Duane Gilliland and I helped fellow CoHPer Adam Helman reach the true summit (SW peak). As Adam headed up the final slopes, Duane and I opted instead to head to the false summit of Buckner located to the NE.
In our opinions (as well as the opinions of most people), the NE peak of Buckner Mountain is definitely lower than the SW summit. How did Duane and I come to that conclusion? The gendarmes give it away.
We initially did not realize how far we had to drop in the depression, or what Klenke considered a "depression" rather than a down-slope. So we ended up scrambling up most of the central gendarme by accident, thinking it was the gendarme with the "notch" mentioned by Klenke (as there is a notch with some lichen near it near the top). From there, both peaks could be seen... the SW peak is higher. Duane then noticed some sort of dirt tracks down the slope below us to the south, so we scrambled down and went around the gendarme. We were then on Klenke's intended route. When we reached the NE peak, we both immediately said it was lower. Duane was quick to point out his reasoning, which I concur: The gendarme closest to the NE peak is only slightly lower than that peak, while the SW peak is clearly much more visible/higher looming in the background. I took some photos that show this field observation, as well.
We both believe the so-called "triangulation" of the NE peak as 9112' is inaccurate (i.e. too high), as well... Peak elevation errors by the USGS are not uncommon. Not to suggest this is 100% accurate to use, but we found it funny that Duane's GPS altimeter showed 9104' and my GPS altimeter showed 9105' for the NE peak.
Anyway, we helped a fellow CoHPer reach his goal of a second-to-last WA CoHP, and Duane & I went somewhere new. Not bad, considering I did 8100' elevation gain in 17 hours with only one hour's sleep.