remus

Badges

OG100 Contributions1,000 Contributions10,000 Contributions100,000 Contributions10 Posts100 Posts

Contributions

Posts

1 Day

255

7 Days

1458

4 Weeks

4245

All Time

185701

Current Streak

166

Longest Streak

181

Contributions Map

Contributions by Country

Country Contributions Between Climbers Crags Summits Climbs Ascents
1 United Kingdom 51403 14th November 2023 – 3rd September 2026 1401 692 0 3019 4791
2 USA 24344 14th November 2023 – 2nd September 2026 789 179 2 843 2336
3 France 11918 14th November 2023 – 2nd September 2026 260 125 1 544 1018
4 Switzerland 9090 14th November 2023 – 2nd September 2026 75 42 1 301 1073
5 Spain 8261 15th November 2023 – 2nd September 2026 88 73 0 441 888
6 Italy 4481 16th November 2023 – 2nd September 2026 115 58 0 181 346
7 South Africa 3591 16th November 2023 – 30th August 2026 12 35 0 125 390
8 Germany 3074 16th November 2023 – 26th August 2026 115 47 0 102 223
9 Canada 3015 16th November 2023 – 24th August 2026 63 21 3 105 256
10 Austria 2476 16th November 2023 – 29th August 2026 70 26 0 103 218

