Tecumseh out, Guyot in?

[B the Hiker]

Interesting thing about Guyot is that it is about as remote as a NH peak can get. As Tim, mentioned, at least Tecumseh is accessible.

If I am working this through correctly, Guyot would join Mt. Bond and West Bond as a mountain that can only be accessed via another NH48 peak. (Without some bizarre contortion like hiking up the Gale River Trail, and skipping past South Twin).

 

[Grey J]

This is something new that I've been hearing lately, Have no idea why that is all of a sudden.
View attachment 6603

Thanks for reposting that fine panorama Joe. To my eye, they look about the same height in the photo but if Tim's numbers are correct, circa 30 feet difference is going to be hard to detect by the naked eye at that distance. It's nice to see Guyot getting some attention here. Arnold would be pleased.

 

[Mike P.]

Thanks for reposting that fine panorama Joe. To my eye, they look about the same height in the photo but if Tim's numbers are correct, circa 30 feet difference is going to be hard to detect by the naked eye at that distance. It's nice to see Guyot getting some attention here. Arnold would be pleased.

Well, it's the smallest feature with his name attached to it (Mountains in TN, CA, CO and I believe a crater on the moon) I thought I could tell the difference however, they do look pretty close. .

Looks like their is a Seamount which would of course be below sea level but could have a higher prominence from the sea floor.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Interesting thing about Guyot is that it is about as remote as a NH peak can get. As Tim, mentioned, at least Tecumseh is accessible.

If I am working this through correctly, Guyot would join Mt. Bond and West Bond as a mountain that can only be accessed via another NH48 peak. (Without some bizarre contortion like hiking up the Gale River Trail, and skipping past South Twin).

Right now, you can walk past the Zealand Spur, en route to Guyot or West Bond. You can skip the West Bond spur and get to Bond as well. Neither is a bushwhack or bizzare contortion.

If Guyot was added, then you would have to cross it, or Bond/Bondcliff while tagging Bond/West Bond.

Granted, most people wouldn't skip West Bond or Zealand when passing by those spurs, although I have skipped West Bond numerous times on a Pemi loop...

Tim

 

[sierra]

I would like Tecumseh dropped for selfish reasons. It's one of my regular hikes and its quite busy, due to its proximity to the population of the south. Guyot never seemed like a peak to me, just a nice rolling shoulder. The list has never been "accurate" no need to make it so now. The only thing that irks me more the Lincoln being on the list, is calling the shoulder next to it, Mt, Truman. Calling that a peak is like calling me skinny.

 

[maineguy]

Right now, you can walk past the Zealand Spur, en route to Guyot or West Bond. You can skip the West Bond spur and get to Bond as well. Neither is a bushwhack or bizzare contortion.

If Guyot was added, then you would have to cross it, or Bond/Bondcliff while tagging Bond/West Bond.

Granted, most people wouldn't skip West Bond or Zealand when passing by those spurs, although I have skipped West Bond numerous times on a Pemi loop...

Tim

Agree. I hike to Guyot all the time from the Zealand Trail parking lot. And I always go past the Zealand spur, but certainly not the Zeacliff outlook.

 

[maineguy]

Why do we need a "correct" way of looking at this or need a "solution" to this? It's an arbitrary list created to get people in the woods and try out new peaks. Mission accomplished. I don't think we have a problem on our hands. We can make an infinite amount of lists to accommodate everyone's inclusion criteria if we want. This is why I hate lists....

I also hate lists. When I was working on the NE65 (it was the mid 80s) we were on our way to Abraham after hiking up Sugarloaf and we went by a little spur trail labeled "Mt Spaulding". I got out my map and saw that the elevation was something like 3998. So, I figured that someday it might suddenly "grow" to 4000 ft. So, I hiked the .2 miles or so and forgot about it. Then, years later...yep...it got added. Unfortunately, they also added Reddington, which I had to go back and do almost 2 decades later because I was finishing the 111 (115). Yep, I hate lists, and swore to never start another one. A promise I have kept.

 

[skiguy]

I also hate lists. When I was working on the NE65 (it was the mid 80s) we were on our way to Abraham after hiking up Sugarloaf and we went by a little spur trail labeled "Mt Spaulding". I got out my map and saw that the elevation was something like 3998. So, I figured that someday it might suddenly "grow" to 4000 ft. So, I hiked the .2 miles or so and forgot about it. Then, years later...yep...it got added. Unfortunately, they also added Reddington, which I had to go back and do almost 2 decades later because I was finishing the 111 (115). Yep, I hate lists, and swore to never start another one. A promise I have kept.

The only part of lists that works for me is that it does give me ideas of places to hike but I never really obsessed about it. I’ve never fill out any apps for badges but I do respect the accomplishments made by others. If you told me 50 years ago some folks would be doing what they are doing now I would never have believed it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Agree. I hike to Guyot all the time from the Zealand Trail parking lot. And I always go past the Zealand spur, but certainly not the Zeacliff outlook.

