Corax, once again a fine page....
Thanks for the vote and comment.
See recent poles.com article for recent info on Vinson.
- 4892m is now the official height, due to our work in 04-05
- highest peak is now officially 'Mount Vinson'.
- all the sub-peaks of Vinson Massif now have names
- Vinson retail is around $29,000 with a commercial group
- ALE does not really have a monopoly, they just have no competition :-)
- some of the original 1966 first ascent team are returning this season to climb it again
* change the altitude.
* not change the name as i have decided to consistently drop all "prefixes" like; mount, monte, mont, pico, cerro etc.
* add the price for an expedition on the page.
* re-write the part about monopoly.
Thanks for the input.
I think you should notify or even adopt the maintainer of the Vinson page as you could contribute with so much first hand info. You're SP's expert on the topic.
Hi Corax, great list!
I know, it's not your fault, but I still want to remark that I never understood, why people add Australia's "Mount Kocz", but not NewZealands Mount Cook.
Cook is a lot higher, a lot more difficult and at most important: a lot more beautiful, it would be just the right fit.
In my private 7 summit list I always had Aoraki instead of Mount Kocz (though I like Australia, especially Ayers rock area, but they don't have a 7-summits-summit, from my point of view :-) ).
But I know it's just an artificial list, therefore it's not really important to me.
At the very end, to me it's a 10-summit list, because this would be a fair solution with no question marks (besides the fact that "10" is a "round" number from a mathematical point of view :-) ): Just take your above list and add Mount Cook and Mont Blanc (because if people add Denali (which is not Americas highest point, but Aconcagua is), then they also need to add Mont Blanc. If Elbrus is really Europes highest point (to me it is) depends on the viewpoint, and I already had endless discussions with several people about that).
Thanks for the vote and for checking out the page.
I don't know what to say about it all.
It's a weird situation - you have to climb 8 mountains in order to be sure you have ticked off the 7 summits list.
The list could consist of 5 peaks (Vinson, Aconcagua, Everest, Kili and one of the peaks in Oceania) or a longer one as you suggest.
As it is now there's a lot of confusion, but I can't see the debate ever be fully solved.
It's absurd. To give you some examples, we have one person who claims to have skied the seven summits - that is if you count Mt Aspiring as the seventh. Makes no sense to me.
We have a very famous mountaineer who has a project called...something with crowns. His goal is to climb all the three highest summits on all continents. He is almost done, but he doesn't aknowledge Elbrus as a part of Europe and therefore he has climbed Mont Blanc etc. in Europe. Also Mauna Kea in Oceania etc. It's a shame as he has picked off K2, Everest, Kangchenjunga and most of the difficult summits already.
In several publications the Kuma-Manych Depression (300 km north of the Caucasus) between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea is regarded boundary between Europe and Asia.
Thus the Mont Blanc would be the higest mountain in Europe.
That fact should be mentioned at the "Europe - Elbrus" section
I see what you mean and I agree in some ways. I will not add the info on the page though.
There's too much confusion about the 8'th peak - the Oceania controversy already and I don't want to add more fuel to the fire. I was actually about to exclude Mt Kozzie completely from this page, but there are so many advocates for the matter I felt I had to.
On the Elbrus/Mont Blanc issue the general consensus is that Elbrus and the Caucasus is a part of Europe and the "Mont Blanc Camp" isn't large. There are some interesting exceptions though. High rank mountaineer P. Pustelnik has climbed Mt Blanc in favor of Elbrus, adding the former as the mountain to climb in his project "Three Crowns" (the three highest summits on all continents).
I hope you don't mind I don't include the info here.
I have included it on the Caucasus page though. That page is about a range and there's already a section about the Mt Blanc/Elbrus dispute there, so I think that's the place for the info.
Thanks for checking the page.
the "Elbrus – Mont Blanc dispute" section provides good background knowledge.
I have learned in school (long time ago ;-) ) about the Europe-Asia border discussion - afaik in Austria and Germany (?) the Kuma-Manych Depression is teached as border (but I have no problem with the Caucasus border)
The glory seven summit's. All run for that :-)
A well written account.
Thanks for checking out the page.
I have a few questiona for those of you that climbed Mt Elbrus.
Which (russian) tour operator do you suggest?
Also, we are 3 youngsters in their mid-20s, in good shape, pretty trained, with a Kili climbing experience (we know kili it s way easier). But we are definitely NOT expert mountainers.
Do you guys think we are eligible to attempt the Mt Elbrus climb?
Are there any vertical rock climbing sections via the normal route?
Thanks a lot!
Sorry for the very late answer. I have been away for some time.
Elbrus is not only for experts. It's a very easy peak and basic knowledge about how to walk with crampons and how to arrest a slide with and ice axe is enough if you ask me.
You should of course also have knowledge about camping in snow, high altitude and basic mountain know-how.
Remember that the weather can change extremely fast on Elbrus and people die there every year, so even if it's an easy peak you have to be prepared for a rough time.
No vertical rock climbing - only walking and one section where you may want to have some help from an ice axe.
I think most people with basic mountaineering skills can go fo Elbrus.
I can't recommend any operators as I have never used any myself.