20 replies to this topic

[kadeycat]

Just starting to gain some elevation


Love the little Tundra flowers- purple, yellow, red


Top of East sister


Top of West sister


The long road home

Great sunny day- only a tiny snow bank on the trail - and I proved to myself that it was not a fluke that I made it here the first time.

Have a wonderful weekend.

[DeeCeeM]

Great pictures! I would love to see that in person.

[mwilson]

Very nice pictures. That's one we've never done.

[AliceH]

Beautiful!

[Becky J.]

Great pictures.

Becky J.

[mistylady]

Outstanding views. We have never hiked Twin Sisters, either. On the list now!

[Allie]

Great photos, sure looks like a beautiful day.

[Monica]

Looks like a perfect day.
Beautiful pictures!

[DrCloud]

OK, boys and girls, I'm confused here, so I thought I'd bump this thread to see if I someone can straighten me out. The photos are worth looking at again, anyway.

Now, when you're driving up to EP from, say, the Denver airport, you can come west on CO66 (through the north end of Longmont to Lyons), and way up there you see a couple of separated peaks (maybe a quarter-mile apart) on a nice north-south ridge in front of Long's Peak -- it all has a certain resemblance to, um, certain feminine anatomical features. The maps seem to call this entire ridge "Twin Sisters Mountain." Ever since about 1975, I thought these two were the "Twin Sisters," TS North and TS South.

Up close, though, there are two distinct, close-together peaks on the northern of the two separated ones, and east peak and west peak, both about 11,400' (whereas the southern one of the two separated ones is barely 11,000), and it seems that these two are really the "Twin Sisters" except for on certain uncertainly labeled Internet pictures. Right?

So, if all that's true, what's the southern, separated one called? I can't find a name for it anywhere, and it's surely obvious enough that it must have been given a name at some point. Any ideas out there?

Thanks for scratching this particular itch, HPH

[mathguy]

DrCloud, on 11 August 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

Now, when you're driving up to EP from, say, the Denver airport, you can come west on CO66 (through the north end of Longmont to Lyons), and way up there you see a couple of separated peaks (maybe a quarter-mile apart) on a nice north-south ridge in front of Long's Peak -- it all has a certain resemblance to, um, certain feminine anatomical features. The maps seem to call this entire ridge "Twin Sisters Mountain." Ever since about 1975, I thought these two were the "Twin Sisters," TS North and TS South.

Up close, though, there are two distinct, close-together peaks on the northern of the two separated ones, and east peak and west peak, both about 11,400' (whereas the southern one of the two separated ones is barely 11,000), and it seems that these two are really the "Twin Sisters" except for on certain uncertainly labeled Internet pictures. Right?

So, if all that's true, what's the southern, separated one called? I can't find a name for it anywhere, and it's surely obvious enough that it must have been given a name at some point. Any ideas out there?

Igloo Ed has to know the answer to this because he's clearly driven along that route a million times, but
here's my theory (which may only add to the confusion). When approaching Estes Park along
HW36 (via HW66 through Lyons) I too have noticed two very prominent peaks with the...er...
anatomical features that you noted. They look so tall that I first thought they were Long's and Meeker.
But when you get really close to EP they stand behind the Twin Owls on Lumpy Ridge, so they are certainly
not Long's and Meeker. A little looking at the map and Google Earth leads me to think that they are Mummy
Mountain and Hague's Peak. Let me emphasize that the features I am talking about are seen from HW36
as you approach EP and look in a northwesterly direction. I don't recall that one gets a good view of the
Sister's from that route, though I may well have missed it.

Igloo Ed and Scott Oatley (who's a really good map guy) please chime in because I'd like to know the answer
to this too.

Edited by mathguy, 13 August 2011 - 06:16 PM.

[DrCloud]

mathguy, on 13 August 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Igloo Ed has to know the answer...

Actually, he's one of the people whom I'm hoping has some insight here, although the Sisters are clearly beneath the dignity of his usual climbs...

Quote

When approaching Estes Park along
HW36 (via HW66 through Lyons) I too have noticed two very prominent peaks with the...er...
anatomical features that you noted. They look so tall that I first thought they were Long's and Meeker.
But when you get really close to EP they stand behind the Twin Owls on Lumpy Ridge, so they are certainly
not Long's and Meeker. A little looking at the map and Google Earth leads me to think that they are Mummy
Mountain and Hague's Peak.

Nope. I'm talking about the two widely (~1/10 mi) separated peaks on Twin Sisters Mountain versus the two (hard to see until you're up there) very close ones at the north of the two more distinct features. I'm thinking that I've been wrong all these years about the widely separated ones' being called the "Twins"; but I'm wondering if the south one has another name. It's not so high, so maybe "Little Sister" would be appropriate.

