Portuguese Bowline

[mainebingo]

In this tutorial, the instructions are for the working end to go "under" both loops (at 2:28).
http://igkt-solent.co.uk/portuguese-bowline/

However, in AboK #1072 it's shown going "over" the first loop.  Anyone have any insight into whether it makes a difference which way it is tied? I just can't wrap my head around it.

Interestingly, if you tie it as in the IGKT-solent video, it appears to be the same knot as a double bowline, just dressed differently--the top nipping loop of the double bowline becomes the second loop of the Portuguese bowline.

[Dan_Lehman]

(This has sat w/o response overly long!)

IMO, were I going for the 2 or few eyes,
I'd prefer them all to be reeved through
the central nipping turn.

But note that the so-called "bowline on a coil"
--an old structure used by rockclimbers at least
on short climbs, putting a "coil" of rope around
one's torso/waist-- amounts to what we're talking
about.  There, the SPart's being cast into a nipping
turn comes after making the wraps around one's
body; the tail gets reeved appropriately.

> ... same as the Dbl.BWL ...

Good eye, yeah!

--dl*
====

[mainebingo]

Thanks, Dan.  I appreciate the insight.

[Dennis Pence]

There is another way to cross the two loops.  I used to think that a French Bowline and a Portuguese Bowline were different knots because of different tying methods.  When tying the French Bowline, most authors position the part connecting the two loops inside the nipping loop.  (Even the reference that Ashley mentions under ABoK #1072 using the "French" name does this.)  Under the name "Portuguese" this connecting part is either placed over the nipping loop (as in #1072) or above it (as you do for a Boline-on-a-Coil).  But before tightening, you can easily transform this part from "inside" to "outside."  As I do this in the diagrams below, I get the third alternative was to cross the two loops.

[Dennis Pence]

Now back to the original question about what difference it makes to change the way the two loops cross in a Portuguese Bowline:  I think the difference is very slight.  But I have a small preference for Ashley's #1072 when the two loops go around or through one object.  If the two loops are to go to different objects, then the other configurations might be slightly preferable.

[Dan_Lehman]

If the two loops are to go to different objects, then the other configurations might be slightly preferable.

These all look on the dubious side, IMO,
vs. reeving the extra eye through the central
nipping turn --giving the eye security and the
SPart strength!?

There is certainly a slippage/eye-collapsing
problem with the BoaB and having one eye
loaded against the *other* SPart --i.e., that
SPart feeding the unloaded eye.

--dl*
====