Corbett or not?

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram said:

(Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Of course. Just speculating on the best way to deal with twin summits.
List 'em both and climb 'em both I reckon, until one or the other is
proven to be higher.

Easy - let's call 'em the Two Ronnies.
--
Gordon

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Graham Ingram" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Did you do both peaks or have you climbed SaBC already ? Funny old
game innit !

Quoted message said:

Cheers
Graham

Apologies for the delay in replying - been out in the mountains.

Haven't done either AB or SaBC to date. AB was a possibility for this
weekend but decided to go for the three Corbetts at Glen Dessary
instead; Sgurr Mhurlagain, Fraoch Bheinn and Sgurr Cos na
Breachd-Laoigh.

It had been the intention to do the first two on Saturday and the third
on Sunday but when we arrived on Friday evening the midges were
murderous what with the wet weather and all, so we decided to go for all
three in a oner. Arrived back home at 0130hrs thankful that we did not
have to spend another night penned in by the midge nightmare.

--
Cheers,
Compo

Graham Ingram said:

Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Good sense in that. What about Munro's list though?

Bernie

"Bernie Hughes" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Ingram said:

Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Good sense in that. What about Munro's list though?

Bernie

as far as I know there was no drop criteria used by Munro making his
list a bit more subjective and also possibly the reason ( apart from
re-surveys ) that there have been many more amendments to this list
than to Corbetts

cheers

"Paul Simonite" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Apologies for the delay in replying - been out in the mountains.

Haven't done either AB or SaBC to date. AB was a possibility for

this

Quoted message said:

weekend but decided to go for the three Corbetts at Glen Dessary
instead; Sgurr Mhurlagain, Fraoch Bheinn and Sgurr Cos na
Breachd-Laoigh.

It had been the intention to do the first two on Saturday and the

third

Quoted message said:

on Sunday but when we arrived on Friday evening the midges were
murderous what with the wet weather and all, so we decided to go for

all

Quoted message said:

three in a oner. Arrived back home at 0130hrs thankful that we did

not

Quoted message said:

have to spend another night penned in by the midge nightmare.

Paul
I have looked at these three and puzzled over the best way to do them
as a triple. What was the route you took and approximate timings ?
Any other advice on routes on these ones appreciated

Cheers
Graham

Graham Ingram said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Good sense in that. What about Munro's list though?

as far as I know there was no drop criteria used by Munro making his
list a bit more subjective and also possibly the reason ( apart from
re-surveys ) that there have been many more amendments to this list
than to Corbetts

Exactly. What I meant to suggest was that as the only criteria Munro
used were hills over 3000' that he happened to take a shine too, should
the original list not have been left alone, rather than 'amended' ?

Bernie

Bernie Hughes said:

Graham Ingram said:

Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Good sense in that. What about Munro's list though?

It was never finished.. He was working on it when the flu got him..
No obvious criterion so they can shove their Stob Coire Raineachs
etc...

You are free to ignore revisions if you wish... I have nothing to do
with the 1997 list, and have had to work out a tops list for my self
due to the random deletions, ignoring and promotions that keep
happening

Was on one today.. on Beinn Heasgarnich, real top and a good one, but
Shuggie and his successors missed it.

Richard Webb

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

..uk (Graham Ingram) said:

The OS cannot identify which summit is the higher so although
there are twin peaks you can only count this pair as one Corbett.
The SMC Corbett book lists this detail on page 10 of the notes
section.and recommends that " the prudent walker should visit both
high points to be sure of having visited the summit.

Couldn't have written it better, since that is what I wrote in the guide
;-))
Graham hit it right on. They can't both be and there is no conclusive
evidence to say which is higher. So best to be prudent and cover you bases
.....

I did check them out carefully with my GPS and couldn't separate the
heights out, both measured within the error bands of the other.
Interestingly though, I thought the high point of SaBC was a narrow rib
west of where the spot height is. There is a wee boulder near the spot
height. So depending in whether the spot height in on the boulder or not,
and whether the rib is higher than where ever the spot height is ....
Too bad I didn't have a laser level when I was up there.

