Peak above the Nubble and Guyot

[Paradox]

I know that the definition of a 4000 footer is given as at least a 200 foot col between a peak and an adjacent higher peak. Mt. Guyot dosn't make the grade, yet Peak above the Nubble does have the distinction of being on the Hundred Highest list. When I count the contour lines on the USGS quads, I see about 180 foot col between PatN and North Twin. I see a 220 col between Guyot and South Twin. Does anyone have any thoughts/ observations on this?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

In addition to depth of col, I believe there's a minimum distance requirement as well.

 

[Paradox]

distances: 1:4 miles to PatN from North Twin and 1.02 from Goyot to Zealand.

 

[skiguy]

Paradox,
Without looking it up, basically off the top of my head... I believe the drop off between mountains(cols) has to be on all sides of the mountain. My guess is that Guyot does not have the vetical relief between it and the Bonds. PATN has that vertical relief on all sides of itself. I don't believe distance plays a part. Someone please correct me if this is not the case.

 

[Paradox]

The Col to the bonds is about 300 feet and the col to Zealand is about 260 feet.

Maybe in light of our recent redefinition of planets and having to memorize 3 more (Ceres, Zena, and Charon) we need an international panel to discuss this one!

 

[Papa Bear]

I see 5 40' contour lines between peak and col for both. Using the AMC method that would give them both 200' of interpolated prominence (half a contour added at saddle and peak). However, PatN has a spot elevation of 3813', which brings it's prominence down to 193'.

Sound like this is history, not mathematics. Roy or Mohamed or better still Eric Savage may know, but the rules aren't just count the contours, they depend on if a peak was on the old list or not.

These two are both possibly good, possibly bad. Mr. Lincoln is in the same boat, with a spot elevation of 5089', giving it an interpolated prominence of 189'.

Bottom line: climb them all, don't fret the numbers.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Paradox -

As for sources to query - if you don't know Steve Smith yet, this might be a good excuse the next time you're in Lincoln. You can find him at his bookstore, the Mountain Wanderer. He's been on the 4K committee for many, many years, and if you're interested, can not only explain the status of those peaks, but the history as well. I know he lurks here, but I don't think he posts.

Kevin

 

[nartreb]

Plenty of old threads on this, but I'll summarize: Guyot was left off the original list because based on maps at that time, it had two "questionable cols" - cols that might be 200ft but might be less. Peaks with only one "questionable col" were included. The official policy is to revise the list when a new USGS map unquestionably shows that a mountain belongs or doesn't, and the maps aren't clear enough to move Guyot onto the list (ie, they don't show any more intervening contour lines than the older maps did). Tradition also plays a part: the policy appears to have been ignored recently in the case of one of the Hancocks.
Distance is not a criterion for the AMC list.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Plenty of old threads on this ...

Yup, most of the questions posted here been asked many times before.

 

[skiguy]

Bottom line: climb them all, don't fret the numbers.

Well put....the Guyots is a great place even though it is'nt on some list...Mt. Height is another,and so is Hurricane and so is......

 

[Paradox]

Well put....the Guyot is a great place even though it isn't on some list...Mt. Height is another......

Honestly, I could not agree more. Where is Hurricaine? I have hiked the one between Elizabethtown and Westport, NY. The view is down toward Westport and Lake Champlain and is a great three hour round trip hike.

Maybe I will start an "Underrated peaks" list. I know it would include Cardigan and Kearsarge (South) in NH, and Pokamoonshine in NY.

 

[funkyfreddy]

I agree! Mt. Guyot and Mt. Hight are great places, they're on my "FF Nice Mountains to Lounge On" list.....

 

[skiguy]

Honestly, I could not agree more. Where is Hurricaine? I have hiked the one between Elizabethtown and Westport, NY. The view is down toward Westport and Lake Champlain and is a great three hour round trip hike.

Maybe I will start an "Underrated peaks" list. I know it would include Cardigan and Kearsarge (South) in NH, and Pokamoonshine in NY.

