Talk:Trilene knot

Request for expansion
Why isnt there more information about tihS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010‎

Regarding the Date of the Knot's Origin
Pursuant to a recent reverted edit questioning the date of origin of the knot, I figured I'd comment since I wrote the current story related in the article. That story and approximate date of invention for the Trilene Knot does come from a published source with a relatively detailed account. Now, that certainly doesn't necessarily mean it's true, though it's an awfully elaborate story to be totally apocryphal. And I have yet to see a published source that explicitly refutes that story. I did a quick search on Newspapers.com just now, simply to see if the knot is mentioned at all in newspapers any earlier than the late 70s, which would undercut the story completely. The earliest mentions I could find were two articles from 1979, one in The Baltimore Sun where the knot is discussed in a fishing column and one in the Southern Illinoisan where it's mentioned that a Trilene Knot testing machine would be at a camping/outdoors fair. Perhaps most interesting is a March 4, 1980 article in The Lincoln Star. The author of the fishing column interviewed one Paul Johnson, introduced as a travelling instructor for the "Trilene University". Among other things, it's related that Johnson suggested anglers should "practice good, reliable knots such as the Palomar or a new knot designed by Berkely called the Trilene Knot." What limited published materials are available for something as esoteric as a branded gamefishing knot seem to generally corroborate the invention of the knot falling in the late 70s. But hey, if other reasonable published materials can be produced which indicate otherwise, I'm all ears. Jgcoleman (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I refute the accuracy of the article with published information. I was given a hard cover book as a birthday present in 12/76 with birthday wishes written and dated in cover.  The book is printed published date 1975 J. Philip O'Hara, INC Chicago.  The Title Tom McNally's complete book of Fisherman's Knots.  On page 72 it shows this knot as the " DOUBLE-LOOPED CLINCH KNOT" "Occasionally called the Jam Knot"
 * Although I consider Berkley putting the Trilene name on this know as plagiarism, I have used Trilene my self for over 50 years and consider it the best mono for spinning reels and trout. Alec Nemon Alecnemon (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that book, but I assume everything you've said about its publication date and relevant contents is true. I therefore used what you've supplied to expand the article with the appropriate citation. I didn't remove the story about Houston and Green because we don't really know why these two sources conflict. Maybe Houston and Green lied about inventing the knot. Maybe they didn't lie and Joseph Healy simply got details of their story wrong in his book, The Pocket Guide to Fishing Knots (where their story is related). Or maybe the double-loop clinch wasn't well-known in Houston and Green's circles at the time, so that when they played around with a double-loop version of the popular clinch knot, they may have sincerely believed they'd designed something entirely new. And Trilene may well have believed it, too. We don't know one way or the other, so the best path forward at this juncture is to present both sources, while also acknowledging the chronological discrepancy. Jgcoleman (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To the point of Trilene applying its own name to the knot, I'm skeptical that it constitutes intellectual theft (plagiarism). As far as I can tell, McNally's book was just an instructional compilation of existing fishing knots that he knew of, not a collection of original, patented knots of his own design. He had no more rights those knots as his property than anybody else. As far as I know, very few fishing knots (any?) are copyrighted by some individual or company, and technically any fishing line company could informally decide to slap their name on old standards like the uniknot or regular clinch knot if they wanted to. It would be silly, but certainly not illegal. And the fact that the double-loop clinch knot came to be known more widely as the Trilene knot would suggest to me that the knot was still relatively little known throughout most of the United States in late 1970s, despite being published in McNally's book and possibly gaining popularity in limited geographical areas. Trilene probably did believe that the knot actually was an original invention. And most anglers of the day had probably never seen or heard of the knot prior to it being promoted as the Trilene knot, which is why that name stuck so readily. The same likely wouldn't happen if, for example, Stren arbitrarily tried to put their name on the uniknot today, since the knot is already so widely known by its original name. Of course, this all purely speculative on my part; has no place in the article. Just my two cents on the topic based on the source material we currently have. Jgcoleman (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It very well could have been discovered/invented in different places by different parties. I feel it is the best knot line to swivel, or line to ring.  Alec Nemon Alecnemon (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)