So whoever goes up there next should have a look at the rib,
boulder and spot height location.

Anyway, the traverse there and back is fine and a great day out! do them
both anyway ....

cheers,
Rob
194/219 92/284 (284/284) 6/7

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

..uk (Graham Ingram) said:

" The spot height 879m is a SW top and not the summit of
Bbuihde Bheinn which is shown with a tiny ring contour" ~ I have to
admit it is so tiny I cannot see it myself ! The same passage starts
off saying " these two hills have been given the same height by the
Ordnance survey. dont know where the 897 m you mention above comes
from though.

The 897 is a typo by the OS !

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

..uk (Graham Ingram) said:

Quoted message said:

weekend but decided to go for the three Corbetts at Glen Dessary
instead; Sgurr Mhurlagain, Fraoch Bheinn and Sgurr Cos na
Breachd-Laoigh.

It had been the intention to do the first two on Saturday and the

third

Quoted message said:

on Sunday but when we arrived on Friday evening the midges were
murderous what with the wet weather and all, so we decided to go for

all

Quoted message said:

three in a oner.

Paul
I have looked at these three and puzzled over the best way to do them
as a triple. What was the route you took and approximate timings ?
Any other advice on routes on these ones appreciated

I did these in one day. Without digging out my map: follow the path by the
stream in a bit from the parking as in the SMC guide, then traverse a bit
and do the eastern one first. (ATV track to the upper glen) Back down the
ridge and pick a nice line up the middle one (steep!). Down the NW ridge,
across the bealach and join the NE ridge of the 3rd one. (Don't forget to
look at the rock slide first).
Then down the SE ridge back to the old lodge. A good combo and a full day.

Rob

The message <[email hidden]>
from [email hidden] (Rob Milne) contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I did these in one day. Without digging out my map: follow the path by the
stream in a bit from the parking as in the SMC guide, then traverse a bit
and do the eastern one first. (ATV track to the upper glen) Back down the
ridge and pick a nice line up the middle one (steep!). Down the NW ridge,
across the bealach and join the NE ridge of the 3rd one. (Don't forget to
look at the rock slide first).
Then down the SE ridge back to the old lodge. A good combo and a full day.

Quoted message said:

Rob

Used exactly the same route as above, except that the old lodge is
currently being rebuilt and the area around it is now fenced off. Had
to rejoin track a short way further up the glen.

Weather: Very hot and humid with full sun between 1130-1430hrs. Took it
easy due to lack of sleep previous night - car full of murderous midges.

Left car at Loch end at 0810
First summit 1100 - 15 mins break
Second summit 1400 - 45 mins break
Third summit 1800 - 10 mins break
Back at car 2030hrs (Stopped at river for refreshing wash en route)

Reason for long time at 2nd summit is that I fell asleep at the summit
cairn (Doh!) The walk could be done considerably quicker by a fit and
fresh walker.

--
Cheers,
Compo

"Paul Simonite" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Buidhe Bheinn, Kinloch Hourn. Is this a Corbett?

--
Cheers,
Compo

And could someone tell me what the view is like from the top?

Adam

RJ Webb said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Corbetts list so Corbetts criteria should stand in my view )

Good sense in that. What about Munro's list though?

It was never finished.. He was working on it when the flu got him..
No obvious criterion so they can shove their Stob Coire Raineachs
etc...

You are free to ignore revisions if you wish... I have nothing to do
with the 1997 list, and have had to work out a tops list for my self
due to the random deletions, ignoring and promotions that keep
happening

I'm not surprised to hear that's your view Richard :-) I tend to agree,
not that I've climbed enough of the things to give my opinion any great
validity. But I wondered how others felt about it, particularly those
who identify themselves predominately as 'Munro Baggers'. By the lack of
response, I take it they don't think about it at all...

