UKC

Bowles Rocks

First experience of Southern Sandstone today, well what fun it is. I managed to Boulder out the problem Fandango right hand which is listed as a 6C in Boulder Britain. Just wondering if anyone can point me at the logbook for this Boulder problem. I can't imagine it's not listed but can only find the climb named.

Thank you.

In reply to puppythedog:
I really want to be able to log it. It's my first 6C

In reply to puppythedog:

This one?

No match for climb id:148613

In reply to puppythedog:

Doesn't count James it's only a boulder problem

Al

In reply to puppythedog:

It's the top of Fandango Right Hand that's the really good bit, though. IMHO

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well yes, but I doubt that he is referring to the traditional bottom bit at 6C.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
That book does seem to give RH 6C and the arrow looks like the line of the route?
I would assume a typo but Fandango gets 6B+ and even more bizarrely 6C for a sit-start.

In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2:



I hadn't seen the book and the Font grades, but I agree, that is bonkers.

Taking the starts to both alone, they are good finger jugs and about 5b at most, no?

As for the rest of LH, more jugs then a tricky English 5b/c to finish and RH, harder than LH all the way from the move right.

In reply to puppythedog:

There was a tough section low down without finger jugs, at least how I did it heading straight up from the comfy flake. I ended up with an okayish left hand to a small sharp three finger right layaway to a small crimp and then up to a three finger sharp right hand. From there it is hugs to the roof but that section felt tough and I had to fight hard for it. I'd have guessed at least 5c if not 6a tech.
I don't Boulder enough to know if 6C is appropriate and I don't want to log the climb having only done the Boulder.

In reply to puppythedog:

If you really want to log this there's a very easy way:

Take a piece of A4 paper.
Fold it in half to make a nifty little A5 booklet.
Write the word "Logbook" on the front.
On the inside write "Fandango RH start, 6C" along with the date you climbed it.

Sorted.

In reply to puppythedog:

Fandango RH takes the obvious line of weakness in the centre of the wall to the first break (at ~3m) then moves up and right to the 2nd break (at ~4.5m) then rounds the roof on the (surprise !) right.

When bouldering most, including me, bail out at the first break.

Assuming you took this line that would seem to make at least 6 possible non-eliminate boulder problems.
To the first break, to the 2nd break and to the top all from either sitting or standing starts ?

In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2:

Sorry I don't understand your question.

In reply to john arran:

Thanks John. I only keep my digital copy on ukc though and in my guidebooks. I like my ukc log to be up to date.

In reply to puppythedog:

Can anyone tell me what grade it gets in the southern sandstone bouldering guide and also what problem number it is in case it is listed on the UKC website under that title?

In reply to puppythedog:

Submit the problem to the crag moderator if the problem is missing from the database. If its in a guide it should be on UKC. f6C is moving into UK 6b terrain so if its UK 5c/6a border you should be voting something like f6A

In reply to puppythedog:
As I said above it depends on where you started and where you finished,
The bouldering guide gives 6A+ (for uk5b really ?) for a sit_start to the first break. (problem 43)

In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2:
Plenty of trad 5b boulder problems are actually hard 5c and in the UK I've climbed V3 f6A+ outdoors and V5 f6B+ indoors that were really top end BMC/YMC V0 5b (UK f4+/f5 border). Grading can be pretty poor from folk with no sensitivity, no will to look for the easiest way or lacking key skills. Even at font where f4 can feel like the living end (ie often around f6A in UK money) there is the odd easy UK 4b f3+ crack (like the one at the back of the Diplodocus area).

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks. I'm aware how tricky grading can be where there is no consensus built up.
I just wanted to be clear, while passing on the requested info that , in this case my personal opinion would differ.

In reply to Offwidth: I thought 5c/6a was more like V4/V5? Just going on the little peak bouldeing i have done/books I have read.

Thanks for your input. I have done enough 6As to feel confident saying this was not 6A for me. I don't care neough about grades to be too concerned but I am pleased when I manage to climb something harder than I have before.

Trad grades I have a little more comfort in and I did think it was at least 5c.

Thanks for your input.

In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2: I didn't stop at the first break but continued to the roof. Thanks for your input. I will log the problem you suggested if it is in the database.

