Dear Ezelius:
Evidently you like to dissect every wording, but I am not going to explain evident things for every sentence.
Not so.
Using the quote function is common practice on this forum.
There is no ill will or anything ill conceived.
I am simply quoting your typed words - nothing more - nothing less.
I would venture to suggest that this whole forum is based upon the written word (ie language) - and photos of knots.
I have had many occasions where the Klemheist and Machard are not good enough, and where the braided Machard works.
And I have had 30 years of success with the 'French prusik' (Machard Tresse) working effectively as a progress captive device in M.A systems and as a self-belay to protect against loss of control while abseiling.
Your success is not diminished or tainted by my successes.
Do not be silly, I talked about the general population regarding the Reever knot.
I wasn't being silly.
There is nothing wrong with the Reever end-to-end joining knot in non life critical applications.
You are of course free to write as many comments as you want, but I may chose not to answer if find them exasperating.
Thank you.
I don't find your remarks exasperating or a contest of who has greater knowledge and expertise.
I am simply responding to your typed words.
The broad category of 'hitches' has many sub-classes.
From load control; binders; slide & grip progression; and nooses... each finding its place within the order of knots.
Specific hitches suit specific applications, there is no one magic bullet.
For example, for progress capture devices (PCD) in mechanical advantage (M.A.) systems, efficiency is crucial. The 'hitch' must allow the rope to free-flow relatively unhindered, and yet grip and capture the hard won progress during rest intervals and resets. And here the 'French prusik (Machard Tresse) has supremacy.
This is but one example of the myriad applications for hitches...
As to the history of the 'Reever' end-to-end joining knot, we may never be 100% certain of its origin or naming.
For example, Wright and Magowan sometimes get credited with #1053 Butterfly... and yet, it appears in an earlier publication (and linked to 'Linesman'). Similar situation with the infamous 'Hunters bend' - which was later found to have been published as a 'Riggers bend' by Phil Smith.
It appears Ashley may not have been aware of it... or if he was, perhaps it was accidentally omitted from his book?
If you find out who actually discovered the Reever end-to-end joining knot and why it was named 'Reever' - please share it in this topic thread
EDIT NOTE: I have a copy of the Wright and Magowan report...I'll do some digging to see if there is a trail of breadcrumbs about the history of the 'Reever'...