Bernie

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernie Hughes <[email hidden]> contains
these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are free to ignore revisions if you wish... I have nothing to do
with the 1997 list, and have had to work out a tops list for my self
due to the random deletions, ignoring and promotions that keep
happening

Quoted message said:

I'm not surprised to hear that's your view Richard :-) I tend to agree,
not that I've climbed enough of the things to give my opinion any great
validity. But I wondered how others felt about it, particularly those
who identify themselves predominately as 'Munro Baggers'. By the lack of
response, I take it they don't think about it at all...

It's an old problem and I thought most people would be fed up by now of
my moans about the principle reason why the SMC juggles with Munros - to
sell yet another addition of the Tables. I now have a set of 6 and might
have had more had the 1953 edition not been out of print when I started
collecting.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times

Roger said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are free to ignore revisions if you wish... I have nothing to do
with the 1997 list, and have had to work out a tops list for my self
due to the random deletions, ignoring and promotions that keep
happening

Quoted message said:

I'm not surprised to hear that's your view Richard :-) I tend to agree,
not that I've climbed enough of the things to give my opinion any great
validity. But I wondered how others felt about it, particularly those
who identify themselves predominately as 'Munro Baggers'. By the lack of
response, I take it they don't think about it at all...

It's an old problem and I thought most people would be fed up by now of
my moans about the principle reason why the SMC juggles with Munros - to
sell yet another addition of the Tables. I now have a set of 6 and might
have had more had the 1953 edition not been out of print when I started
collecting.

I came across an edition from the early 70's going for the princely sum
of 28 quid in an antique dealer's shop in Dunkeld recently. I declined
the offer. I'm sure I've seen it kicking around charity shops priced 50p.

But I don't really mean to start another round of SMC/piracy
allegations. What interests me is the mental conception the individual
hillwalker has of the actual hills he chooses to climb. Over the past
few years I've become an avid reader of TAC, largely because resistance
to the narrower concept of 'Munro Bagging' is an essential part of its
general ethos. Criticism of this kind appears nowhere else. Whether in
the general press, the over-priced catalogues that pass for 'Outdoor'
magazines, or in comments from walkers met on the hill, the assumption
that 'Munros' are an objective feature of the landscape rather than an
utterly random selection of hills, based on the prejudices of one
Victorian baronet & repeatedly tinkered with by a peculiarly
self-important group of Church Elder-like dignitaries, is completely
dominant.

I just wondered if this bothered anyone else. Or if they'd even noticed?

Bernie

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernie Hughes <[email hidden]> contains
these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's an old problem and I thought most people would be fed up by now of
my moans about the principle reason why the SMC juggles with Munros - to
sell yet another addition of the Tables. I now have a set of 6 and might
have had more had the 1953 edition not been out of print when I started
collecting.

Quoted message said:

I came across an edition from the early 70's going for the princely sum
of 28 quid in an antique dealer's shop in Dunkeld recently. I declined
the offer. I'm sure I've seen it kicking around charity shops priced 50p.

That would have been the first metric edition. That title was probably
the first major mistake, opening the door to the exclusion of Imperial
heights in subsequent editions. However the other changes such as they
were were still driven by mapping considerations, not egos or money.

Quoted message said:

But I don't really mean to start another round of SMC/piracy
allegations. What interests me is the mental conception the individual
hillwalker has of the actual hills he chooses to climb. Over the past
few years I've become an avid reader of TAC, largely because resistance
to the narrower concept of 'Munro Bagging' is an essential part of its
general ethos. Criticism of this kind appears nowhere else. Whether in
the general press, the over-priced catalogues that pass for 'Outdoor'
magazines, or in comments from walkers met on the hill, the assumption
that 'Munros' are an objective feature of the landscape rather than an
utterly random selection of hills, based on the prejudices of one
Victorian baronet & repeatedly tinkered with by a peculiarly
self-important group of Church Elder-like dignitaries, is completely
dominant.

When I was young most walkers who ventured into Scotland from South of
the border headed for the popular areas. Munro bagging was a way of
broadening horizons rather than narrowing them and there was more than
enough Munros to keep most people happy particularly before road
improvements put the Highlands within much easier reach and more
generous holidays for the workers opened compleations to other than
teachers and clergy.