Just for my understanding you said your opinion would differ. Can I ask what you opinio would be?

In reply to puppythedog:


Do what? Peak bouldering grades maybe but, remember, Marie Rose is V2.

I'd say that the consensus is that FRH is soft 5c to the roof.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
So what does that make it in font or vermin if it is 5c? Also where have you gleaned the consensus from?

In reply to puppythedog:

Gordon told us on here once how S/Sandstone grades were established following trips to Font and were, therefore, equivalent to those found in the Forest. This is particularly so at the lower grades (5s and 6s) with traditional types of problems, that is slabs and walls. You may well have found how modern problems in Font, steep ones, are far easier than those traditional ones, because technique is harder to buy than simple strength. One should say also that modern problems follow those at modern walls, steep but often with good holds; which is why it's a bugger sight easier to boulder steep juggy stuff than walls, even easy ones with little tricks like FLH and FRH.

I'm guessing that you are better at steep stuff on good holds than walls but, unfortunately, you've encountered one that you find difficult but the rest of the world thinks is a path. So what grade is it? Well, if Marie Rose is 6A, then FRH is 5C. Fortunately MR isn't benchmark 6A but you can claim 6A if you do all of it. That said if you were to do an equivalent at the Roaches, then I reckon it would be a 6B+.


Generations of SS climbers.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I was directly involved with input to nearly all the Peak BMC and VG areas to f6A and there are no significant areas of soft touches at lower grades I can think of and plenty of testing lines for the grade. The only areas I know of with major soft touches are newly described areas reported before consensus has been formed (eg Rodkfax inclusion of Woolpacks where some clefts I would give Severe 4b f3+ - and a recommendation to avoid due to scrttly surface rock - are included and given V2 or similar). I graded the same in my input to YMC with normal agreement with the locals but even a lower grade addict like me couldn't cover the full wealth of problems up there in time for the latest guides. As for Marie Rose I've always bottled it so far but it seems doable for me unlike many a f5 I've tried in font. My guess is watching braver and more talented mates is that its drifed to f6B due to the wear and tear of fame. Worse still I've been stopped by f3 slabs out there at a period I was working the low f6s back home. Font grades sub f6A just dont work at font.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Thanks for your post. I really struggle on steep ground and tend to manage much better on technique oriented problems.

So English 5c tech equals Font 5C ? Because the tech grades are brother/sister in origin.

Regarding generations of sandstone climbers I'm glad you have access to this consensus, I'm asking because the guide I have said significantly differently and I was not seeing a consensus in the discussion above?

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Southern Sandstone grades are fairly accurate compared with other UK sandstone / grit from around UK 5a and up. In the lower grades (ie 2's and 3's) they really don't correlate well at all with what adj grades you'd expect elsewhere (a diff must be about 3a but some of these ss climbs graded 3a have moves that would be on a severe else where).

Certainly I find my hardest pretty reliable on sight grade on ss (UK 5b) is spot on compared to other rock types and so is my hardest possible grade! (UK 6a)

In reply to puppythedog:

Southern sandstone certainly takes a lot of adjusting to, especially if you aren't already accustomed to similar rock. Even then I'd argue it takes time to get used to it, everything will likely feel harder than it is on your first trip.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Hi Steve
Not sure what is so mystical about Southwrn Sandstone. It's still just rock, with holds or not. It doesn't at first glance seem harder than any other. Certainly it didn't feel like it was any different.

I'm still a bit mystified that there is a suggestion that tech grades equal font grades. This can't be true at 6a and above surely?

In reply to puppythedog:

SS 5c = Font 5C (in origin) but SS 5c is not equivalent to limestone 5c.


Don't blame me for the combined ignorance of the internet!

In reply to puppythedog:
"Not sure what is so mystical about Southwrn Sandstone. It's still just rock, with holds or not. It doesn't at first glance seem harder than any other. Certainly it didn't feel like it was any different. "

All new rock takes a while to adjust to properly. Southern sandstone is particularly idiosyncratic. Have you climbed a lot on other sandstone? Grit is also similar but bit less so.

"I'm still a bit mystified that there is a suggestion that tech grades equal font grades. This can't be true at 6a and above surely?"

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't all UK tech grades originally come from font.

