Ever seen this "knot"?

[DerekSmith]

The 'Double Cross Knot' does it for me, but for more than just because it describes what it looks like.

This little knot just gets cleverer and cleverer.

At first sight, it has a main part and a locking part, but look closer and you see that these two parts are identical.

Take any two ajacent legs coming out of the knot and one of the remaining two will be the correct Spart line - you have the dblx.

Work around the knot taking every ajacent pair in turn and you will see that it again makes a perfect dblx. Its simplicity belies its perfection.

Take any two ajacent legs, haul on one of the remaining two and you have the dblx, but haul on the other and you have a distinctly bowline-esque type of form.  However, I do not believe that a knot as simple, perfect in symetry, clever and easy to tie should be reduced to being named as a sub faction of some other primary knot, Carrick or otherwise (rather - they should be named afer it), (and yes Dan, I did mean the 1439 when I said it was not a Carrick - but that is another story)

IMO I now have a 'new' knot to teach to my grandaughter and to send my friends into polite spasms of yawning, and if Dave agrees, I will be more than happy to call it the dblx.

(PS, I also think of it as the Hermaphrodite knot, because it does unto itself that which is done unto it - by itself - if you sort of know what I mean)

[DaveRoot]

Yes, there are a great many bogus "bowline" names; but, here, we have grounds IMHO for using it:  the loopknot has a binding/nipping loop--what I regard as the Bowline's
essence, it's determining characteristic (as such a simple knot, what else is there?!).

Perhaps "Double Cross Bowline"?

Dave

[cbrew6]

the one shown by Willeke

Encyclopedia of Knots,  Graumont and Hensel      
  page 31, #161    it is the knot im thinkin...  
  with working  ends whipped to standing ends.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Perhaps "Double Cross Bowline"?

Dave

Actually (props to your Good Wife), I made some effort to avoid the use of the phrase "Double Cross", although that was the "400 pound gorilla in the room".

If you're going to make Yet Another BWL, I do like the "Crepe" bit, as it was found on a Crepe Myrtle.  "Looky h'year, Mizz Myrtle!  Jimbo done tied a Crepe Bowline in that there tomato cord!!"

But "Double Crossed Splayed Loop" (there, I've said it) sure fits, as do most of the others.  For me, it's going to be "That neat loopknot I just tied, you wanna learn how to tie it?  Watch this..."

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

This little knot just gets cleverer and cleverer.

...

Take any two ajacent legs ...

Now DerekSmith, think of the children...



But seriously, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but if I leave "this" slightly loose & jerk on the SPart & it's leg of the loop, that Turn spills slightly ("just enough", to me) to allow constrained loop-size adjustment, then re-setting the knot puts the Double Cross back, which nips well enough if you keep your legs loaded equally...

Cleverer and cleverer...

With this wee beauty and that "Slipped Loop With Nipping Bight we discussed last year, (plus Springtime in the Southeastern USA!!!), it's about time to go CAMPING!!!...

[DaveRoot]

Actually (props to your Good Wife), I made some effort to avoid the use of the phrase "Double Cross", although that was the "400 pound gorilla in the room".

If you're going to make Yet Another BWL, I do like the "Crepe" bit, as it was found on a Crepe Myrtle.  "Looky h'year, Mizz Myrtle!  Jimbo done tied a Crepe Bowline in that there tomato cord!!"

But "Double Crossed Splayed Loop" (there, I've said it) sure fits, as do most of the others.  For me, it's going to be "That neat loopknot I just tied, you wanna learn how to tie it?  Watch this..."

If this is a useful knot for certain applications then it's nice to have a new one in our repertoire, but the name of the knot is really only useful as a way of referring to the knot.  "A rose is a rose by any other name...".  Eventually some name will stick.

"Crepe Bowline" sounds yummy (thinking of those French pancake-things), although inevitably someone will say it as "Creepy Bowline"!  

Maybe we could call it "Myrtle's Bowline" and let everyone else wonder who Myrtle is...  

Dave

[Dan_Lehman]

the one shown by Willeke
Encyclopedia of Knots,  Graumont and Hensel      
  page 31, #161

These are not the same:  note that in both of the like knots shown on this plate,
each has one rope whose SPart does NOT run THROUGH the other SPart's loop
--whereas in the knot in the OP (here, i.e. ("orig. post")) both SParts do.

"Dbl.Cross Bwl":  well, yes, that might be best, just leaving the inferior versions
to be neglected as not deserving a name (which they'd otherwise have the same
claim to).
A "Dbl.Cross Anti-Bwl" of like form however would be the inferior version to that
knot presented as the "Bollard Loop"--the superior form having the end coiling/spiraling
back towards the eye, away from the SPart.

Btw, there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for this DXBwl w/o acknowledgement
or comparison with the so-called Bollard Loop.

One can realily see some "Double" versions of these knots (though less readily
see "Dbl.DXB" as a name!), doubling either the SPart's or end's turn.

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Hi KnotHead!

I think the Clinch Bowline is close!  All the parts are in the right places, except that last turn by the working end - it goes over the right leg of the loop in the tree photograph from Dave Root, not under it as shown in G & H #201, p. 37, 4th ed.  One suggestion - the Single Carrick Bend Loop from Dave in the OP, seems closest by the conventions we have now - but, if we are looking for a rational name - let's not, on account of the lack of rational definition and naming convention so far in the history of knotting.

