Sugarbush Valley?

[skiladi]

With all the talk in here about one valley and all I got a little nostalgic. Although I've only been visiting the valley for about 15 years there was a time in history , before 1979 ( I think ) when it WAS the Sugarbush Valley. Not trying to get into the discourse of late , just thought the map was interesting, there are others , also and let you all know that I hope we can all get along now and enjoy the 4th celebration soon. Hoping for good weather! ; }

[daevious]

Those were the days, eh? Back then, Lincoln Peak was over 4,000 ft high; today, it's only 3975'.

[summitchallenger]

That's a lot of erosion! Maybe there was just too much excitement in '65 for the mountain to handle.....

[daevious]

Or maybe they gave it away.

The last paragraph - $30 for five days of lift tickets and 10 hours of lessons? $30 in 1965 is about $200 in today's money.

[slatham]

Interesting that the core terrian has not changed very much. Other than RipCord, Birdland and North Lynx, its the same mountain as it was 45 years ago! And just to be clear, THIS IS A GOOD THING! While I would love to see additional terrain, I am glad that the boulevards of other areas have not come to Sugarbush.

And speaking of Birdland, do I read the map correctly that Steins was originally called Birdland? Did not know that bit of trivia.

[HowieT2]

With all the talk in here about one valley and all I got a little nostalgic. Although I've only been visiting the valley for about 15 years there was a time in history , before 1979 ( I think ) when it WAS the Sugarbush Valley. Not trying to get into the discourse of late , just thought the map was interesting, there are others , also and let you all know that I hope we can all get along now and enjoy the 4th celebration soon. Hoping for good weather! ; }

Thank you for starting a thread without whining or complaining about the mods.

[Lostone]

I recall SRO saying something about a donation having been made to name it Sugarbush Valley, for a time. Or maybe it was just the name of the Chamber that changed? Sure there are others who know the truth.


As for it getting smaller, I was thinking that it could be that North had been purchased, and included, but I think it is too early for that.

My second explanation...? Shrinkage. Gets cold up there.

[summitchallenger]

"North" was purchased in 1979.

[Tin Woodsman]

Interesting that the core terrian has not changed very much. Other than RipCord, Birdland and North Lynx, its the same mountain as it was 45 years ago! And just to be clear, THIS IS A GOOD THING! While I would love to see additional terrain, I am glad that the boulevards of other areas have not come to Sugarbush.

And speaking of Birdland, do I read the map correctly that Steins was originally called Birdland? Did not know that bit of trivia.

That's just the map messing with you. There used to be a run called Birdland that ran roughly from the top of VH to where Egan's Woods spills out onto Lower Birdland today. It has long since grown in. The map does make it appear as though it was Stein's, but Stein's hadn't been cut yet as of this map. If you look on ShadyJay's excellent SB history site, you can see the evolution of those two runs through the years in each successive trail map iteration.

[win]

Very intersting. Thanks for sharing. Depending upon what you think inflation averaged on a compound annual rate for the last 45 years the $30 is equivalent today to:

3% inflation = $495

4% inflation = $678

5% inflation - $940

PS: the elevation difference is likely due to the fact that the Gondola exited on the plateau above where Heaven's Gate top terminal is today.

[daevious]

I agree with your calculations, Win; if the question is how much would I have today if I'd invested $30 in 1965, then compounding inflation is the way to do it and your numbers work. Here, though, the question is how much do I have to earn, or have in my pocket, in 2010 to equal the $30 I might have had (or spent) in 1965, which is a little different and compounding is not required. Using historical inflation data according to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the answer is that $30 in 1965 is equivalent to $207.65 in 2010. Of course, today we expect (and Sugarbush provides) a lot more than in 1965 - ubiquitious snowmaking, grooming, winch cats, on-mountain dining and services, lodging, liability and workers compensation insurance, high-speed lifts, etc. The bottom line is that we probably do pay more now, but we also receive more.

As for the elevation difference, the real answer is that the USGS resurveyed and adjusted the "official" elevation of Lincoln Peak and several others in the early 1970s. At that time, Vermont went from having seven 4,000-foot peaks to our current five.

[Fourwide]

"Of course, today we expect (and Sugarbush provides) a lot more than in 1965 - ubiquitious snowmaking, grooming, winch cats, on-mountain dining and services, lodging, liability and workers compensation insurance, high-speed lifts, etc. The bottom line is that we probably do pay more now, but we also receive more."

Nice explanation, daevious! One additional point--all those capital expenditures were purchased or financed with inflated dollars, so the compounding over the years does play into the total cost of what we pay for today.

[Tin Woodsman]

I agree with your calculations, Win; if the question is how much would I have today if I'd invested $30 in 1965, then compounding inflation is the way to do it and your numbers work. Here, though, the question is how much do I have to earn, or have in my pocket, in 2010 to equal the $30 I might have had (or spent) in 1965, which is a little different and compounding is not required. Using historical inflation data according to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the answer is that $30 in 1965 is equivalent to $207.65 in 2010. Of course, today we expect (and Sugarbush provides) a lot more than in 1965 - ubiquitious snowmaking, grooming, winch cats, on-mountain dining and services, lodging, liability and workers compensation insurance, high-speed lifts, etc. The bottom line is that we probably do pay more now, but we also receive more.

As for the elevation difference, the real answer is that the USGS resurveyed and adjusted the "official" elevation of Lincoln Peak and several others in the early 1970s. At that time, Vermont went from having seven 4,000-foot peaks to our current five.

Good stuff. Besides LP, what other mountain fell below the 4K threshold?

[shadyjay]

While not falling below 4k, Mt Ellen had an additional 50' of elevation during the mid 90s into the early 2000s.... did anyone ever figure THAT one out?

[skiladi]

I agree with your calculations, Win; if the question is how much would I have today if I'd invested $30 in 1965, then compounding inflation is the way to do it and your numbers work. Here, though, the question is how much do I have to earn, or have in my pocket, in 2010 to equal the $30 I might have had (or spent) in 1965, which is a little different and compounding is not required. Using historical inflation data according to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the answer is that $30 in 1965 is equivalent to $207.65 in 2010. Of course, today we expect (and Sugarbush provides) a lot more than in 1965 - ubiquitious snowmaking, grooming, winch cats, on-mountain dining and services, lodging, liability and workers compensation insurance, high-speed lifts, etc. The bottom line is that we probably do pay more now, but we also receive more.

As for the elevation difference, the real answer is that the USGS resurveyed and adjusted the "official" elevation of Lincoln Peak and several others in the early 1970s. At that time, Vermont went from having seven 4,000-foot peaks to our current five.

Good stuff. Besides LP, what other mountain fell below the 4K threshold?

Cutts Peak, located between Mt. Ellen and Nancy Hanks Peak, offers extremely limited views, despite its high elevation. Due to its lack of vertical prominence, this 4,022' peak does not officially count in the five highest peaks in Vermont. HMMMM?!