The Mystery of the Gray Needle and Some Secrets Revealed, 1953

[blazintoes]

Last year I contacted the USGS https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/i-found-error ... you-fix-it

And wrote this: The historic Gray Needle that was climbed by the CMC in 1953 has finally been found and climbed. The original pitons and star drive bolts were found on July 11, 2024 and a route was established to the correct summit on September 29, 2024. The official historic Gray Needle is located at: 37.64680,-107.59011The USGS Gray Needle is located at: 37.64652,-107.58931

Gray Needle Summit CO San Juan 187,836 15,048 12,671,233 2

The current trip report with a route established: https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/triprepo ... trip=22862
BGN page https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz- ... mes/187836

Forum discussion https://www.14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60638

They replied:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting the USGS. Your submission has been successfully received. A USGS customer service representative will answer your inquiry as promptly as possible. Your ticket number is 567270 and a copy of your inquiry is below for your records.

Subject: Change to USGS Gray Needle
Message:

Thank you for contacting The National Map Help Desk. I apologize for the length of time it took us to get back to you. We have preformed our analysis of the existing information and have escalated this report. As of right now, we are having technical limitations of moving the point but have backlogged the request for future revision.

Thank you for brining this to our attention.

Andy

[RyanSchilling]

...
Another interesting note—at the base of the Bishop on the south side where we roped up, we came across a single nut sitting on a rock (black diamond, not too old, but looked like an older version than the ones they sell these days). So someone at some point not too long ago considered climbing the Bishop from the south. Perhaps Peter's party? Unfortunately I used it for a rappel anchor on the North side of the Bishop.

I'm new to this thread, so please forgive me for replying to an older post...

What created the lovely imagery in Anima's latter two screenshots? Are those renderings of point clouds?

[Ebenton]

RyanS I don't personally know. Anima seems be extremely adept at LIDAR and how to make renderings from it. They are magnificent.

[Anima]

Thank you for your post Garrett—you filled in some information I have been after for a long time. Before I found the bolts I was (and still am) curious how the name came to be. I knew there were survey stations but didn't know how to find them. I figured that by placing oneself at the surrounding survey stations the true summit of the Gray Needle would be illuminated. As you have pointed out, it is Noname Needle that is seen from station 38. To this extent I agree with you that this very well may be the original Gray Needle. If it was the Hayden survey that named it, then this makes complete sense.

Independent of a lot of the 14ers info I also determined and climbed the “USGS summit” finding the plastic register left by Boggy though we went up a crack system further west to reach the summit. If you don’t factor in the mystery, romance, and folklore of the 1950’s ascent built up on this site it seems pretty straight forward.

The "USGS summit" (or now that the USGS has been put into motion in moving the point this name will no longer be pertinent, so the third needle from west) doesn't make any sense. The Bishop, a.k.a the 1953 Gray Needle with the bolts on it, as mentioned, is the main view from Noname Creek. We must remember that this is a named point. There is, as to my current understanding, no factor of prominence. If some long-forgotten miner looked up years ago, saw the Gray Needle, and named it, then the Bishop would be the Gray Needle. A mountain climber interested in the true summit would undertake a much more thorough reconnaissance and realize that there are five needles that make up Noname Ridge, none of which have any particular prominence besides Noname Needle. Perhaps they would then conclude that Noname Needle is actually the summit of Gray Needle and that which is viewed from the valley below is merely a false summit. Upon obtaining the summit of Noname Needle, they would look east to see more Needles rising in succession, once again with no particular prominence besides the highest one. At this point they are once again on a false summit. Traveling east, they eventually reach the summit of Jagged mountain and conclude that the Gray Needle and Jagged are the same and have been erroneously differentiated.

My point with the preceding description is this: the location of the named point cannot merely be an issue of "what is highest." The Bishop has a high point. That is good enough to be named. Perhaps an equivalent would be something like Mt. Cosgriff or Esprit point and the other points Boggy mentioned; they look like separate mountains from below, but had they not been named they would be considered nothing, merely bumps on a ridge to higher summits. Of course this argument does not include the issue of station 38 and what might have been named from there.