Recent Contributions

Date Time User Type Name Attribute
1 3rd September 2026 06:01:26 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully Topo (Quick Topo)
Before
None
After
https://quick-topo.app/t/high-tor-gully-wm89hgofk2
2 3rd September 2026 05:53:32 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes_pretty
Before
<p>The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between <a href="/climber/4475/william-smithard" rel="noopener noreferrer">William Smithard</a> and <a href="/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ernest A. Baker</a>, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]</p> </blockquote> <h3>References</h3> <p>[1] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal</a></p>
After
<p>The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between <a href="/climber/4475/william-smithard" rel="noopener noreferrer">William Smithard</a> and <a href="/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ernest A. Baker</a>, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]</p> </blockquote> <p>and later</p> <blockquote> <p>THE Editor has received a large number of letters with reference to the High Tor Gully, Matlock.</p> <p>To publish these in full would take up too much space in the <em>Journal</em>, and would probably lead at the present time to no satisfactory or final conclusion as to the desirability or safety of the gully as a climb.</p> <p>With one sentence, however, he thoroughly agrees. “It seems to me a pity that the noble sport of rock climbing should be sullied by an acrimonious controversy on such points as those raised. The High Tor stands for anyone desirous of so doing to inspect it, and the questions in dispute are surely very easy of solution.”</p> <p>As regards the actual criticisms of Mr. Baker’s letter, there is no doubt, as the writers of several letters claim, that he has changed his opinions as to the desirability of the climb, a course which he is perfectly justified in taking.</p> <p>On September 19th, 1902, Mr. Baker wrote in a newspaper article, 'Twice I have made attempts to climb the great fissure . . . We scrambled down slopes of clay and scree for nearly a hundred feet . . . the stones that we shifted in our movements crashing all the while into the black gulf beneath us, whose depth we could not ascertain . . . Our efforts to enter the gully at the foot were likewise a failure, but not so decisive as to take away all hopes of doing it.'</p> <p>In 1902, therefore, Mr. Baker undoubtedly considered this a desirable climb, though, in the opinion of most rock climbers, the loose stones which he mentions would be considered in too unstable equilibrium for enjoyment. It may be said that these were purposely dislodged for the safety of the party, but the expression 'all the while' seems to point to a certain precarious character of foot and hand-hold not to be entirely altered by the process of sweeping, which is often necessary on the early attempts of a climb, successful or otherwise.</p> <p>In Mr. Baker's letter in No. 25, he says—'I am not going to say that the High Tor Gully is not a legitimate climb, although I know it to be an extremely dangerous one . . . what is illegitimate for me to attempt may be a safe climb for a better man.'</p> <p>It is perfectly clear that Mr. Baker does not mean that a dangerous climb can be legitimate under any circumstances, but that he considers it dangerous, and therefore illegitimate for himself. As, however, this has not been clearly understood by the writer of one of the letters, the first sentence only being quoted, it may be well to suggest that the use of the expression 'dangerous,' meaning the presence of difficulties which greater skill could avoid, is strongly to be deprecated.</p> <p>The loose use of the term has perhaps contributed more to the loss of valuable lives than any other.</p> <p>Climbs A and B are both described as dangerous; A has objective dangers, such as insecurity of hold on certain passages where the leader cannot, however great his skill, avoid reliance on untrustworthy hand and foot-holds, where there is no opportunity for the use of the body to obtain a friction hold, and where a second climber backing him up on the rope can be of no help.</p> <p>Such passages are extremely rare on mountains composed of hard rock. They occur more frequently on formations such as chalk, slate, sandstone, or mountain limestone, to take a few instances, and yet any of these may be perfectly safe under certain conditions, as, except at least in the case of chalk cliffs, which, in the writer's opinion, have no good qualities, the firmness of the rock differs enormously in localities which are only separated by a short interval.</p> <p>It is therefore unfair to condemn mountain limestone, <em>qua</em> mountain limestone, though a word of caution should rightly be given to those who have not a thorough knowledge of it.</p> <p>With this proviso, there seems no reason at present, judging from the evidence, to brand the High Tor Gully as dangerous, though probably so high a degree of skill is required as to render it unjustifiable for any except experienced climbers.</p> <p>The second class of climb B is far more difficult than A, but 'not dangerous' is the sense of the word laid down.</p> <p>A climber without sufficient knowledge of the particular rock climbs, B, and considers it relatively easy, he then naturally doubts the epithet 'dangerous' applied to A, and a disaster possibly follows.</p> <p>With regard to the alleged 'abominations,' the Editor can hardly do better than quote from one other letter. 'Mr. Baker (whose charming book on our county we have lately so much enjoyed) speaks in an unfortunate moment of 'putrefaction' in connection with the High Tor. Surely what he meant to say was 'petrifaction.' Of our Matlock petrifactions all Derbyshire men are proud. Of anything else we know nothing.'</p> <p>Other evidence points to the view that the abominations referred to are now at any rate either non-existent or not conspicuous.</p> <p>The Editor will not undertake to publish any further letters on the High Tor Gully, unless they seem likely to promote the interests of the Club, but he will be very glad to receive statements as to the character of limestone climbing, with the view of collecting evidence on the comparative merits and demerits of different rock formations, and obtaining suggestions which may help climbers to test their security, or the opposite, for themselves. [6]</p> </blockquote> <h3>References</h3> <p>[1] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal</a></p> <p>[6] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal</a></p>
