You "
First" bend is nothing but a
symmetrically ( = good ! ) re-tucked through the
central opening ( = not so good, I am afraid...) Carrick bend. It is a very unstable, regarding its dressing, knot, which, although symmetric, is difficult to remain in a symmetric form while it is tensioned all the way - but I am talking only about the knot been tied on ordinary materials. Anyway, not an interesting knot - it should have been tied many times, but, evidently, it did nt survive the test of time.
Your "variation" /
"Last" bend ( I hope that it will not remain so...
), is an asymmetric variation of the
side-by-side Pretzel bends I had shown to you many times. If this holds, a more symmetric variation will probably hold as well - and it will probably be stronger, too, because the distribution of forces within the knot s nub would be more even, and the loads will be spread over larger areas.
Mr. Find has unearthed that quotation, which proves that an experienced knot tyer never speaks about re-tucking a Carrick mat through the central opening this way :
I find it beneficial to re-tuck the tails through the interlocked SPart turns to obtain the interlocked-overhands knot Ashley's bend #1408 ! (Or to re-tuck them and get Harry Asher's "shakehands bend" (cf. #1031).
With variations on this theme, one can discover the superior Ashely's bend #1452 & #1453 as well.
And if one is fortunate enough to seek such benefits with the inferior version of the carrick bend, one will be rewarded with the superior Ashley's #1452!
If you wish to see all the possible single re-tuckings of a particular Carrick mat, pay a visit at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601 Re-tucking through the central opening ( C stands for central ) so we get a stable, re. its dressed forms, knot, is shown at the attached pictures and at :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18725#msg18725