Regardless, the third Needle on the right with Boggy's summit register cannot be the summit intended by the USGS. I cannot think of an argument for this besides "its where its labeled on the map." It is hard, if not impossible, to believe that someone named that third needle. It has nearly no prominence compared to Noname Needle, cannot be seen from anywhere besides remote side views, in which case if someone were truly interested in naming these needles to the point that they wanted to name the one hardest to view, would not have exhausted themselves on the occasion and would have named all five. No one would undertake the effort to climb up onto Peak Six, Peak Five, or Peak Ten (or the upper reaches of Noname Creek) and then name the middle of a set of Needles and leave the obvious points unnamed. The third needle does not fit the logic of prominence (highest point) or the logic of what is most visible. It is not the Gray Needle. While I admire Boggy's early efforts to resolve the issue along his allegiance to the map, the third needle just doesn't make sense. At this point, I think it ought to become a unnamed unranked 13er. Maybe we can name it after him.

This leaves two possibilities: The Bishop or Noname Needle. Let's suppose that Noname Needle was what the Hayden Survey intended to be the Gray Needle. Though I am unsure of the origins of "Noname Needle" if I recall correctly it is presented in a guide book written by some eminent Colorado climber—someone who would have been well aware of the Gray Needle in the immediate vicinity. Clearly they concluded the points to be separate. Barry Bishop also concluded that Noname Needle was not the Gray Needle. More recently Steve, Jim, Boggy, blazintoes, myself and our other partners have concluded these to be separate entities. If Noname Needle and Gray Needle were an obvious conflation, then I think none of us would have pursued the issue beyond an ascent of Noname Needle, and left the 1953 ascent as historical error.

To this extent, we have one party—the Hayden Survey—possibly intending “Noname Needle” to be the Gray Needle. On the other hand, we have a 70-year tradition, upheld by some of the best climbers (notably Bishop, who was no stranger to first ascents), identifying the westernmost tower as the Gray Needle. Since this is a human construct, the latter interpretation ought to be favored. Even if “Noname Needle” was the original Gray Needle, its misrepresentation on the map has led to the emergence of two distinct points. Nearly every written account (at least those still extant) places the Gray Needle low on Noname Ridge, with Noname Needle at the apex. By that metric, they are separate entities. My conviction remains unchanged since I found the bolts: the true Gray Needle is the westernmost tower—the most prominent and visible point from below.

If something of note appeared in the archives then my opinion might change, especially with the murky origins of "Noname Needle." But at this point, after all the effort that has gone into it, the westernmost tower stands as something. For those interested in an unequivocal summit record, then they should probably just climb all five towers on the ridge and be done with it. The fourth needle is easy and I am under the impression that the second needle is also simple (will report on this soon when I go back) . Perhaps Bill can throw three more points on the map and then anyone persistent enough to pursue an ascent of one of them would probably just climb all of them—resolving, at last, what may or may not be.

[Anima]

...
Another interesting note—at the base of the Bishop on the south side where we roped up, we came across a single nut sitting on a rock (black diamond, not too old, but looked like an older version than the ones they sell these days). So someone at some point not too long ago considered climbing the Bishop from the south. Perhaps Peter's party? Unfortunately I used it for a rappel anchor on the North side of the Bishop.

I'm new to this thread, so please forgive me for replying to an older post...

What created the lovely imagery in Anima's latter two screenshots? Are those renderings of point clouds?

Yes I believe they are renderings of point clouds. They are easy to view.

1. Go to lidar national map: https://apps.nationalmap.gov/lidar-explorer/#/. Make sure you are in the Lidar section (left side of screen) and select "show were Lidar is available."

2. Click on the location of interest on the map. Not everywhere is available via this method yet, but almost all Colorado 13ers are. Once you click on the map, on the right hand side a results table open with the available products. Pick one, usually doesn't matter which. They are usually named with the location and a year.

