UKC

So far the tier naming system seems to have been inspired by the superior adjectival grades that climbers use, rather than simply settle for the number.

With Medium, High and Very High already,

is tier 4 going to be:

Very Very High?

Hard Very High?

Extremely High?

Severe Very High although I think we should skip to Extreme High 1 to make it easier for when we need tier 5.

It's a solo ascent of Great Gully (S).  You're on your own, it's miserable and the only ways of getting out involve unpleasantness, suffering and the hope that if you have real problems then someone will come and help.

T.

I'd say hard very high although I'm sure there should be a hard high between high and very high. As I'm not sure what the difference is between high and very high I'm not sure what that would involve. 

When does something like this become "unjustifiable"?

XS

Except in the Lakes, where it will be Mild Hard Very High +

Was expected to go high (like Lancelot Constant on the Rum Doodle expedition.)

Seems to be crying out for a technical grade to me. Anything less than two grades carries the grave risk of foreigners being able to understand it. Why not add the R number? This would give us Tier 4 HVH 1.2.

It doesn't matter.  Those who tell us the climb  is in Tier 3 4 or 5 (the next tier) will simply cheat and/or  ignore the rules anyway.

Cummings top-roped 3PS and claimed it was E2