On Google Earth TM, I discovered that about 0.2 miles north of the summit you noted was a bump even 6' higher than that, about 13,470'. The issue is that it involves a small 100% exposed Class 3 knife edge. I made that summit, but it was tough: 37.198845°N / 118.676026°W
Thanks for this information.
How did you determine that this location was 6' higher? Was this based on Google Earth data or your own estimation while standing atop the summit?
For my California Thirteeners project (see http://www.vulgarianramblers.org/ca_13ers.php) my RidgeWalker program reviewed the underlying Digital Elevation Model (DEM) on which Google Earth is based, and it found the highest point in the vicinity to be at 37.1967°N, 118.6736°W (i.e., the point I refer to as "NW Lamarck". Please see: http://www.vulgarianramblers.org/methodology.php for more details.
I've hiked along this ridge from Lamarck Col twice, and it didn't seem like the crest to the NW of NW Lamarck had any higher summits. However, I'll be sure to check this out again the next time I go over Lamarck Col.
I got this from Google Earth which showed the coordinates I provided to be higher.
Google Earth isn't meant for displaying elevations to that level of detail. I've found all kinds of strange anomalies in the past while poking around with Google Earth. I think it's better to use the DEM source data (which has enough problems of its own).
Another issue is the vertical datum being used. I believe Google Earth uses the NAVD 88, which puts elevations a bit higher than the NGVD 29 used for the official spot elevations that appear on USGS quadrangles, etc. For example, Mt. Whitney has an elevation of 14,505' using NAVD 88, whereas it's official spot elevation is only 14,491.
You seem to know your stuff. The point you refer to as NW Lamarck at 14,464' I think shows up on Google Earth at 14,464'. I was comparing your spot to the other one. Like I said, I know why USGS did not mark the spot I am referring to, due to the knife edge. It seemed higher to me.