Munros choice was hardly random. Peaks over 3000 feet subdivided into
those that were and weren't considered distinct mountains. Munro wasn't
averse to updating his list if convinced the change was justified and
would have welcomed those changes based on better mapping. However the
SMC have betrayed Munros legacy by introducing changes that in no way
fit with his original concept.

Quoted message said:

I just wondered if this bothered anyone else. Or if they'd even noticed?

I tended to follow the herd on club meets and even encouraged the club
to return to places like Glen Sheil and particularly Skye, leaving the
remoter Munros to solo trips as and when I could make it to Scotland on
my own. I might well have compleated some years earlier if I hadn't been
so obsessed with the Black Cuillins.

Incidentally although I have done very few Corbetts my very first
Scottish hill was a Corbett and quite possibly my second as well.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roger <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Incidentally although I have done very few Corbetts my very first
Scottish hill was a Corbett and quite possibly my second as well.

Quoted message said:

--
Roger Chapman

My very first Scottish hill was Ben Loyal, so called 'Queen of Scottish
Mountains'.

--
Cheers,
Compo

The message <[email hidden]>
from Paul Simonite <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Incidentally although I have done very few Corbetts my very first
Scottish hill was a Corbett and quite possibly my second as well.

Quoted message said:

My very first Scottish hill was Ben Loyal, so called 'Queen of Scottish
Mountains'.

My first was Garbh Bheinn (Ardgour) which is a fine hill and my possible
second Beinn Resipol which IIRC I didn't rate but looking at it on the
1" I can't see why.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times

Quoted message said:

the general press, the over-priced catalogues that pass for 'Outdoor'
magazines, or in comments from walkers met on the hill, the assumption
that 'Munros' are an objective feature of the landscape rather than an
utterly random selection of hills, based on the prejudices of one
Victorian baronet & repeatedly tinkered with by a peculiarly
self-important group of Church Elder-like dignitaries, is completely
dominant.

You sir, are a man of my own heart! Me too with bells on!
What a clear and accurate demolitiuon of the 3000' myth.

Richard Webb

Roger wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I don't really mean to start another round of SMC/piracy
allegations. What interests me is the mental conception the individual
hillwalker has of the actual hills he chooses to climb. Over the past
few years I've become an avid reader of TAC, largely because resistance
to the narrower concept of 'Munro Bagging' is an essential part of its
general ethos. Criticism of this kind appears nowhere else. Whether in
the general press, the over-priced catalogues that pass for 'Outdoor'
magazines, or in comments from walkers met on the hill, the assumption
that 'Munros' are an objective feature of the landscape rather than an
utterly random selection of hills, based on the prejudices of one
Victorian baronet & repeatedly tinkered with by a peculiarly
self-important group of Church Elder-like dignitaries, is completely
dominant.

When I was young most walkers who ventured into Scotland from South of
the border headed for the popular areas. Munro bagging was a way of
broadening horizons rather than narrowing them and there was more than
enough Munros to keep most people happy particularly before road
improvements put the Highlands within much easier reach and more
generous holidays for the workers opened compleations to other than
teachers and clergy.

Makes sense.

Quoted message said:

Munros choice was hardly random. Peaks over 3000 feet subdivided into
those that were and weren't considered distinct mountains.

Exactly. Some peaks over 3000, not all. No attempt to define what a
"peak of 3000 feet" actually means. "Considered distinct mountains" i.e.
according to one man's subjective & inconsistent judgment. Or 'at
random', to put it less politely.

Munro wasn't

Quoted message said:

averse to updating his list if convinced the change was justified and
would have welcomed those changes based on better mapping. However the
SMC have betrayed Munros legacy by introducing changes that in no way
fit with his original concept.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Incidentally although I have done very few Corbetts my very first
Scottish hill was a Corbett and quite possibly my second as well.

Mine was Eildon Mid Hill, on a school trip.

Bernie