Talk:Carrick bend

Untitled

Why do Double coin knot rederict to Carrick bend??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9L1imQg3VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/... (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrick District Council

I'm removing the statement: "Carrick is also a local government district in Cornwall and the knot is the emblem of Carrick District Council." from the Etymology section. Assuming this organization does in fact use the knot as an emblem, and I did not see it on their website, it appears they chose after the knot already had that name rather than being the source. See the bottom part of this page. (Incidentally, it would be interesting to get more information or photos of the knots depicted in Ormonde Castle...) --Dfred 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carricky-on-Suir?

In an edit at 2006-11-12T22:55:20 the user at 70.73.37.17 changed Carrick-on-Suir to Carricky-on-Suir, breaking the link. I could find no Google matches for Carricky-on-Suir so I reverted this edit. If the correct name is Carricky, please provide a reference. --Dfred 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Knot

The heraldic device is more commonly called a "Wake Knot". It is the emblem of the Wake family, of whom Hereward the Wake is the name which springs to mind. The knot appears as an emblem in many areas where the family held land, particularly in Lincolnshire. It appears as a device on the Coat of Arms of the town of Bourne. The emblematic use of the knot appears to be in the right of the family, and they have been known to take a dim view of usage they deem inappropriate (certainly in Bourne it is a no-no).

In view of the comments in the article, and notwithstanding the Wikipedia strictures about original research, it might be worthwhile to establish whether the buildings where the knot has been used decoratively have (or have had) any connection with the Wake family.

Guy 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not heard of that particular name/association, but it is interesting information. Sounds like the Wake family's claim might be a regional thing. The knot is definitely used in other coats of arms, for instance the City of Dundee uses it -- see page 8 of this PDF for a hi-res version. Wikipedians in the UK (I'm not) probably have access much better reference materials wrt these questions. --Dfred 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Coat of Arms of Bourne Town Council [1]. I do not have the written description of the Arms to hand, which will describe the knot. Comparing these descriptions will be a starting-point for a researcher. In heraldry the artist works with the heraldic description to produce a picture, and therefore there might be slight differences, even between pictures of the same Arms. Often features are more stylised, that is the skill of a good heraldic artist. Guy 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: [2]. It is a description of the Stafford knot. The Stafford knot (not "Staffordshire") is the emblem of the Stafford family, and is tied using a single strand. It seems that there is some common ancestry there (the Stafford family was linked to the Wake family). Guy 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added mention and ref for association with Hereward the Wake to article. --Dfred 11:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tighten vs. Capsize

I missed these edits when they were first made, but since they've stood for a while I figured I'd explain my reasoning for the reverts... I understand the intent of changing the terminology in the article to make it more accessible to the general reader, but I believe there are a few problems conflating the knotting concepts of capsizing and tightening. The fundamental issue is that these terms don't mean the same thing. To wit, the seized form of the knot pictured is actually quite "tight" and the capsized form in the much larger rope is actually not really tightened to a great extent. I've worked on a couple knot terminology articles (e.g. bight (knot), turn (knot)) to make their use in WP knot articles more accessible to the general reader -- perhaps something like that is needed for knot capsizing as well.

The question of accessibility aside, the major reason I'm reverting these changes is that the cited references (and in particular Day's AKS) use the term capsize. I've reworked the first use of "capsize" in the article to provide a clearer explanation. --Dfred (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your knot related expertise. I had no idea references cited the seized flat weave as the real deal. This didn't and doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. I consider seizing a knot in place cheating. ;) Cheers, --Netizen 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've had a look in TABoK. It does not require seizing in #1439. It gives seized a version in #1446. Quote "1446. Hawser Bends are always seized [...]. Two round seizings are sufficient for the _Full Carrick Bend_." #1439 gives a sequence of 3 steps, the flat weave being the second and the tightend version being the final step. --Netizen 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note: A bit further down the page in the text for #1445: "[...] anything at all, even the _Whatnot_, will hold if well seized." --Netizen 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there's a lot of information on those few pages. Some of it could probably be worked in here, but much of it might go better in the seizing article.

Point taken about seizing being a "cheat". :) But in the days of natural fiber cordage hawsers were generally over 5 inches in circumference (ABOK, p23) which no doubt made it fairly difficult to get the bend to capsize and take a good set before real loading... And, in general, seizing can make somewhat unstable knots (e.g. Round turn and two half-hitches) into very stable ones which remain quite easy to release after the seizing is cut. --Dfred (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of Turk's head knot

Would it be worth adding that the most basic form of Turk's head knot is a followed-through Carrick bend? Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I also linked to carrick mat in the text, the article where this form is covered. --Dfred (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "capsized carrick bend" is not a carrick bend

There is no way to massage a carrick bend to look like the knot shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carrick-bend-ABOK-1439-Capsized.jpg

The lovely, symmetrical, four-loop knot shown in the image is a different knot that I have reproduced (I don't know its name). I have taken the liberty of removing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carrick-bend-ABOK-1439-Capsized.jpg Harold f (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, that knot can be made easily from the carrick bend's flat woven arrangement by pulling all four ends individually. Nonetheless, it should stay out of the article because it shows an improper dressing that destroys most of the carrick bend's ease of untying. There should be an image showing the proper dressing (as achieved by pulling both standing parts of a loosely-woven flat weave). Unfortunately, I don't know of a suitable image for that. 96.61.58.122 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bosun vs Boatswain

Shouldn't "Bosun's Knot" be "Boatswain's Knot"? I have heard that this is the more traditional and proper spelling of the word, pronounced /ˈboʊsən/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanSan5653 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrick bend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606220305/http://www.marinews.com/knots/rope-knots/decorative/bends/how-to-tie-a-carrick-bend-knot/1/5/1/740/ to http://www.marinews.com/knots/rope-knots/decorative/bends/how-to-tie-a-carrick-bend-knot/1/5/1/740/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The capsized bend at the top image is not made from the seized one shown above.

The top picture is a diagonal seized carrick bend. Below that, there is a picture of a capsized carrick bend. However, the bottom picture is a capsized horizontal carrick bend, and thus not a capsized version of the picture above it. 2001:1C00:2409:9600:D359:E84F:A436:EC82 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]