3. To the left of the name of the data product. click the little green tree logo which will give the option for Lidar Visualization. My images are from the Potree Viewer. click on that. It takes you to a new website with the Lidar Data loaded. It can be hard to orient yourself and the default movement is weird. In the tool bar on the left side I usually scroll down to the tools section and then under the naviagation subsection I use the four arrows to move in a linear fashion or the orbital looking tool to spin around while remaining in place.

[Garrett]

It’s a good point the 1953 first ascent party was familiar with the ridge and had a specific point on the ridge in mind. I have no doubt they believed they reached the summit. Had they had the topo maps and data available to us now I doubt they would have pursued what seems more like the shoulder of the ridge line and likely would have gone higher. Regardless of the 1953 parties intention we have the data of today that would not, and has not led climbers to the same point they chose to climb.

The 1964 7.5-minute quad is the first map showing peak names with elevations and was a significant revision to the topography that had been used since essentially the 1900 15-minute quad. The 1964 map obviously wasn’t available in 1953 but offers a much better and accurate map of Gray Needle and the surrounding peaks. Rosebrough’s 1986 book “The San Juans, A climbing and hiking guide” states “Noname Needle is the apex of the ridge which extends north of Peak Ten. It has been confused by some for Gray Needle which is due west and lower at 13,430.” Referencing that 1964 map elevation and indicating for greater than at least 40 years that the point on that map represented the summit. I think there’s quite a bit of merit to Gray Needle as shown on this map but apparently I’m one of few.

It’s interesting the mention named, unranked summits located at low ends of ridges. Each of those mentioned is similar to Gray Needle in that they are named and have an elevation listed on the map. Except Cosgriff, to my knowledge that was never named on a topo map (edit- but I see it does show on 2013 and newer maps) and is more fitting to be associated with Yahoo ridge…anyway. Of those you mentioned, Sheep, King Salomon, and Middle are named with elevation point that is at a lower elevation than the 13er list summit which is at a higher elevation. So named on a map with an associated elevation, but the recognized 13er summit is higher point of elevation. The proposed move of Gray Needle is the opposite of these placing the summit at a lower elevation than the named elevation point on the map. That seems problematic and counter to what is typically done on the 13er list.

Along that same line if Gray Needle’s summit is moved what does one do with lidar peaks like 13,660 in a Sangre’s? Or Mt. Buckskin? Seems like there were others but I’d have to look and regardless the case is the same. The summit location of each of these mountains was moved based on lidar data to a summit with a higher elevation, which I wholely agree with. They were moved despite numerous climbers ascents of the former lower summit. This again is opposite and counter of what’s being proposed with a move of Gray Needle to the first ascent parties high point. If Gray Needle is moved to a lower unnamed location determined by historic climbing activity should the summits of those recently moved lidar summits be moved to their lower but previously climbed locations to follow suite. I think not but?

It begs the question of which takes precedence for the determination of a summit, the route and high point of a climbing party or the topography/elevation? I’m solidly in the topography/elevation camp on this one.

[Garrett]

Thanks Anima for your write up and didn’t see the first post last night. Just a few more thoughts and then I don’t have much more to add here.

I agree there are 5 points on the ridge but only three are clearly shown on the topo map, Noname Needle, the “usgs” Gray Needle and the point between so it isn’t about what’s highest but what's higher and shown on the map. From my perspective and my experience in the area the lower two points seemed more like part of the ridgeline, and the usgs and point closer to Noname distinctly bigger and more prominent.

IMG_3021_Original.jpeg

This picture shows all five and shows in my eyes that the topographic map is representative with the three enclosed points.

I see the location you guys want to move this too as a false summit and shoulder of the ridgeline, with the named point being the usgs summit as it is shown on the map. It just doesn’t add up for me in numerous ways that the lower end of the ridge should be designated as the summit. I guess we’ll see what the usgs does with Amy’s submittal.

[Boggy B]

The third needle does not fit the logic of prominence (highest point) or the logic of what is most visible. It is not the Gray Needle. While I admire Boggy's early efforts to resolve the issue along his allegiance to the map, the third needle just doesn't make sense. At this point, I think it ought to become a unnamed unranked 13er. Maybe we can name it after him.