3 3rd September 2026 05:53:32 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes
Before
The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed: > The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5] ### References [1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal) [2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal) [3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal) [4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal) [5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
After
The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed: > The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5] and later > THE Editor has received a large number of letters with reference to the High Tor Gully, Matlock. > To publish these in full would take up too much space in the *Journal*, and would probably lead at the present time to no satisfactory or final conclusion as to the desirability or safety of the gully as a climb. > With one sentence, however, he thoroughly agrees. “It seems to me a pity that the noble sport of rock climbing should be sullied by an acrimonious controversy on such points as those raised. The High Tor stands for anyone desirous of so doing to inspect it, and the questions in dispute are surely very easy of solution.” > As regards the actual criticisms of Mr. Baker’s letter, there is no doubt, as the writers of several letters claim, that he has changed his opinions as to the desirability of the climb, a course which he is perfectly justified in taking. > On September 19th, 1902, Mr. Baker wrote in a newspaper article, 'Twice I have made attempts to climb the great fissure . . . We scrambled down slopes of clay and scree for nearly a hundred feet . . . the stones that we shifted in our movements crashing all the while into the black gulf beneath us, whose depth we could not ascertain . . . Our efforts to enter the gully at the foot were likewise a failure, but not so decisive as to take away all hopes of doing it.' > In 1902, therefore, Mr. Baker undoubtedly considered this a desirable climb, though, in the opinion of most rock climbers, the loose stones which he mentions would be considered in too unstable equilibrium for enjoyment. It may be said that these were purposely dislodged for the safety of the party, but the expression 'all the while' seems to point to a certain precarious character of foot and hand-hold not to be entirely altered by the process of sweeping, which is often necessary on the early attempts of a climb, successful or otherwise. > In Mr. Baker's letter in No. 25, he says—'I am not going to say that the High Tor Gully is not a legitimate climb, although I know it to be an extremely dangerous one . . . what is illegitimate for me to attempt may be a safe climb for a better man.' > It is perfectly clear that Mr. Baker does not mean that a dangerous climb can be legitimate under any circumstances, but that he considers it dangerous, and therefore illegitimate for himself. As, however, this has not been clearly understood by the writer of one of the letters, the first sentence only being quoted, it may be well to suggest that the use of the expression 'dangerous,' meaning the presence of difficulties which greater skill could avoid, is strongly to be deprecated. > The loose use of the term has perhaps contributed more to the loss of valuable lives than any other. > Climbs A and B are both described as dangerous; A has objective dangers, such as insecurity of hold on certain passages where the leader cannot, however great his skill, avoid reliance on untrustworthy hand and foot-holds, where there is no opportunity for the use of the body to obtain a friction hold, and where a second climber backing him up on the rope can be of no help. > Such passages are extremely rare on mountains composed of hard rock. They occur more frequently on formations such as chalk, slate, sandstone, or mountain limestone, to take a few instances, and yet any of these may be perfectly safe under certain conditions, as, except at least in the case of chalk cliffs, which, in the writer's opinion, have no good qualities, the firmness of the rock differs enormously in localities which are only separated by a short interval. > It is therefore unfair to condemn mountain limestone, *qua* mountain limestone, though a word of caution should rightly be given to those who have not a thorough knowledge of it. > With this proviso, there seems no reason at present, judging from the evidence, to brand the High Tor Gully as dangerous, though probably so high a degree of skill is required as to render it unjustifiable for any except experienced climbers. > The second class of climb B is far more difficult than A, but 'not dangerous' is the sense of the word laid down. > A climber without sufficient knowledge of the particular rock climbs, B, and considers it relatively easy, he then naturally doubts the epithet 'dangerous' applied to A, and a disaster possibly follows. > With regard to the alleged 'abominations,' the Editor can hardly do better than quote from one other letter. 'Mr. Baker (whose charming book on our county we have lately so much enjoyed) speaks in an unfortunate moment of 'putrefaction' in connection with the High Tor. Surely what he meant to say was 'petrifaction.' Of our Matlock petrifactions all Derbyshire men are proud. Of anything else we know nothing.' > Other evidence points to the view that the abominations referred to are now at any rate either non-existent or not conspicuous. > The Editor will not undertake to publish any further letters on the High Tor Gully, unless they seem likely to promote the interests of the Club, but he will be very glad to receive statements as to the character of limestone climbing, with the view of collecting evidence on the comparative merits and demerits of different rock formations, and obtaining suggestions which may help climbers to test their security, or the opposite, for themselves. [6] ### References [1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal) [2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal) [3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal) [4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal) [5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal) [6] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal)
Diff
--- before

