Talk:Windsor knot

James Bond Reference

It seems strange and out of place, or at least poorly written, why is it here? 71.241.153.185 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing. tlesher (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Diagram

Is that diagram accurate? MyNameIsNotBob 21:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, the first step was wrong...it had you bringing the large section of the tie underneath the tail rather than over it. After that, i think it pretty much followed the right path, but it was all messed up from that first error. I've removed it. If someone cares to re-create the diagram, go ahead by all means.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 12:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph shown does not actually show a true Windsor Knot. A Windsor Knot is a symetrical knot that forms a perfect triangle and looks best with a cutaway collar.

The exploded view graphic actually shows a Hanover Knot which requires 9 moves to the Windsor's 8 and starts under the thin length instead of over. This graphic is confusing in this context.

The "Alternative" windsor diagram is an 8 move not, but it is not one of the 4 variations of Windsor defined by Thomas Fink. The Windsor usually has 3 center moves which give it the broad spread. This knot has only 2 center moves. It is a softer alternative, but I do not feel it can be called a windsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.67.244 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The "alternative" looks a lot like a half windsor to my eye. Is it? Ibadibam (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading External links

I removed these external links:

• http: //www.tieknot.com/windsor-knot.html Windsor knot on tieknot.com
• http: //www.how-to-tie-a-tie.org/windsor-knot.html How to tie a necktie
• http: //www.scoutdb.org/h2tat/ ScoutDB.org presents "How To Tie A Tie"
• http: //www.necktieguide.com/knots4.html How to tie a tie using the Windsor knot

They all show an inferior, if not questionable, version of the Windsor, and one which contravenes the proper directions given in the text of the Wiki article. The scoutdb.org text actually contradicts its own diagrams.

The final link was completely erroneous:

• http: //tie-instructions.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-to-tie-double-windsor-knot.html How to tie a double Windsor knot]

It claims to instruct one how to tie the nonexistent "double Windsor", but actually directs one to tie a version of the half-Windsor. A very poor link indeed. ENeville 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fink/Mao notation

I removed the following text from the article. Without access to the book, this notation is not generally useful to wikipedia readers.

Using the notation of The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie by Thomas Fink and Yong Mao, the Windsor knot (knot 31) is tied

* Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T

Common variations are

* Li Co Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T (knot 32)

* Li Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T (knot 33)

* Li Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T (knot 35).

--Dfred 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm... it's quite a simple nand useful notation, which you can see in the link to the external to the book from our article on it. Jooler 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I added this notation to the article again after explaining it in the book's page. Delph2 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those additions in the book's article. WP should be, as much as possible, a stand-alone resource. --Dfred 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a site which explains the notation nicely and helped me a lot with this knot: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/tieknots.shtml. Also, I've read everywhere else that the Duke of Windsor in fact used the four-in-hand knot with a specially tailored thicker knot. In fact, from any other "tie-site" I've seen it says that the Windsor knot was simply an attempt to replicate his thick-knot style with a regular tie.

From the site mentioned before I found a quotation from the Duke of Windsors Memoirs regarding this item:

Despite the knot's name, it was not, as is commonly held, invented by the Duke of Windsor. In his memoirs A Family Album, the Duke explains that it was his specially made thick ties, rather than a complicated knot, that produced the effect. 'The so-called Windsor knot in the tie was adopted in America at a later date. It was I believe regulation wear for G.I.s during the war, when American college boys adopted it too. But in fact I was in no way responsible for this. The knot to which Americans gave my name was a double knot in a narrow tie - a slim Jim as it is sometimes called. It is true that I myself have always preferred a large knot, as looking better than a small one, so during the nineteen twenties I devised, in conclave with Mr Sandford, a tie always of the broad variety which was reinforced by an extra thickness of material to produce this effect. As far as I know this particular fashion has never been followed in America or elsewhere.'

Another site that has neat diagrams and instructions: http: //www.neckties.com/knots.php

--Killroy 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tying

There is no point in having this article without an explanation of how the knot is tied. I'm aware of the relevant WP:NOT clause, and I don't think it was intended to strip articles of essential content. Gazpacho 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that WP:SENSE should come into play here, but clearly the question regarding the procedural aspect of knotting articles needs to be addressed in general wrt WP:NOT... Please feel free to join the exchange going on at Talk:Knot#"How to" tie knots... --Dfred 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of Windsor

The image currently at the top of the page looks like a perfect example of a four-in-hand knot to me. It is clearly not symmetrical which is one of the defining aspects of a windsor knot. A better example should be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.172.191.68 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Quite agree - I saw it and though - isn't a Windsor knot like a triangle? Milkybarnick 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)milkybarnick

It is. It's a four in hand using a tie with thick material. I've removed it. When I get home, I'll produce a picture of a tie in a full windsor (as well as a half-windsor).Kakomu (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly three years later, and this page still shows a knot other than a full Windsor at the top (the red knot looks like a half Windsor to me). The blue tie is a full Windsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.237.223 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Windsor TIE

In a recent book (c. 2007) about royalty, I was surprised to see the Duke of Windsor linked to the Windsor knot. Surprised, because I remembered it mentioned in Sherwood Anderson's short story "I'm a Fool", published around 1922.