My copy of Lisa Foster's book is 1800 miles west of me just now so I can't even look up her opinion.

Now, maybe, just maybe, I'm right and everyone else is wrong: there are North and South Twin Sisters; and the supposed "East" and West" nearly conjoined "peaks" (on the North of the two more prominent ones, when viewed from, say, Longmont) are really just sub-peaks of the North Sister. Thing is, I don't know and I'd like to. The Internet is not clear on all this, unfortunately, and it's clearly the burning question of our time. Or at least today. HPH

[foxfire]

Twin Sisters according to "peakery" data is the 1212 highest mountain in Colorado and 2102 highest in the United States. Twin Sister Mountain, I believe is just south of Twin Sisters and has an elevation of 10,909. Just a little info. Information on such things seems always to be in question so I will not argue otherwise or not. Just a little reading on the subject of "The Sisters"

Fox

[ScottO]

Twin Sisters Peaks lie mainly east-west of each other; I believe the western summit is a bit north of the other. These are the two you see from a distance that look like a mini Longs-Meeker double hump. The eastern is the higher of the two. To the south, about 1/2 a mile, are two unnamed points 11376 - only 40-50ft lower than the summit - and 10711. To the north, almost a mile, is another unnamed point 10831 which is at the top of The Crags. The trail reaches the summit area via the north face of the mountain. The bowl/saddle between the summits slopes down from north - where the trail enters - to south. There are two small sub-summits that are at the north and south end of the bowl/saddle. The northern one is rounded and higher than the more pointy southern one. The trail enters the summit bowl between the main western summit and this northern sub-summit. There are additional outcroppings scattered around the perimeter of the summits and the two sub-summits. Depending on where you view Twin Sisters from, it either looks like two well defined humps or a long lumpy ridge. The latter being an angle that profiles the east-west main summits, and some of the sub-summits and outcroppings, and possibly point 11376.

Other than The Crags, I know of no other named features around the summit area.

Hope this helps.

ScottO

[DrCloud]

ScottO, on 13 August 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

Twin Sisters Peaks lie mainly east-west of each other; I believe the western summit is a bit north of the other. These are the two you see from a distance that look like a mini Longs-Meeker double hump. The eastern is the higher of the two. To the south, about 1/2 a mile, are two unnamed points 11376 - only 40-50ft lower than the summit - and 10711. To the north, almost a mile, is another unnamed point 10831 which is at the top of The Crags. The trail reaches the summit area via the north face of the mountain. The bowl/saddle between the summits slopes down from north - where the trail enters - to south. There are two small sub-summits that are at the north and south end of the bowl/saddle. The northern one is rounded and higher than the more pointy southern one. The trail enters the summit bowl between the main western summit and this northern sub-summit. There are additional outcroppings scattered around the perimeter of the summits and the two sub-summits. Depending on where you view Twin Sisters from, it either looks like two well defined humps or a long lumpy ridge. The latter being an angle that profiles the east-west main summits, and some of the sub-summits and outcroppings, and possibly point 11376.

Other than The Crags, I know of no other named features around the summit area.

Hope this helps.

ScottO

Thanks, Scott -- This is indeed helpful, although I'm going to take issue with the statement I highlighted. The discussions isn't up to a thousand words yet, but I put a picture below anyway. It's an older topo map, so the TS trail is the old one; on the map, the words "Twin Sisters" along the ridge top RMNP boundary (lower right) are followed by "Mountain."

Now, it sounds like you're saying what the map says, that the Twin Sisters Peaks are #s 1 & 2 on the map, and this seems to be what the OP was implying, too. (#4 is clearly the top of The Crags.)

But surely it's the case that what you see from out by Longmont is #s 1&2 together (on the right) and #3 separately on the left, making the two humps from that distance. I watch them on my drive up (E-470, then I-25, then CO66) from the Denver airport, and they're quite distinct all the way, first looking to be well north of Meeker/Longs, then, as you get farther north and directly to the east of them, in front of the bigger pair. That the southern of these two (i.e., #3) is un-named is something I guess I'll have to live with ("Little Sister", though does seem to fit.).

Anyway, I'll stop telling people that the two summits that are about a half-mile apart are the Twins now. Thanks for the discussion. HPH

[ScottO]

Hi DrCloud. I agree with your analysis. The "TS Peaks" are too close to form the double hump seen from a distance. As you say, it must be point 11376 that makes the second hump. It's the only feature that would appear to have the same elevation from far away.

The weird thing is, I don't recall seeing point 11376 when I've been on the Peaks. I suppose I have to go back up there now. I wonder if point 11376 is easy to climb.

ScottO