remus

	Country	Contributions	Between	Climbers	Crags	Summits	Climbs	Ascents
1	United Kingdom	53143	14th November 2023 – 2nd October 2026	1423	699	0	3072	4895
2	USA	24599	14th November 2023 – 2nd October 2026	795	181	2	848	2358
3	France	12150	14th November 2023 – 2nd October 2026	264	126	1	551	1032
4	Switzerland	9430	14th November 2023 – 29th September 2026	77	43	1	307	1105
5	Spain	8349	15th November 2023 – 26th September 2026	89	74	0	443	896
6	Italy	4632	16th November 2023 – 1st October 2026	118	59	0	184	358
7	South Africa	3656	16th November 2023 – 28th September 2026	12	35	0	128	394
8	Canada	3160	16th November 2023 – 2nd October 2026	63	21	3	108	270
9	Germany	3101	16th November 2023 – 25th September 2026	116	48	0	103	224
10	Austria	2544	16th November 2023 – 30th September 2026	70	26	0	105	224

	Date	Time	User	Type	Name	Attribute
7441	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)
7442	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`
7443	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>
7444	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]
7445	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>
7446	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)
7447	3rd September 2026	05:46:29 UTC	remus	library item	Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.7 No.28 Journal	Letter
Before `None` After `William Smithard`
7448	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`
7449	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`
7450	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`
7451	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`
7452	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`
7453	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`
7454	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`
7455	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`
7456	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`
7457	3rd September 2026	05:39:05 UTC	remus	library item	Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.8 No.30 Journal	Letter
Before `None` After `William Smithard`
7458	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`
7459	3rd September 2026	05:37:26 UTC	remus	library item	Climbers' Club 1905 Vol.8 No.30 Journal	transcript (Mistral)
Before `None` After `58,651 chars`
7460	3rd September 2026	05:37:04 UTC	remus	library item	Climbers' Club 1904 Vol.6 No.23 Journal	Letter
Before `None` After `William Smithard`

Badges

Contributions

Posts

57

827

7337

193177

195

195

Contributions Map

Contributions by Country

Recent Contributions

< Page 373 >