UKH

If you second something and then lead it (same day or a few years later) is it a red point or a repeat accent? 

Pretty sure it's a redpoint - seconding a route isn't really any different from toproping/dogging a route to work it

Whichever you want to call it, or just 'lead' or 'climbed'. No offence intended but only you care.

jk

I log that as a redpoint, regardless of whether I lead it straight away after seconding/top-roping a route or a year or more later. Whatever it is, it clearly isn't a onsight.

To me, redpoint implies some sort of purposeful practice so I'd log it as a repeat. Not that it really matters as it's your logbook.

For reasons not entirely clear, an ascent isn't usually considered 'successful' if it is not done on lead (barring relatively few exceptions such as on Southern Sandstone.) I'd therefore argue that successfully leading a route you'd been on before but hadn't previously successfully led could not be considered a repeat ascent, by virtue of you not having done it (i.e. successfully led it) before.

I know this is a very specific interpretation of 'success', and you may well have achieved your objective earlier in seconding it clean, giving you a different kind of personal success on the route, but this interpretation is the norm in our current climbing society.

One of the best things I ever did in climbing was break out of defining every climb as 'success' or 'failure'* some of my most intense climbing experiences have been on routes I fell off. I like the logbooks for various reasons but they really don't help in this regard. 

*of course I still do this a little bit, who doesn't like onsight bragging rights.

I agree, just go climbing and have fun. 

But if I'm logging I like to do it accurately 😂

For accuracy, using only the options available to you in the logbooks, personally I'd go with repoint, only based on it can't be a flash or onsight.

My point is there is no 'accurately'. As you see here, ask 3 climbers, get 4 opinions.

If it matters to you just pick a convention that conveys meaning to you and be consistent. It won't matter to anyone else.

From memory my logbook is full of DNFs, most people don't bother to record 'failure' but for me it helped keep track of how long projects actually took and to keep a record of the big days out that went awry one way or another making great memories despite 'failure'.

jk

Totally confused why you've asked this.  Of course it's not a repeat as you haven't "done" it before. 

Or at least not in a manner that counts for anything in the ticking world.

Nonsense, seconding is a perfectly honourable and necessary function of trad climbing. 

Critical to expanding exploration of movement and enjoyment of climbing this is 👍

Clean second - log it as repeat when led clean.

Dogged Second - Log it as redpoint when led clean.

It may be my age but a "clean second" is a valid ascent and part of "climbing" so leading it after feels like a repeat.

It doesn't matter, but it's a convention that aligns with how it feels for me!

I usually put it as a repeat. 

In my head, the difference between seconding a route and 'headpointing' it on a toprope is the intent.  I don't usually second a route in preparation for leading it and it's a totally different mindset for me. 

In actuality I don't think it really matters. I think the only impact would be that if it was your hardest lead ever, it would not appear in your UKC 'hardest climbs' stats as a repeat but would if you put it as a RP?