Thinking of a trip to Europe for a few weeks this summer...

Just wondering about the comparison between Rainier vs Mont Blanc and the Grand Teton vs the Matterhorn. My impression is that Rainier (DC/Emmons) is comparable to Mont Blanc (Gouter/Traverse). Anybody agree/disagree? Further, I think I overheard someone saying that the Matterhorn (Hornligrat/Liongrat) is comparable to the Grand Teton (OS/Exum), just with crampons on...

Does this sound right? Anybody with some thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input.

(forgot to say, please hold all factors like weather, time of year, climbing experience, snowpack, avy/crevasse issues, etc constant --- thanks!)

You may want to contact MVS, he has climbed all of those peaks I believe. Here is his TR of the Matterhorn: http://www.summitpost.org/my-experience ... /450263/p2

Interesting question and one I've been hoping to see a few responses to, although I don't expect many since probably not many people have climbed all four.

I'd entertained thoughts of eventually getting to the Matterhorn, but after having purchased a second home all spare time and money goes to that project, so the Matterhorn will probably not happen.

Good luck....

Regarding Upper Exum/Matterhorn, I thought the difficulties and exposure were similar. Of course climbing the Grand in a day is a much longer slog than climbing the Matterhorn from the Hornlihutte. We didn't get out our crampons until near the top when we left the Hornligrat for the upper part of the normal route where it crosses onto the final part of the North face where the grade is not very steep, but it was dry on the ridge when I was there.

Good luck, James. Hopefully I can get to Chamonix sometime soon, and then I can make a comparison of all 4.

Best,

Woodie

What about the other factors?
Weather -- the two european peaks are prone to sudden changes (e.g. thunderstorms) in season. Temps in summer normally are mild.

Remoteness -- lots of fully serviced huts on all routes of Cervin & MB; airlift available everywhere in minutes; cable cars. Hundreds of tourists on the normal routes every day, whenever the conditions allow.

Protection -- especially the normal routes have bolts, fix ropes, chains... crevasse risk is also negligible.

Objective risks -- serac fall on the Tacul slope (MB traverse), stonefall at the Grande Couloir (punctually) and all Cervin routes (here esp. with lots of people in the route).

I did Rainier DC and Ingraham Direct, and MB via Gouter, and also separately Mont Blanc du Tacul (as acclimatization).

Rainier had that really heavy approach, whereas MB was basically a large daypack, which was nice. The Nid d'Aigle was closed when I was there, which added some distance.
I did Rainier in Sept and June, and the the crevasses in Sept were much larger than anything I saw on MB in August. There were a few exposed sections.
MB had some much steeper sections, and a little exposure near the top, but not too bad. Overall, I found MB to be steeper.
MBdTacul was fairly steep, and you are menaced by a large overhanging serac for much of the route. From the summit of MBdT (which you don't hit on the Trois Monts Traverse), I looked over to Maudit, and the last bit up to the saddle looked quite steep and icy. I think that the Traverse would have some more technical bits, primarily on Maudit.
There was considerable rock scrambling on Gouter route, which you don't see on Rainier. If it was snowy or icy that would be quite slippery. It was dry when I went.

Overall, yes, they were quite similar, but I would put Mont Blanc up as a little harder, both in exertion and difficulty.
As always, weather and conditions can skew that rating far one way or the other.

I was going to try Matterhorn, but conditions were terrible, ended up doing via ferrata around Zermatt instead.