Author Topic: ABOK - corrections  (Read 45169 times)


  • Guest
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2005, 12:15:54 AM »
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...



  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2005, 08:08:49 AM »

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.



  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2006, 06:46:35 AM »
Below are some further errata, as well as some revisions to prior errata.


#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

#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.

============================================= *


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2009, 08:27:01 PM »
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.

#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.



  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2009, 07:52:51 PM »
#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?  
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 08:06:50 PM by dfred »


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • IGKT Member since 1984 - IGKT Librarian
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2009, 09:21:45 PM »
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"



  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
Re: ABOK - corrections
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2009, 09:59:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 10:02:35 PM by dfred »