Talk:The Ashley Book of Knots

Duplicate knots
Is that right about duplicate knots? I haven't read my copy cover to cover, but I thought that each entry was original. --Blackcap | talk 03:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, just added an example of it to the article. --Dfred 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Deadly, thanks. Nice work on the article! Snoutwood (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While doing some research before rewriting Constrictor knot I found eleven occurances of it in ABOK, and there may actually be more.
 * There are numerous examples. Sometimes it is an alternate way to tie the same knot.  Sometimes it is an alternative use for a knot tied the same way (ie. Rolling Hitch 12 entries in the index or Overhand with 19 unqualifed index entries and 4 additional ways to tie, probably the champ) Ccalvin
 * Some more examples, for those interested. The "Tom Fool Knot" is shown as both #1141 and in more detail as #2534, the final illustration of which is actually that of the "Handcuff Knot", which in turn is shown as both #1134 and #1140. The error in #2534 brings up the question: Should a section on "Known Errors" be added to the main article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian Fieggen (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * There are many examples of duplicates. For example clove hitch has a huge number of entries. --Dfred (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe this can help to sort it out: Ashley writes on page 10 that "Knots that serve more than one purpose may be illustrated more than once. [...] the methods of applying vary, the ends often are differently led, or the ways of tying are peculiar. [...] ... the ... duplication is usually within the spirit of the definition, that either a different form, a different way of tying, or a different use constitutes a distinct knot. –Xauxa (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Publisher
The 'Further Reading' gives the publisher as Faber & Faber. My edition is Doubleday. Should both be listed? Same ISBN. Ccalvin 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed this a while back... I couldn't verify Faber & Faber, but found fairly definitive info for Doubleday as the publisher.  If folks do have F&F editions of this book, please provide more detailed publishing info for your citations.  Thanks.  (BTW, I've seen a paperback edition of ABOK from a publisher called "Coles" in Canada, but I need to check my recollection of that...) --Dfred (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABOK-Cover.jpg
Image:ABOK-Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shipping News
I've added Proulx's extensive use of passages from TABOK in The Shipping News to this article. Should it stay?Theenglishman (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with modern materials?
This caveat: "some knots as presented are not entirely appropriate or safe when tied in modern synthetic fiber ropes because many modern materials exert much less friction than natural fibers do". Are there any examples of such knots? Hexmaster (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some that come to mind are the simplest friction hitches (e.g. rolling hitch, taut-line hitch) which can be very difficult to make work in some modern ropes. However not all "natural fiber" cordage is necessarily easy to tie, either...  Ashley performed a series of knot security tests in springy mohair yarn for the Collins & Aikman company which clearly illustrate how knots which are normally considered secure can be less so when made in particular knotting material. (see ABOK pp.16-18 & p. 273)


 * One user group that takes knot strength and security seriously are climbers. Some of the knots now used as standard climbing knots, such as the flemish bend, were considered by Ashley to be excessively bulky or overly difficult to tie. (see #1411.)   Another example of this would be the triple fisherman's knot which is now recommended for UHMWPE and other "super fiber" ropes.  Although it is an obvious extension of the single/double fisherman's knots, it was not included in ABOK presumably because the double fisherman's (#1415) is, even today, quite sufficient for all but the most extreme types of cordage.   (N.B. I'm not 100% sure that it doesn't appear in ABOK, but it is not in any of the obvious places.)


 * Regarding the statement itself, it was originally added by an anon user here. I'm making a few revisions to make the statement slightly more NPOV and less in need of a citation...  --Dfred (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit on Ashley & book
The New Bedford Whaling Museum is having an exhibit now (July 2017 – June 2018) on Ashley and his book. https://www.whalingmuseum.org/explore/exhibitions/thou-shalt-knot-clifford-ashley/

and has published a catalog.

Suggest someone include this new material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.181.46.206 (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have added it as an external link.MartinezMD (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)