But you wouldn't (go past the Zealand spur) if you were hiking the 48 for the patch and also needed Zealand... I had to do the Z-B traverse 5 times in winter for the winter Trailwrights since they count Guyot and that makes 5 peaks on the traverse. Zealand and Boncliff alone are 18 miles each in winter so might as well do 23 and get all 5!

Tim

 

[maineguy]

View attachment 6607 The only part of lists that works for me is that it does give me ideas of places to hike but I never really obsessed about it. I’ve never fill out any apps for badges but I do respect the accomplishments made by others. If you told me 50 years ago some folks would be doing what they are doing now I would never have believed it.

That is so true. I still have all my AMC maps from the 60s. On a few of them are red marker traces that I did back then to sort of keep track of all the trails I had been on (a few of them are no longer around or have been relocated). If someone had told me that someday there would be a patch/club for doing all the trails I would have thought them crazy.

 

[JustJoe]

It matters not. But for arguments sake.

 

[DayTrip]

Your signature suggests otherwise.

Touche! (It is out of date actually but anyway). My point is follow your own list. If you don't like the structure of published lists so what? Do it your way. Yah I've done some lists but I'm certainly not losing my mind over additions and subtractions. If it changes I really don't care and I'm certainly not rushing out to do new peaks just because of an update and regretting peaks I have done because now they "don't count". I think that's total nonsense. The lists were a great way for a relative new hiker to find out about peaks and did shape my early hiking. I really don't worry about it anymore.

So I guess I hate the fact that people out there obsess about the "checkmarks", often above all else, rather than enjoying the time outside. So I guess what I really hate is the perspective people bring to the lists as opposed to the lists themselves. They have value initially.

 

[DayTrip]

Right now, you can walk past the Zealand Spur, en route to Guyot or West Bond. You can skip the West Bond spur and get to Bond as well. Neither is a bushwhack or bizzare contortion.

If Guyot was added, then you would have to cross it, or Bond/Bondcliff while tagging Bond/West Bond.

Granted, most people wouldn't skip West Bond or Zealand when passing by those spurs, although I have skipped West Bond numerous times on a Pemi loop...

Tim

I almost always skip the Zealand Spur when I go through there on my Guyot trips.

 

[Grey J]

It matters not. But for arguments sake.

View attachment 6608

Another nice photo proving that one's perspective is all important. I think you've proved your point. And after seeing this photo, despite my affinity for the spot, I am inclined to agree with Sierra's assessment of it as "a nice rolling shoulder." I'm sure the remoteness of Guyot, as well as it's presence straddling the junction of these two significant trails, was part of the attraction for me. The photo also hints at a pretty good drop off into the col to the south between Guyot and the Bonds reinforcing (or at least giving the impression) that it might be sufficient for Guyot to be a legit 4K peak.

 

[Mike P.]

Another nice photo proving that one's perspective is all important. I think you've proved your point. And after seeing this photo, despite my affinity for the spot, I am inclined to agree with Sierra's assessment of it as "a nice rolling shoulder." I'm sure the remoteness of Guyot, as well as it's presence straddling the junction of these two significant trails, was part of the attraction for me. The photo also hints at a pretty good drop off into the col to the south between Guyot and the Bonds reinforcing (or at least giving the impression) that it might be sufficient for Guyot to be a legit 4K peak.

I think it's the lack of a col between South Twin and Guyot that would be at issue. The lowest point on the Twinway, or more accurately the ridge that the Twinway is on would need to drop to 4380.

 

[JoshandBaron]

I think it's the lack of a col between South Twin and Guyot that would be at issue. The lowest point on the Twinway, or more accurately the ridge that the Twinway is on would need to drop to 4380.

On 40' maps, both cols have the same clean prominence.

 

[Salty]

Wouldn't you know it, I already posted the Guyot data in another thread:

south Guyot: 4564.1'
north Guyot: 4581.4'
Guyot-Bond col: 4344.4'
Guyot-S. Twin col: 4361.9'
Prominence: 219.5'

 

[B the Hiker]

And after all this discussion about what mountains would technically make the list and which ones would not, the AMC is doing nothing different, even putting out a new edition of the White Mountain Guide...

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Have they stopped "recognizing" the "old summit" on Owl's Head yet? For sure any changes will be adopted slowly.

Tim

 

[JustJoe]

Have they stopped "recognizing" the "old summit" on Owl's Head yet? For sure any changes will be adopted slowly.

Tim

A mute point since you can check it off without even going. I say leave Tecumseh. Why let the 100's of hours of stairs, cairns, and cobble stone path building go to waste. Not to mention the views scaping.