No. lol

I like "USGS Gray Needle" until they officially move it. After that I'd go with "Coke Bottle Needle" since that's what Jim and Steve called it after the distinct bottle-shaped monolith on its east shoulder.

Ben Loftin did a prominence analysis and as I recall the result confirmed my guess as to the ranking: 1) "Noname Needle," 2) USGS Gray Needle, 3) Needle #2 (2nd highest), 4) Gray Needle aka the Bishop, and lastly 5) Needle #4 (2nd lowest). I can't find that message/email, but maybe Ben can post the numbers here.

EDIT: Here it is, from upthread:

Here's some elevation and prominence info for any who are interested. I'll send John the historic Gray Needle location to update LoJ.

Needle #

5: (Historic Gray Needle): 13335', 50' rise, (37.64680,-107.59011)
4: 13397', 46' rise (37.646610, -107.589530)
3 (USGS Gray Needle): 13,446', 76' rise (37.64652,-107.58931)
2: 13530', 65' rise (37.646432,-107.588435)
1 (Noname Needle): 13617', 169' rise (37.64623,-107.58762)

It’s a good point the 1953 first ascent party was familiar with the ridge and had a specific point on the ridge in mind. I have no doubt they believed they reached the summit. Had they had the topo maps and data available to us now I doubt they would have pursued what seems more like the shoulder of the ridge line and likely would have gone higher. Regardless of the 1953 parties intention we have the data of today that would not, and has not led climbers to the same point they chose to climb.

The 1964 7.5-minute quad is the first map showing peak names with elevations and was a significant revision to the topography that had been used since essentially the 1900 15-minute quad. The 1964 map obviously wasn’t available in 1953 but offers a much better and accurate map of Gray Needle and the surrounding peaks. Rosebrough’s 1986 book “The San Juans, A climbing and hiking guide” states “Noname Needle is the apex of the ridge which extends north of Peak Ten. It has been confused by some for Gray Needle which is due west and lower at 13,430.” Referencing that 1964 map elevation and indicating for greater than at least 40 years that the point on that map represented the summit. I think there’s quite a bit of merit to Gray Needle as shown on this map but apparently I’m one of few.

It’s interesting the mention named, unranked summits located at low ends of ridges. Each of those mentioned is similar to Gray Needle in that they are named and have an elevation listed on the map. Except Cosgriff, to my knowledge that was never named on a topo map (edit- but I see it does show on 2013 and newer maps) and is more fitting to be associated with Yahoo ridge…anyway. Of those you mentioned, Sheep, King Salomon, and Middle are named with elevation point that is at a lower elevation than the 13er list summit which is at a higher elevation. So named on a map with an associated elevation, but the recognized 13er summit is higher point of elevation. The proposed move of Gray Needle is the opposite of these placing the summit at a lower elevation than the named elevation point on the map. That seems problematic and counter to what is typically done on the 13er list.

Along that same line if Gray Needle’s summit is moved what does one do with lidar peaks like 13,660 in a Sangre’s? Or Mt. Buckskin? Seems like there were others but I’d have to look and regardless the case is the same. The summit location of each of these mountains was moved based on lidar data to a summit with a higher elevation, which I wholely agree with. They were moved despite numerous climbers ascents of the former lower summit. This again is opposite and counter of what’s being proposed with a move of Gray Needle to the first ascent parties high point. If Gray Needle is moved to a lower unnamed location determined by historic climbing activity should the summits of those recently moved lidar summits be moved to their lower but previously climbed locations to follow suite. I think not but?

It begs the question of which takes precedence for the determination of a summit, the route and high point of a climbing party or the topography/elevation? I’m solidly in the topography/elevation camp on this one.

I suspect the FA party knew which point Gray Needle was, and climbed it. I don't think they were unaware that every point to the east, then north, then east again to the summit of Jagged is successively higher. But yeah, if there had never been an ascent prior to the USGS futzing of the location, then the FA likely would have been of the middle one.

