the Eskimo bowline is only one sort of "anti-bowline", and not characteristic of the entire set.
I.p., the structure I was describing has lost its turNip into a (more open) helix.
Read my lips : I was
not talking about the "Eskimo" bowlines, I was talking about the "Eskimo-like" bowlines : by this I mean the "anti-bowlines",
AND/OR other bowlines, based on more complex nipping structures, where the returning eye leg does not go straight to the upper collar around the Standing end ( as it happens in the case of the common / standard, "not-Eskimo-like" bowlines ), but it enters into the nipping structure
from the side, so to speak, and then makes this inverted U turn downwards. One can consider
this U turn downwards as
a first collar ( in the sense that it alleviates a great portion of the tensile forces from the continuation of the returning eye leg ), and the later genuine "Eskimo" collar, around the eye leg of the Standing part, as
a second collar. So, it is the absence of any first collar around the Standing end that is the characteristic of the "Eskimo-like" bowlines, NOT the side of the nipping structure through which the returning eye leg enters into the knot s nub.
If you examine the "Eskimo-like" bowlines based on the Girth hitch or the Pretzel hitch, for example, either the more complex (1)(2) or the more simple ones (3), you will see what I mean. I do not know how else I should call those bowlines - but I know, for sure, that the side through which the returning eye leg enters into the nipping loop is irrelevant, so the term "
anti-bowlines", even if
it happens to apply, it does not describe the most important aspect of those eyeknots. Does the returning eye leg make a U turn downwards in its first contact with the nipping structure, so the eye is "hanged', so to speak, from the Standing part s first curve ? If it does, the bowline is an "Eskimo-like" bowline.
What I was trying to point out was this : If we have such a beneficial, regarding friction and security, situation, where the returning eye leg, making a U turn downwards, and the first curve of the Standing part, making a U turn upwards, are
hooked to each other inside the nipping structure, before any further collar, a large portion of the tensile forces coming through the returning eye leg have already been diminished. This U-downwards to U-upwards embrace plays the role of an essential first collar. So, just another ( a second, in fact ) collar around whatever part of the knot, would be sufficient enough to secure the knot. There is no reason to make complex "back-flipping" moves with the "Eskimo-like" bowlines : just secure the Tail end by another collar - and, to keep the eyeknot TIB, just secure it by making it turn around both eye legs, as a collar, and then return back, and exit from the other side of the nub, by retracing its own path.
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28344#msg283442.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4125.msg28493#msg284933.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4009.0