It is uncanny, the development is still unfolding. After I learned about the inverse tie knots, invented by edeity, and clearly transcending Fink & Mao’s 85 ways, I made some calculations—of course by means of the formulas devised by Fink & Mao, and spent a thought or two on the matter. The original ‘Edeity’ knot and the ‘Hen Tie’ are of size 11, comprising 4 center moves. Formula (15) (Fink & Mao 2000: 115) teaches us, that there are 80 knots within this class. Edeity’s ingenious idea to wind the narrow end around the tie’s wide blade, instead of the standard procedure the other way round, made possible size 11 knots, and showed the way to a lot more knots. In theory you can tie every regular knot inversely, which would double Fink & Mao’s 85. But only inverse knots with odd size are acceptable. If you tie knots of sizes 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. inversely, then the seam of the tie would either be on the front of the wide blade, or on the outside of the knot. The former is plainly unacceptable, the latter might be a matter of debate. Because of this, inverse knots of sizes 10 and 12 are not feasible. 13 again would be possible, but back then (see ↵merovingian ties and ↵more merovingian ties) I deemed them to be impossible with a tie of regular length, hence I dismissed the thought. Well, Jeffrey Eldredge dared it—watch ↑How to tie an Eldredge Knot on YouTube [embedding disabled by request].
    In the movie Jeffrey does not follow the convention of having the wide blade to the right, seen from the wearer’s point of view. Hence you can take the video as what you would see in the mirror when tieing. Accordingly I mirrored Jeffrey’s moves for the Fink-Mao notation. Here is ‘The Eldredge:’
    Ri Co Li Ro Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ci [T]
    The knot is of size 13 and comprises 5 center moves—this class contains 240 knots. ‘The Eldredge’ is of optimal symmetry 0, and balance 2. The optimal balance achievable in this class would be 1, but I am not yet sure, if—due to the visible inverted-V structures characterizing the inverse knots—this parameter of æsthetics is applicable here. The ‘T’ for the final through-movement I put in square brackets, because Jeffrey actually does not do it. Instead he tucks away the tip of the tie’s narrow end under the collar. There is not much left of it anyway. Fink & Mao added the subscript suffix ‘on’ for ‘Onassis’ to the Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T Ri Co variant of the Four-in-hand, worn by the late Greek shipping tycoon. So, in the future I might substitute the [T] by an ‘E,’ or ‘ET’ for ‘Eldredge tuckaway.’
    So, now you know about ‘The Eldredge,’ to my knowledge the latest in hitches worn around the neck. But stay tuned, as I still have something up my sleeve, maybe ‘the last of the tie knots’ …