice Loop is beautiful.  That alone is justification enough in my book!  That Dick Clements rates it highly for strength and security is icing on my cake.  Each to his own of course.

Thank you Andrew - Another knot to add to my list of knots that can be started with an overhand knot

Gordon

You are welcome Gordon.  Thanks for your support. My inspiration for looking for the new method in the first place was my independent discovery of the fact that, by starting with an overhand knot, I could tie the Hunter's~ and Shake Hands Bend more easily. More easily for me anyway.  Different people will of course often prefer different methods.  Mr Budworth started me off in the right direction when he pointed out that the Zeppelin Bend was based on an Overhand Bend.  And Mr Budworth does mention several times in his ultimate book that other methods can be used for some of the other knots. And he positively encourages readers to seek out such methods.

It might already be on your list, but I could, in passing, perhaps usefully point out that, not just the Versa-Vice Loop but the Versa-Vice Bend can be tied by starting with an Overhand Bend.

Give me a minute, I'll upload some photos....I've taken some, but am sitting down to watch a film.  I'll upload them here later.

[sharky]

How does it work with larger cordage, say 30mm dock lines?

[Mike]

I actually find it to be easy to remember.  But I agree it is more complicated than most loops.    As far as looks go, I must say that this is one of the nicest looking loops that i have seen.

[Dan_Lehman]

The Vice-Versa Bend, as named in 1989 by Harry Asher, was in turn effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend first published in 1928 by Wright & Magowan.

Not really:  Asher's knot can be seen as a derivation from the Sheet
Bend, and hence its asymmetric loading ; the Reever was as
you note presented by W&M but --as for various of their other ideas--
seemingly not adopted by anyone.  (A "Double" Reever is an obvious
derivative, similar to the now popular Grapevine bend, btw.)

then wondered if it might be possible to tie it around something - such as a mooring ring....

Well, of course, any eye knot can be, though not necessarily
easily so.  Just back out the end and you'll have at that point the
step leading to tying through a ring.

--dl*
====

[SpitfireTriple]

How does it work with larger cordage, say 30mm dock lines?

Sorry, no idea!

I actually find it to be easy to remember.  But I agree it is more complicated than most loops.    As far as looks go, I must say that this is one of the nicest looking loops that i have seen.

It is pretty isn't it?  Dick Clements is to be commended for coming up with it.

[SpitfireTriple]

Here, as promised, are a few photos showing how the same start-with-an-Overhand-Knot technique can be used to tie the Versa-Vice Bend:  (I've skipped the instructions, I hope it should be obvious from the pics)









Note: My next image is incorrect.  Thanks to DerekSmith for pointing this out. My incorrect image shows the Working End passing under only one of the two strands that form a diagonal cross; the Working End should of course go under both strands of the cross.

I now insert a revised image showing the correct route of the Working End - under both strands of the cross






I am making this post only for the sake of completeness: Whilst my new method of tying the Versa Vice Loop adds capability to the knot, my new(?) method of tying the Versa-Vice Bend adds nothing.  

PS The above, start-with-an-Overhand-Knot, method may not be new.  For all I know, it might be the method used by RE Miles in his book, Symmetric Bends.  I do not own the book so I can't say.

[SpitfireTriple]

The Vice-Versa Bend, as named in 1989 by Harry Asher, was in turn effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend first published in 1928 by Wright & Magowan.

Not really:  Asher's knot can be seen as a derivation from the Sheet
Bend, and hence its asymmetric loading ; the Reever was as
you note presented by W&M but --as for various of their other ideas--
seemingly not adopted by anyone.  

I did say the Vice-Versa Bend was effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend.  I stand by that remark.  And to my eyes, Harry Asher's variant is closer - a lot closer - to the 1928 Reever Bend than it is to your Sheet Bend. Note: I am not suggesting Asher copied Wright & Magowan; as you point out, their Reever Bend failed to catch on.  It effectively disappeared for a generation. I note from Dick Clements' KM article on the Reever / Vice-Versa that Asher's variant was announced in 1989.  It was reproduced by RE Miles in 1995.  But only in 1996 did Charles Warner point out (with evidence) that the Reever Bend had been published in 1928.  It would seem logical to assume that Asher and subsequently Miles were simply unaware of the Reever Bend.  Caveat:  I own books neither by Asher nor by Miles; I cannot explore my assumption.

I will concede: The different loading of Asher's "Vice-Versa" variant compared to the original Reever Bend is of course significant. The difference between the Vice-Versa Bend and the original Reever Bend could therefore perhaps be usefully compared to the difference between the Thief Knot and the original Reef Knot.

Personally, I find the Reever Bend easier to tie (using Dick Clements' methods 3A & 3B) than the Vice-Versa method shown on page 62 of Budworth's ultimate book. Anyone who agrees might like me perhaps be inclined to consider "Reever Bend" the most correct name for the optimum version(?) of this knot.  But I live in the real world; if a spade has been referred to as a shovel for over thirty years then it is arguably no longer a spade but a shovel.  Nevertheless, we should not deny that the "shovel"'s original name was "spade".

(A "Double" Reever is an obvious derivative, similar to the now popular Grapevine bend, btw.)

I hadn't come across the term "Grapevine Bend" before.  I Googled '"Grapevine Bend" knot' and found 426 entries.  (I added the word "knot" to the Google search as otherwise Google came up with things like names of river bends). I then Googled the name I was familiar with, '"Double Fisherman's Bend" knot'.  This had 45,600 entries.  It would seem "Double Fisherman's Bend" outnumbers "Grapevine Bend" more than one hundred to one.

