Mts. Pam and East Garfield

[Raymond]

The first paragraph of the Galehead Mountain chapter of the first edition of Steve Smith’s and Mike Dickerman’s ‘‘The 4000-Footers of the White Mountains’’ concludes, ‘‘to the W lies Mt. Garfield (4500 ft.) and several of its subordinate peaks (including Mts. Pam and East Garfield).’’

Where are these mountains? I don’t see those names on any of my maps. Are they the 3000-footers I thought were unofficially known as Garfield Ridge West (3667) and Garfield Ridge East (3590)?

 

[NeoAkela]

I don't know about Mount Pam, but East Garfield is the little rocky nub you can see at center left in your photo.

 

[Raymond]

Okay, thanks. That must be the same as Garfield Ridge East, because there was a cliff there. Nice view, but I left my camera with my pack hanging in a tree back on the trail, darn it.

 

[audrey]

Mt. Pam had a sign on the summit when we climbed it in January 1991.

 

[Raymond]

Is it the 3667 peak on Garfield Ridge, Audrey?

 

[audrey]

Is it the 3667 peak on Garfield Ridge, Audrey?

No, it's the east bump (3590). The west bump is 3667, just east of the Franconia Brook Trail junction, heavily wooded with no views.

That doesn't square with what Smith and Dickerman are saying, but I'm sticking to my story.

 

[Raymond]

And NeoAkela said that East Garfield was also the 3590 bump.

Well, it doesn’t matter, I managed to get to both of them, whatever they’re called.

Thanks!

 

[NeoAkela]

And NeoAkela said that East Garfield was also the 3590 bump.

That bump has a canister on the summit with an East Garfield log - other than having seen that, I claim no authority on the subject!

 

[Raymond]

I’m afraid I didn’t look closely enough.

All I remember is that Dr. Wu and company were the last to register there before I did, exactly one month earlier.

Maybe Mike Dickerman will chime in, or Steve Smith will answer on his blog.