Hurricane...that's the one paradox.... I would add N. Kearsarge and the Moats to your "Underated Peaks" list too.

 

[Eric Savage]

N H T3000

Well put....the Guyouts is a great place even though it is'nt on some list...Mt. Height is another,and so is Hurricane and so is......

Actually Guyot, Hight and many others *are* on my NH T3000 list; a list of 3000-footers in New Hampshire that have trails (hence the "T"), which uses relaxed col criteria. It was on my Cornell website which unfortunately has been shut down (haven't been there in quite a while...). I can send it along to anyone who is interested or post it somewhere if someone has a good suggestion as to where.

While I'm here, let me clarify the Peak above the Nubble vs. Guyot question:
When the list was first assembled, peaks with one questionable col (PatN, Lincoln, etc.) were included but a peak with two questionable cols (Guyot is the only example I know of) had, by certain mathematics - not mine, only a 25% chance of belonging on the list and so were left off.
It was only in the most recent revision that it was decided that peaks had to be definitively qualified to get on or disqualified to get off the lists. Lincoln and PatN would not get added to the list if "discovered" today but since it can't be said with certainty that the col is inadequate, they don't get kicked off. (Yes, South Hancock is an exception due to its historical importance.)

You will apparently also find Guyot on the NH/NE 3000 lists because those are not "official" Four Thousand Footer Committee lists and the authors of those lists (some of whom are/were on the committee) decided that more peaks is better and so included everything that was questionable.

 

[Snowflea]

The many Mt. Guyots!!

Mr. Arnold Henry Guyot got around.

In addition to the Mt. Guyot in New Hampshire--interestingly the lowest Guyot--there's also one in the Smokies (6,621 ft), one in California (12,300 ft), and another in Colorado (13,370 ft). I'm pretty sure they're all named after the same Guyot.

Anyone know of any more Mt. Guyots?

Anyone bagged 'em all??

 

[Paradox]

I think we may have guyot them all.

 

[skiguy]

Mr. Arnold Henry Guyot got around.

Interestingly I found THIS . Are we talking about Henry with all of these GUYOTS or some sort of land formation? Maybe both or one of the same.Also if you look at THIS one might think you would need scuba gear to climb Mt. Guyot.

 

[Mike P.]

There is also a crater on the moon with his name. (it could be a mountain but I know there is a lunar feature with his name.

IMO I find hard to belive you climb 200 feet to Guyot from ST. The trail at times is off the ridgecrest too.

 

[Snowflea]

Guyot follow up...

I pulled out the Waterman's Forest and Crag last night. In chapter 13--a fascinating one--there is mention of the many mtns. named after Guyot, a Swiss scientist/immigrant turned Princeton prof who spent summers exploring and mapping the Appalachians.

In addition to those already mentioned (NC/TN, CO, and CA), there are also Mt. Guyots in the 'Gunks (Guyot Hill), Utah, and Alaska... as well as a crater on the moon!!

On p. 126 of F&C is this additional tidbit, as stated by a female associate:

"one of the loveliest of men for anyone to have for a companion, and one of the few I could understand a lady falling in love with."

 

[RoySwkr]

When the list was first assembled, peaks with one questionable col (PatN, Lincoln, etc.) were included but a peak with two questionable cols (Guyot is the only example I know of) had, by certain mathematics - not mine, only a 25% chance of belonging on the list and so were left off.

Sorry Eric but you need to spend more time looking at maps. On the old map
http://docs.unh.edu/NH/frcn32se.jpg
Guyot had one definite YES and one definite NO which disqualified it. When the new maps first came out only definite peaks (Galehead) were added with possible (Bondcliff) added later and "possible but improbable" (Guyot) put on 3K list only.

It was only in the most recent revision that it was decided that peaks had to be definitively qualified to get on or disqualified to get off the lists.

Unless they were favorites of Club officials and left on anyway. Maybe the new 4K board will finally banish S Hancock which if the map is correct is definitely disqualified.

The "prominence" newsgroup has built a number of mathematical models on likelihood of col depth but the average from contours is a good approximation.