Cosgriff is an officially named 13er (apparently so designated in 2003, but I don't know its history) which puts it in a different class from "peaks" that are randomly named in modern guide books and then appear on lists (i.e. "Yahoo Mountain"). In my view, all of the old San Juan Mountaineers summits named in Lavender's guide in the 30's (which bore those unofficial names for some time preceding that) are of much greater significance and deserve to be listed (most are on LoJ), if not officially named by the USGS.

The named point on Sheep (near San Miguel) is consistent with the pin. King Solomon is maybe not too applicable since the name designates the entire massif, though I had thought the original label was on the low/north end of the ridge.

The lidar updates are moving only ranked summits where there was a survey error. In some of these cases LoJ has moved named summits--Middle was moved for this reason, though this approach is not taken consistently (IMO in those cases the named points should continue to be the official named/unranked summit, with new unnamed/ranked summits nearby, if they're sufficiently distinct)--there's a whole thread on this topic, with better examples, that Supra probably has bookmarked. Ben!?

13660 isn't a USGS name and was rightly moved due to a survey error. Not sure about Buckskin, the label seems to coincide with the ranked point, and there appears to be an error in the underlying map data here on 14ers. The major distinction again is that the question of whether to move a pin to a higher point based on lidar results is limited to ranked points.

[Boggy B]

Thanks Anima for your write up and didn’t see the first post last night. Just a few more thoughts and then I don’t have much more to add here.

I agree there are 5 points on the ridge but only three are clearly shown on the topo map, Noname Needle, the “usgs” Gray Needle and the point between so it isn’t about what’s highest but what's higher and shown on the map. From my perspective and my experience in the area the lower two points seemed more like part of the ridgeline, and the usgs and point closer to Noname distinctly bigger and more prominent. IMG_3021_Original.jpeg This picture shows all five and shows in my eyes that the topographic map is representative with the three enclosed points.

I see the location you guys want to move this too as a false summit and shoulder of the ridgeline, with the named point being the usgs summit as it is shown on the map. It just doesn’t add up for me in numerous ways that the lower end of the ridge should be designated as the summit. I guess we’ll see what the usgs does with Amy’s submittal.

No argument there--Gray Needle is definitely a false summit of "Noname Needle". This would have been apparent to the FA party. Just like Thunder Mountain is a false summit of the next bump up ridge, and so on for other named/unranked peaks.
As you approach up Noname Creek, the only point you can see is "Noname Needle" until you get close enough (under Animas maybe?), and thereafter the only point you can see is Gray Needle. The USGS Gray Needle is never distinct from the west. From the north and south, all five points are distinct and appear to have roughly the same prominence except for "Noname Needle." I want to say each one apart from the 2nd lowest should have its own closed 40-foot contour though. EDIT: Looks like they all get their own closed contour.

In terms of the list, I don't care what you climb as long as you say what you did. I also personally don't care if the USGS moves the label. Because I am convinced they mislabeled Gray Needle, for me locating and climbing the 1953 summit was necessary to confidently say I've climbed every named 13er, to say nothing of the allure of that bit of CO mountaineering history. HYOH

[RyanSchilling]

Yes I believe they are renderings of point clouds. They are easy to view.

1. Go to lidar national map: https://apps.nationalmap.gov/lidar-explorer/#/. Make sure you are in the Lidar section (left side of screen) and select "show were Lidar is available."

2. Click on the location of interest on the map. Not everywhere is available via this method yet, but almost all Colorado 13ers are. Once you click on the map, on the right hand side a results table open with the available products. Pick one, usually doesn't matter which. They are usually named with the location and a year.

3. To the left of the name of the data product. click the little green tree logo which will give the option for Lidar Visualization. My images are from the Potree Viewer. click on that. It takes you to a new website with the Lidar Data loaded. It can be hard to orient yourself and the default movement is weird. In the tool bar on the left side I usually scroll down to the tools section and then under the naviagation subsection I use the four arrows to move in a linear fashion or the orbital looking tool to spin around while remaining in place.

Thank you so much!