The three variations of the Shakehands bend.

[xarax]

   The Shakehands bend is the fourth of the 4 other well known interlocked-overhand-knot bends ( the  Alpine Butterfly, Ashley s, Hunter s, Shakehands ), that are almost as good as the Zeppelin bend. However, this bend is examined and, probably, is used, much less frequently than the others. Moreover, what is probably known to only a few people, is that there are, in fact, three variations of this bend- depending upon the relative position of the tails, before they exit the knot s nub: If the tails pass through the two interlinked bights and they do not cross each other, we have the simpler and less convoluted bend of the three, that I call the " Shakehands-X bend" ( because the tail are not in un X : crossed position with each other, so they are -X ). When the tails are crossed in the one of the two possible ways, we have the common Shakehands, that I call the Shakehands I. And when the tails are crossed in the other, opposite way, we have yet another bend (that was totally unknown to me, until the last week or so...), that I call Shakehands II bend.
   As we tie the common Shakehands bend, the natural orientation of the two working ends, as they are coming along their two parent bights and they are bent to be tucked into the common central opening, drives us to tie the Shakehands I, and not the Shakehands II. However, if we just twist the two tails around each other in the opposite direction, we get the Shakehands II, a bend that ,
1. is tied as easily as the Shakehands, and,
2, seems to be as secure as the Shakehands. 
   Any references or opinions about those two other, less known variations of the Shakehands bend are welcomed. See the attached pictures of all the three knots at the following posts.)

[xarax]

   The Shakehands-X bend.

[xarax]

   The well known common Shakehands bend, the Shakehands I bend.

[xarax]

   And the third variation, unknown to me untill recently, the Shakehands II bend.

[TMCD]

I've always heard that this bend is the weakest or least secure of the overhand interlocked family of bends. Having said that, everything I've read about it, indicates a good, strong, quality bend. Personally, I have a hard time setting this bend. I can't get it to appear quite the way I want it to. For that reason alone, I simply don't tie it much and would never use it in the wild.

I had absolutely no idea there were three variations of the shakehands bend. Budworth raves about it in several of his books.

[xarax]

   Thank you, TMCD,

I have a hard time setting this bend. I can't get it to appear quite the way I want it to.

   Me too. And the ways the bends are dressed in the pictures above, are not the only ones, not even the more stable ones...I have chosen those particular dressings of the three knots ( out of the many possible), in an effort to facilitate the comparison between them by the reader. I think that this bend can be tied in more different dressings than the other three, and this is interesting for the experienced knot tier, but might be frustrating for the occasional user. Personally, I would not prefer to tie any of those bends instead of the Zeppelin X bend.

[Dan_Lehman]

Odd way to order the trio of pre-variation photos:
loose,
tightened AND flipped,
tightened in the loose orientation.

This of course should have the 2nd two photos in reverse order,
for readier comprehension (of loose -> tightened -> rotated).

(And who likes a bright white background on photos?  Maybe
there should be a discussion of that ...   (bah).)

--dl*
====

[xarax]

   Thank you Dan Lehman,

  This of course should have the 2nd two photos in reverse order, for readier comprehension (of loose -> tightened -> rotated).

   Of course. My mistake. I have edited my posts accordingly.

who likes a bright white background on photos?

If you shoot against a white background, it is easy on the toner/ink - in that, the printer will only print the knot structure and not the gray-scale background too.

Oouts ! THAT is a major blow to my black background attitude, indeed !

  Not me...  However, I respect agent smith s reasoning about printers.
  I now shoot my pictures in a blue background, and convert this background to any bachground I wish ( be it white, black, a landscape of the wild, or whatever ), by using the Chroma keying technique. (1) One very simple, user friendly program, where one can do the conversion in two only steps (  1: Inport (image, the one which is to be converted ), 2: Save (as canvas)), is the (2), freely available in the demo version.
   If a reader wiches to have the original, blue background uncompressed pictures, so he can choose a background of his/hers liking, please notify me by e-mail, and I will deliver the pictures in no time.

 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key
 2) http://fxhome.com/

[knot4u]

White background is fine with me.  Plus, the printing benefit is nice.  All my knots are summarized into a single pic.  I wish they all had white backgrounds so I could make a hard copy version of my library.

[xarax]

   When we deal with bends, It is a natural thing to tie their "inverted" knots, i.e. to swap standing parts and tails in each link. I have tried this for the three Shakehands bends discussed previously, and I post the pictures of the "inverse" Shakehands bends here. (See attached pictures). As expected, along with two other bends that I have not seen before, there is the inverse Shakehands I bend, the Salty Cracker-ABoK#1031 bend ( See (1)). However, the dressing that is generated almost automatically when we pull the tails of the Shakehands I bend, ( instead of the standing parts ), to tighten the knot, is different from the dressings presented in (1). I believe that this new dressing is more "natural" for this bend, and it reveals its symmetries, that remain somehow hidden in (1).
   
1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2804.0

[xarax]

  And here is the inverse Shakehands I bend, the SaltyCracker s-ABoK#1031 bend, in an other dressing.

[TMCD]

I like the look of that Salty Cracker Bend, I guess it's fairly strong? When you say inverted, I'm guessing you're just tying everything in reverse or what?

[xarax]

   Thank you TMCD,

   When you say inverted, I'm guessing you're just tying everything in reverse or what?

   If you tie the "inverse" knot by retracing the parent one, starting from the tail end and moving towards the standing end, yes.
  The topology of the "inverse" knot is the same as that of the parent knot, but where there used to be the tail end, now there is the standing end, and vice versa. Because of the inverted loading, an "inverse" knot can be tightened in an altogether different form than the parent knot.

  I like the look of that Salty Cracker Bend, I guess it's fairly strong?

  The "look" of the bend, as it is dressed here, or as it is dressed in (1) ? Because the two dressings are quite different, to the point one could not recognize that they correspond to the same knot. 
  It is a fairly secure knot, because the two overhand knots are sufficiently interlocked, but I do not know anything about its strength. Knot strength can be measured only by careful experiments, in a laboratory.

[xarax]

   It should have been somewhere, and it is, indeed !   The Shakehands II is but the ABoK#1453, a less famous bend than its neighbour, the Ashley bend (ABoK#1452). I have not recognized it immediately, as I should, because I was looking elsewhere... . It is nice that we have now incorporated this bend into a larger scheme, that of the retucked Reef-family-of-knots "base". It was an interesting and productive exercise, and I am glad that, as a result, all the known interlocked-overhand-knot bends have been generated, one by one. If Ashley himself was a little more careful, we would have had this catalogue of bends 70 years now...