SquareRigger

[Knot Head]

I think with both knots, the clinch bowline and the one in the forum post, both have to be under pressure to be of any practicle use, or otherwise the loop drops. It is however, a very clever knot and I enjoyed tying it and studying it.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Eventually some name will stick.

"Crepe Bowline" sounds yummy (thinking of those French pancake-things)

"stick" ... "Crepes" ...  That was a sweet thing to say, honey.  You are punny, aren't you?  Let that jell for a minute.

let everyone else wonder who Myrtle is...  

Isn't that Matthew Walker's mom?

(Anyone who is not laughing, please raise your hand.)

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

if we are looking for a rational name - let's not

AMEN brother SquareRigger!!

I thought we were looking for a knot.  I'm having a hard time finding it in ABoOK.  Gee, if it only had a name for the index...

A name is (as DaveRoot mentioned) pretty much "only" a clever, quick way of referring to (e.g.): "That thrifty fixed splayed end loop knot DaveRoot found tied to that Crepe Myrtle tree that time which he photographically documented and posted on the Internet..."  As a Pirate of the Carribean might say: "Arrr!  Reason's got aught to do wit' it!"

[DerekSmith]

A name is not only a useful way of refering to a knot, but more importantly, it a valuable way of remembering the knot and its attributes.  IGKT#1234 does not have the same value as 'Myrtle Hitch' which is momorable, distinct and, if the user knows the history behind the name, it triggers valid uses for the knot.

Binding a knots name to some other knot to which it shares some characteristic is perhaps important when that characteristic is important.  But when that characteristic is only aesthetic, then such associations can be negative and risk damaging the true value of a name.  Lets face it, this knot is closer to the Granny knot than any other, so is that an arguement to call it Granny Myrtly?  Although it looks a lot like the Granny, it certainly does not share many of the unsavoury atributes of the Granny, so any such association would not add value to the name.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, but 'Just Joey' conjours a mental picture and a fragrance remembered, not so Catalogue No 1234.  We should choose names with care and not by archaic association.

[Dan_Lehman]

I think with both knots, the clinch bowline and the one in the forum post, both have to be under pressure to be of any practicle use, or otherwise the loop drops.

In what material are you tying it?  I just gave it and the Bollard loop some exercise
in 5mm shock/bungee cord (used, not terribly slick), and they did okay, with the
latter showing end slippage (drew a stopper snug) on imbalanced loading, but
not the Dbl.Cross/Dbl.Clinch.  If the material is somewhat inflexible or slick, this
knot will loosen; but otherwise it has the chance to be more slack-secure than the Bowline.

'Myrtle Hitch' which is momorable, distinct and, if the user knows the history behind the name, it triggers valid uses for the knot.

It might be "momorable" if your mom goes by that name, but it otherwise has
no attachment to the knot, unlike "Dble.X" or "Clinch"--though in the case of the
latter, the so-called seized structure didn't work as does this knot's similar ones:
it didn't tighten around its object (and seems a rather poorly designed structure!).

a name is a valuable way of remembering the knot and its attributes.

For which "Clinch Bwl", "Dble.Clinch Bwl" (after all, there are TWO clinch parts),
"Dble.Clinch", "Dbl.Cross Bwl" do offer some mnemonic aid (and I can see "Kruez" being
in the German name, as it is in "Kruezklem" for the Hedden H.).  Such things  become
less helpful the more full & cluttered one's knotting space becomes--e.g., here we
can see four like knots, even without the double-turn variants.

Interesting that Hansel & Gretel have the, er, Inside Clinch version.  In manila rope,
this gives a geometry to the SPart akin to an Overhand, and its bend seems nicely
gradual, and the knot doesn't roll the way it can in a synthetic rope.  With the
OP's form in manila, it readily jams--hardly a threat to loosen!  However, the H&G
version has a tendency/vulnerability to have the end drawn by the loaded SPart
around to come up between the coil of the SPart, and the integrity of the knot
is potentially lost much after that.  An elastic material will enable this deformation
more readily.  Ring-loaded, the H&G version is a Granny; the Dbl.X is one of
those Single Carricks, I suppose (not worth checking), and fares better.
(Note that Ashley does give a "Carrick Loop"--#1033.)

--dl*
====

[DerekSmith]

Myrtle Just got a Big Sister  --  The Double Myrtle

I was fiddling with cord tying the Constrictor knot (the quick method around my index finger) seeing how the knot performed when I applied the knot to ribs of decreasing rigidity.  Then I tried poking one of the ends into the constrictor loop to see how it liked being tied on a cord with a matching flexibility.  As I drew up the Constrictor there was a little pop and almost like magic I was holding a Myrtle !! {OI-7:9}

Intrigued as to what the Constrictor would make of both ends being passed into the grip, I passed one end in from one side and the second end in from the other.  Pull - pop - Double Myrtle !!! {OI-13:12-1}  Just as sweet a little knot as Myrtle and just as easy to tie but now with two opposing non slipping loops.  Of course Dbl M has some twins, the most interesting is to pop both ends in from the same side - pull - pop - a slightly lopsided Dbl M appears {OI-13:12-2} with a natty little plus.  Bend the loop anchoring the ends away from the knot and the knot relaxes open easily.

I will get it photographed and put up on the Wiki for comments.

[master468]

Trying to track down what this knot is called.  Sorry for the poor quality but I cut the image from a knot board I found online.