I then wondered if it might be possible to tie it around something - such as a mooring ring....

Well, of course, any eye knot can be, though not necessarily
easily so.  Just back out the end and you'll have at that point the
step leading to tying through a ring.

Then it would seem I have wasted your time Mr Lehman.  For that, I apologise.

Finally, assuming:

1.  You were already familiar with the Versa-Vice Loop
&
2.  You consider the ability to tie the Versa-Vice Loop around something such as a mooring ring to be worthwhile.

Then all that remains to be said is that it is perhaps a shame that you did not publish years ago what has always been obvious to you.

[Dan_Lehman]

The Vice-Versa Bend, as named in 1989 by Harry Asher, was in turn effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend first published in 1928 by Wright & Magowan.

Not really:  Asher's knot can be seen as a derivation from the Sheet
Bend, and hence its asymmetric loading ; the Reever was as
you note presented by W&M but --as for various of their other ideas--
seemingly not adopted by anyone.  

I did say the Vice-Versa Bend was effectively a reinvention of the Reever Bend.  I stand by that remark.

Then there must be some difference in understanding what
a knot is between us.  For me, the difference in loading
between these two-named lookalike structures distinguishes
two knots.
I don't recall there being any notice given, expressly, to the
symmetric loading of the knot-form; in a quick scan of some
things now, there is none (but perhaps some comment was
made in KM back then).

Roger regarded the structure as a "lanyard bend" -- i.e., a union
of two ropes in which two "ends" of equal status emerged at
opposite ends of the knot.  So, he saw neither of the loadings above!

And to my eyes, Harry Asher's variant is closer - a lot closer - to the 1928 Reever Bend than it is to your Sheet Bend.

Well, again, the shape/geometry/"knot-form" is identical to the former;
but the loading isn't, and --to quote Asher's wording of origin from one source:
"Start as for the Single Sheet Bend
 [nb: Asher does this bass ackwards to how it is usually presented:
      he forms loop, reeves bight into that]
, but then make a complete turn round the dark standing part ..."
One can see it as a bight with a twist being the extension of that
part of the Sheet Bend, and then the tucking of the opposite end
out through this bight as that end's extension (i.e., both halves of
the Sheet Bend do something extra).  Preceding Vice Versa in his
"System" were the Simple Simon knots, which also played off
of the Sheet Bend idea.

... their Reever Bend failed to catch on.  It effectively disappeared for a generation. I note from Dick Clements' KM article on the Reever / Vice-Versa that Asher's variant was announced in 1989.  It was reproduced by RE Miles in 1995.  But only in 1996 did Charles Warner point out (with evidence) that the Reever Bend had been published in 1928.  It would seem logical to assume that Asher and subsequently Miles were simply unaware of the Reever Bend

Oh, the emergence & limited recognition or use of knots is interesting
to realize.  Consider that Wright & Magowan presented "their" "Butterfly"
as novel --though acknowledging possible prior discovery-- and yet it
had been presented across the Atlantic some years prior, and that
presentation was by an author only recognizing some extant in-use
knot of linemen.  (Would that we find some linemen manual or other
knots documentation!)  The date you give for Asher is that of his book
The Alternative Knot Book, but he published Vice Versa first in 1986
in A New System of Knotting (v.1) -- not a work likely to be much seen.

I hadn't come across the term "Grapevine Bend" before.  I Googled '"Grapevine Bend" knot' and found 426 entries.  (I added the word "knot" to the Google search as otherwise Google came up with things like names of river bends). I then Googled the name I was familiar with, '"Double Fisherman's Bend" knot'.  This had 45,600 entries.  It would seem "Double Fisherman's Bend" outnumbers "Grapevine Bend" more than one hundred to one.

Which is a good indication of the (poor) quality of the Net
-- mostly empty echoes!!  (And please note that "Fishermen's Bend"
is the venerable name of a hitch and so "Dbl.Fish.B." really should
not be returning much of anything (as there really isn't any accepted
"doubling" for the hitch).  Of course, you didn't check to see if each
of those cited occurrences matched the presumed knot; there are
some cases where that name is used to refer to a noose-hitch,
where the knot part is a Strangle/Dbl.Overhand knot, or to the
use of it to tie off an end (of a Bowline, say).  "Grapevine" is cited
by Ashley for old angler usage, and today is fairly well adopted in
rockclimbing circles.

I then wondered if it might be possible to tie it around something - such as a mooring ring....

Well, of course, any eye knot can be, though not necessarily
easily so.  Just back out the end and you'll have at that point the
step leading to tying through a ring.

Then it would seem I have wasted your time Mr Lehman.  For that, I apologise.

  No need to take such offense at what is a simple point
to ask:  How could it be otherwise? !  -- that it couldn't be tied?!

--dl*
====

[sharky]

Which one is older? Who did it first? Now I have to ask, what is the first recorded knot, when was it tied, and what was it? How long has knotting been around?

[DerekSmith]

Check me here Andrew, but I think the tying sequence for the bend shows an error in this image because the making end is taken under only one strand of the 'cross'



while in the first sequence for the loop knot, the making end is taken under both strands of the 'cross'



This tiniest of variations makes two distinct knots.

Derek