this would spank any peak in colorado hands down
Thanks, St. Nichlos certainly is an impressive peak.
except in height. The San Juan's, Gore Range and Front Range have some poky peaks but not quite of this stature. I'm sure there are less dramatic angles of this peak.
I'm sure there are less dramatic angles of this peak.
Actually, there are not; it's a substantial technical challenge anyway you look at it. "Easiest" route on St. Nick entails about a thousand feet of technical work.
If by "height," you mean elevation, that's a relatively meaningless comparison. A more apt relationship is that of geographical relief, or elevation gain. Summit elevation does nothing in the way of describing a mountain's physical presence (although it does give an "oxygen factor" to consider—climbers from, for example, Colorado or Utah enjoy climbing in GNP because of the relative lack of thin air, and, of course, the reverse is true—now, when I climb in Colorado the lack of oxygen on the summits is quite noticable).
But it's the geographical relief that's the thing. First-time visitors to Western Montana are always surprised at how big the mountains are in—say—GNP or the Missions.
by dramatic I mean in the visual sense not technical. My assumption -which is apparently wrong- is that this peak is along the spine of a ridge and would appear more 'erect' on end than when viewed from the side. The Matterhorn in Switzerland is impressive from any angle, but is particularly stunning (much like St. Nick in this photo) from the North in Zermatt as opposed to from the sides which show its ridge sloping into Italy. It is no less technical, just appears less 'erect'. Regardless, I love discusssing mountains in any form, even if I'm full of it. Thanks!
Seth~ Someday I'll get to see more of GNP than from the Sun Road. until then thier yours to exstoll...
Like the Matterhorn, St. Nick is a true horn. See the mountain page and images for views from other angles.