+++ after

@@ -1,6 +1,44 @@

The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:

> The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]
+
+and later
+
+> THE Editor has received a large number of letters with reference to the High Tor Gully, Matlock.
+
+> To publish these in full would take up too much space in the *Journal*, and would probably lead at the present time to no satisfactory or final conclusion as to the desirability or safety of the gully as a climb.
+
+> With one sentence, however, he thoroughly agrees. “It seems to me a pity that the noble sport of rock climbing should be sullied by an acrimonious controversy on such points as those raised. The High Tor stands for anyone desirous of so doing to inspect it, and the questions in dispute are surely very easy of solution.”
+
+> As regards the actual criticisms of Mr. Baker’s letter, there is no doubt, as the writers of several letters claim, that he has changed his opinions as to the desirability of the climb, a course which he is perfectly justified in taking.
+
+> On September 19th, 1902, Mr. Baker wrote in a newspaper article, 'Twice I have made attempts to climb the great fissure . . . We scrambled down slopes of clay and scree for nearly a hundred feet . . . the stones that we shifted in our movements crashing all the while into the black gulf beneath us, whose depth we could not ascertain . . . Our efforts to enter the gully at the foot were likewise a failure, but not so decisive as to take away all hopes of doing it.'
+
+> In 1902, therefore, Mr. Baker undoubtedly considered this a desirable climb, though, in the opinion of most rock climbers, the loose stones which he mentions would be considered in too unstable equilibrium for enjoyment. It may be said that these were purposely dislodged for the safety of the party, but the expression 'all the while' seems to point to a certain precarious character of foot and hand-hold not to be entirely altered by the process of sweeping, which is often necessary on the early attempts of a climb, successful or otherwise.
+
+> In Mr. Baker's letter in No. 25, he says—'I am not going to say that the High Tor Gully is not a legitimate climb, although I know it to be an extremely dangerous one . . . what is illegitimate for me to attempt may be a safe climb for a better man.'
+
+> It is perfectly clear that Mr. Baker does not mean that a dangerous climb can be legitimate under any circumstances, but that he considers it dangerous, and therefore illegitimate for himself. As, however, this has not been clearly understood by the writer of one of the letters, the first sentence only being quoted, it may be well to suggest that the use of the expression 'dangerous,' meaning the presence of difficulties which greater skill could avoid, is strongly to be deprecated.
+
+> The loose use of the term has perhaps contributed more to the loss of valuable lives than any other.
+
+> Climbs A and B are both described as dangerous; A has objective dangers, such as insecurity of hold on certain passages where the leader cannot, however great his skill, avoid reliance on untrustworthy hand and foot-holds, where there is no opportunity for the use of the body to obtain a friction hold, and where a second climber backing him up on the rope can be of no help.
+
+> Such passages are extremely rare on mountains composed of hard rock. They occur more frequently on formations such as chalk, slate, sandstone, or mountain limestone, to take a few instances, and yet any of these may be perfectly safe under certain conditions, as, except at least in the case of chalk cliffs, which, in the writer's opinion, have no good qualities, the firmness of the rock differs enormously in localities which are only separated by a short interval.
+
+> It is therefore unfair to condemn mountain limestone, *qua* mountain limestone, though a word of caution should rightly be given to those who have not a thorough knowledge of it.
+
+> With this proviso, there seems no reason at present, judging from the evidence, to brand the High Tor Gully as dangerous, though probably so high a degree of skill is required as to render it unjustifiable for any except experienced climbers.
+
+> The second class of climb B is far more difficult than A, but 'not dangerous' is the sense of the word laid down.
+
+> A climber without sufficient knowledge of the particular rock climbs, B, and considers it relatively easy, he then naturally doubts the epithet 'dangerous' applied to A, and a disaster possibly follows.
+
+> With regard to the alleged 'abominations,' the Editor can hardly do better than quote from one other letter. 'Mr. Baker (whose charming book on our county we have lately so much enjoyed) speaks in an unfortunate moment of 'putrefaction' in connection with the High Tor. Surely what he meant to say was 'petrifaction.' Of our Matlock petrifactions all Derbyshire men are proud. Of anything else we know nothing.'
+
+> Other evidence points to the view that the abominations referred to are now at any rate either non-existent or not conspicuous.
+
+> The Editor will not undertake to publish any further letters on the High Tor Gully, unless they seem likely to promote the interests of the Club, but he will be very glad to receive statements as to the character of limestone climbing, with the view of collecting evidence on the comparative merits and demerits of different rock formations, and obtaining suggestions which may help climbers to test their security, or the opposite, for themselves. [6]

### References

@@ -12,4 +50,6 @@


[4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal)