Well, on looking up the reference, I see that the narrator's antagonist wore a Windsor TIE. The narrator took an instant dislike to this tie-wearer, because he was "putting up a good front". This idea seems related to the Ian Fleming quote in the current article. Possibly Anderson knew of the knot, but wrote of the tie because, being a concrete object, it strengthens the story.

Trouble is, there was no Duke of Windsor before 1937, because the title was created expressly for the former King Edward VIII. The House of Windsor itself took that name only in 1914, so chances seem high that the Windsor connection to neckwear predates 1914.

My hunch is that it may be connected to one or more of: (1) a style worn by the servants at Windsor, either on- or off-duty (2) or a style worn at Eton, directly across the Thames, and known for a style of collar (worn with a cravat). (3) Ascot, also associated with neckwear, and only six miles from Windsor

Monomoit 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

cowmen name

Does this have a cowmen name like the four-in-hand knot is known as the buntline hitch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.D.10-t (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

no evidence that Prince Michael of Kent uses the Windsor

Prince Michael does not wear a Windsor. Like Edward VIII his ties are of a wide and thick construction that produces a large knot. The Windsor knot is not required.

Some of his ties have appeared to be too short to be tied with a four-in-hand but they are “Kipper ties” which are short by nature. The name comes from its shape that looks like a short, stubby fish hanging from your neck, head down. The four-in-hand is the suggested knot for kipper ties.

Moreover the shape of his tie is not that of a windsor. The windsor is inevitably of a squat and equilateral shape, which Prince Michael's ties never are. His ties are conical and long.

The symmetricality is another matter. Look closely and you'll they're not symmetrical at all. Not the sort of symmetricality you see on a windsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.138.43 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article asserts that the knot was name after Edward VII, rather than the Duke of Windsor. It then goes on to say: "The Windsor knot was invented to emulate the Duke's wide knot with regular ties. So, which one is it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal Air Force?

"The Windsor knot is the only tie knot that is to be used by all personnel in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Air Force Cadets (ATC and CCF(RAF)) in the UK when wearing their black tie while in uniform."
Since when? Not when I served for the 12 years from 1970 to 1982 (at home and abroad). Kiltpin (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exploded diagram erroneous

The problematic exploded diagram

I'm concerned about the accuracy of the picture at File:Windsor_Knot.svg, currently captioned as an "exploded diagram". It clearly shows the large blade end coming in with the blue side towards the viewer, but tucking in with the red side towards the viewer. Regardless of whether this diagram is intended to show the knot as it appears from behind (as to the wearer), or from the front (as to another), the large blade end starts and finishes facing the same way. But in the diagram this is not the case, because it starts blue and finishes red. Perhaps someone would care to chase down the sequence of passes 85 Ways style for further verification, but there's no way (that I can see) that this knot is representative of any Windsor version. It would require the tie to twist behind the collar. ENeville (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this diagram is flawed. The part of the tie going around the neck would have a twist in it for the red and blue sides to be as shown.

I think we have to interpret the knot as being shown from the front since the wide end of the tie is shown exiting the knot closest to the viewer. So there is the additional problem that the right (blue) neck portion passes behind the left portion as it enters the knot. I believe this would be an Lo start in the F/M notation (ignoring the "twist" inconsistency). All of the knots listed in the article as Windsor variations begin with an Li. I think the image should be removed from the article until these problems are corrected. --Dfred (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like LoRiCoLiRoCiLoRiCoT -Ben, unregistered user, 19:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.58.138 (talk)

I have removed the image. ENeville (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion and How-to

Much of this article is merely unsupported opinion about the supposed aesthetic qualities of the knot, in a pedantic and prescriptionist tone. Much of the rest is a how-to giving sometimes conflicting instructions. Wikipedia specifically deprecates opinion and how-to articles. The fashion-police opinions should be almost entirely deleted, and the instructional material should be reduced to a simple description of the knot, without lengthy instructions for young boys who haven't learnt it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.224.91 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Windsor

Didn't King Edward VIII become Duke of Windsor after his abdication? The article has it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.220.29 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Windsor knot. 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/20150206170320/https://www.arcamax.com/knowledge/trivia/s-130579 to https://www.arcamax.com/knowledge/trivia/s-130579

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)