UKH

Hi all,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a link to the Collomb list of 4000ers or might be able to send me a photo/scan of the list in a book? Am curious to know what was included but can't find the list anywhere online.

Cheers,

Tim

In reply to tjoliver:

Tim, I have various scans of the list of 50 major Alpine 4000m mountains, which seems to correspond pretty closely to the Collomb list (as listed as 50 main peaks in Martin Moran's book, also a long-ago article in one of the climbing mags). I have never been quite sure how Collomb extends to 52 (I believe), as I have also never been able to exactly track down the Collomb original.

I can send you scans of one or both of these if that helps.

Simon

In reply to tjoliver:
I can send you a scan next week from his book where he lists them

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=573788780&searchurl=sor...

For Simon's info, it includes M. Brouillard.

In reply to MG:
M Brouillard is a 30 m lump on a ridge, NOT a mountain!

As you very well know!

(And don't even mention the Pic Luig* A****)

In reply to tjoliver:

Search for any threads involving John Allen, it's his pet or favourite subject. (Or one of).

In reply to Simon4:


... you rang?

In reply to jon:

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!

BTW, Martin if you get that list, I wouldn't mind a copy. But M (French word for Fog) and P* L* A* are STILL not separate 4000m MOUNTAINS. The clue is in the word "Mountains", not "slight bumps".

In reply to MG:

Cheers. That would be great!

In reply to Simon4:

Hi Simon,

If it's no big effort it'd be great to see those too. There's nothing like a good pedantic argument over what is and isn't a mountain!

In reply to tjoliver:
When you say "pedantic", can you be a little bit more precise about what you mean?

Do you mean :

"Pointlessly and interminably arguing about trivial details as if they had overriding significance"

or

"Childish and irritating nit-picking about semantics"

or

"Taking a facile delight in displaying your own (normally imagined), intellectual superiority over your interlocutor"

It is vital to be suitably pedantic about pedantry.

In reply to Simon4:

This reminds me of a fine summer's day last year. My climbing partner and I had just made an ascent of the Bonatti-Oggioni on the Red Pillar of the Brouillard and we were on our way to the summit of Mont Blanc via a long but easy ridge. Half way along the ridge my partner stopped me to offer his congratulations. Bemused, I asked why. He told me we'd just summited a 4000er! I was quite confused. I had a quick look around and was still very much confused. We were on a random bump on a ridge. There was nothing remotely summitous about our position. He insisted, however, that we were on one of the great 4000ers of the Alps. Something called the Pic Looigi Amadayoo. Quite evidently he was wrong, but he wouldn't move on before we got a 'summit photo'. Reluctantly, I humored him and we then went on our way.... a short while later we came across something called Mont Blanc de Courmayeur and he started uttering the same nonsense. This time I refused to be fooled and we carried on sans summit photo

In reply to tjoliver:

Don't encourage him...

In reply to tjoliver:

All good points. But I assume, looking down, you saw an more prominant, elegantly-shaped, elevation, clearly worthy of climbing? It's in all the best lists.

In reply to tjoliver:

I was looking into this very recently and couldn't find Collomb's list anywhere.
The UIAA's list of 82 includes some pretty stupid ones and isn't consistent in its choice. Blodig lists 62 http://www.alpine-club.org.uk/funalps/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The_Blodig...
Goedeke and Dumler have similar lists with one or two variations from Blodig and McLewin lists 53 (and a bigger list with subsidiary summits) which is closer to Collomb but oddly includes Pic Eccles which Blodig, Dumler and Goedeke omit.
All these lists have some subjective element to their selections.
The only consistent list I've seen requires a height separation of 100m which gives a logical and consistent list of 50 summits but does mis out the Nordend and Lenzspitze which seem "worthy". This is the list of 100m separation here
http://www.peaklist.org/WWlists/euro600/Alpine_4000_100.html
This includes Breithorn East summit, elsewhere called the Breithorn West twin(!) which is omited from this list giving 49
http://peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=2305

All very confusing. Anyway, if anybody has Collomb's list I'd be interested to see how it differes from the list of 50/49 in the links above.

In reply to pec:

I could just about agree that the Lenzspitze might be questionable, just due to the vertical interval, though it is clearly a separate peak due to its situation. Surely Nordend qualifies by any reasonable criteria?

In reply to tjoliver:

I was counting down how long until people starting arguing about punta baretti and the rest. Someone should make an alternate masochists tick list that includes all the minor and inordinately difficult 4000 tops but ignores the proper ones. It'd be character building.

In reply to Simon4:


It depends how you define 'reasonable' I suppose. Situation can make some summits seem more worthy but its still very subjective.
The Nordend doesn't qualify if 100m height separation is the criteria, its only 94m and the Bishorn falls short by even less at 95m (Lenzspitze is 86m). I suppose any criteria produce 'hard cases' but it still seems less arbitrary than all the other lists which seem to include or omit various bumps like Pic Eccles, Punta Baretti etc according to whether the author feels like it.

Still, there's no reason why we can't the Norend, Bishorn and Lenzspitze even if they don't qualify

In reply to Simon4: Lenspitze is high on my list, please don't do anything with it. You can cut nondescript piles of choss if you wish.

In reply to El_Dave_H:

Not my suggestion, I have no doubt it is a proper 4000 er.

The ridge between it and the Nadelhorn is not without its challenges either.

In reply to tjoliver:

You sir, are a Prince among men and a philosopher of utmost wisdom. A scientist, a wit, a scholar and a man of action . You combine in your person the mind of an intellectual and the body of an athlete. Or perhaps the other way around.

In reply to pec:

Anybody able to tell me how Collomb's list differs from the list of 50/49 in the links I posted above yet?
Thanks.

In reply to tjoliver:

Now sent to you.

In reply to tjoliver:
I now have a scan of Collomb's list of 52/64/78 peaks. If anyone is interested, send me a PM.so I can attach (UKC won't let me).

Irritatingly, M. Br. is down as a top (one of the 64).