-[5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
+[5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
+
+[6] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7450/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.26-journal)
4 3rd September 2026 05:49:34 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.26 Journal transcript (Mistral)
Before
None
After
93,126 chars
5 3rd September 2026 05:48:29 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes
Before
The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed > The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5] ### References [1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal) [2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal) [3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal) [4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal) [5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
After
The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed: > The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5] ### References [1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal) [2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal) [3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal) [4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal) [5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
Diff
--- before

+++ after

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@

-The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed
+The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:

> The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]
6 3rd September 2026 05:48:29 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes_pretty
Before
<p>The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between <a href="/climber/4475/william-smithard" rel="noopener noreferrer">William Smithard</a> and <a href="/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ernest A. Baker</a>, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed</p> <blockquote> <p>The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]</p> </blockquote> <h3>References</h3> <p>[1] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal</a></p>
After
<p>The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between <a href="/climber/4475/william-smithard" rel="noopener noreferrer">William Smithard</a> and <a href="/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ernest A. Baker</a>, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]</p> </blockquote> <h3>References</h3> <p>[1] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal</a></p>
7 3rd September 2026 05:48:03 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes
Before
None
After
The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed > The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5] ### References [1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal) [2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal) [3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal) [4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal) [5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
Diff
--- before

+++ after

@@ -1 +1,15 @@

-
+The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between [William Smithard](/climber/4475/william-smithard) and [Ernest A. Baker](/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker), played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed
+
+> The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]
+
+### References
+
+[1] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal)
+
+[2] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal)
+
+[3] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal)
+
+[4] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal)
+
+[5] [https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal](https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal)
8 3rd September 2026 05:48:03 UTC remus climb High Tor Gully notes_pretty
Before
None
After
<p>The first ascent of this and a couple of other lines in the area became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between <a href="/climber/4475/william-smithard" rel="noopener noreferrer">William Smithard</a> and <a href="/climber/737/ernest-a.-baker" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ernest A. Baker</a>, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed</p> <blockquote> <p>The Editor regrets that this letter was, through an inadvertence, not published in the last number. In justice to Mr. Smithard, he considers its publication necessary as a reply to Mr. Baker. He does not, however, consider the correspondence of sufficient importance to the Club to publish further letters. [5]</p> </blockquote> <h3>References</h3> <p>[1] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7446/climbers-club-1904-vol.6-no.23-journal</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7476/climbers-club-1904-vol.7-no.25-journal</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7359/climbers-club-1905-vol.8-no.30-journal</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7378/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.29-journal</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://climbing-history.org/library/7398/climbers-club-1905-vol.7-no.28-journal</a></p>
9 3rd September 2026 05:46:29 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal Letter
Before
None
After
William Smithard
10 3rd September 2026 05:45:18 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal Contributor
Before
None
After
Geoffrey Winthrop Young
11 3rd September 2026 05:45:06 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal Contributor
Before
None
After
Ernest A. Baker
12 3rd September 2026 05:44:55 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal Contributor
Before
None
After
James Merriman Archer Thomson
13 3rd September 2026 05:44:14 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal transcript (Mistral)
Before
None
After
86,116 chars
14 3rd September 2026 05:43:48 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.29 Journal Contributor
Before
None
After
Lehmann J. Oppenheimer
15 3rd September 2026 05:43:21 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.29 Journal Contributor
Before
None
After
Walter Parry Haskett Smith
16 3rd September 2026 05:41:41 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.29 Journal Letter
Before
None
After
Ernest A. Baker
17 3rd September 2026 05:40:47 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.29 Journal transcript (Mistral)
Before
None
After
86,423 chars
18 3rd September 2026 05:40:04 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.27 Journal transcript (Mistral)
Before
None
After
144,999 chars
19 3rd September 2026 05:39:05 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.8 No.30 Journal Letter
Before
None
After
William Smithard
20 3rd September 2026 05:38:59 UTC remus library item Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.8 No.30 Journal Letter
Before
None
After
James Merriman Archer Thomson

Page 1 >