The issue with southern sandstone is in the lower grades under uk4a they don't seem to make sense at all when you compare to uk adj grades of an equivalent level partly because the rest of the UK doesn't include tech grades until 4a. This means everything under about uk5a on southern sandstone in out of kilter to the rest of the uk, the more out of kilter the lower the grade in general. I kid you not when I say I've fairly regularly fallen off UK3a - 3c on southern sandstone, yet have also on sighted UK5c! Really these low grade sandstone routes were well in to the UK4's and sandy so hard to predict.

Have a search about on here and you will find most people agree at about UK5a and above the sandstone grades are pretty spot on compared with the rest of the UK, maybe a bit harder on some crags but no more than a grade out normally.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Hi Mike,
Didn't all UK grades originally come from font?

Are you saying now that sandstone grades in the 5's and 6's are still more related to font grades than UK tech grades? I can easily provide examples in the 6's where that is not the case. Also consensus with most climbers on here (search the forums) and that I speak to, is that at about UK5a and above the sandstone grades are about right.

Cheers,
Stevo

In reply to puppythedog:
If you look at this chart
http://media.rockfax.com/2011/06/boulder_grade.jpg

It's pretty clear to see from what I'm saying - that in the lower grades, southern sandstone grades do seem to still be more based on font grades, partly because there isn't really a guide stick for these grades in the UK and we can't use adj grades for top roping. Traditionally in the rest of the UK many climbs weren't even given a tech grade until about 4b/4c or so, although you do quite commonly see 4a in the old guides, but almost never 3c.

From the chart at around UK 5a - 5c UK tech grades are pretty in line with font grades anyways. Above that it's very obvious the southern sandstone grades are UK tech grades unless an f is before the grade. Just look at any of the climbs on line where both grades are given. For example High Rocks

Hope that clears it up for you.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

When my brother and I started climbing on SE sandstone in 1966-67, we had no problem at all with the technical grades below 5a, and found them very useful. I don't recall having any disagreements with them. The scale was such that were close together and quite subtle. Even a 2b (like Small Chimney) could be quite technical and awkward. At 4b and above the grades became even more accurate. BUT we did find, when we first made the transition to leading in Snowdonia in 1968, that the technical grades on the mountain crags were at least half a grade easier than their sandstone equivalent. Such that e.g. Niblick at 5b would almost certainly be given 5c in the mountains.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Thanks for the response Steve.
It still seems odd to me that in today's graded world 6b tech could equal 6B Font.

Regarding lower grades I wouldn't know, haven't tried them. I've climbed a bit on Grit. I'll be honest I didn't find the climbing any more difficult for the size and location of the holds than I would have expected elsewhere. A three finger half pad crimp is a three finger half pad crimp regardless of what rock it is on.

In reply to puppythedog:
"Thanks for the response Steve.
It still seems odd to me that in today's graded world 6b tech could equal 6B Font."

Why? if you look at the table f6b can be either UK6a or UK6b? depends how pumpy / sustained the route is no?

" A three finger half pad crimp is a three finger half pad crimp regardless of what rock it is on."
Are you basing this on one visit to bowles? Bare in mind fandango wall is some of the nicest rock on southern sandstone of which bowles also has some of the nicest most normal rock. It's really the foot work and body position / tension which can be different due to the sandy rock surface. Try some other areas

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Niblick is very high in the 5b grade, you are correct IMO that it probably would be UK5c in many areas but maybe not Northumberland Whatever it's a great climb

Mostly the grades on SS are a linear scale I agree, so it doesn't matter too much that it's a bit out of kilter to the rest of the UK in the lower half and more like font grades. Personally I would prefer it if all uk climbs had a tech grade and that southern sandstone also adopted the same scale but maybe its a bit late for that.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I don't see that adj grades would contribute anything (except perhaps for the chimneying routes, partic at High Rocks - then one could have e.g awkward, very awkward and hard very awkward.) Mind you for soloing one could use adj grades substituting 'scary' for 'severe'. Thus Isolated Buttress and Ricochet are Very Scary and Unclimbed Wall is Hard Very Scary.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Oh, Pig's Nose deserves a mention. Definitely Hard Very Scary.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

My posts no longer make sense now that you've removed a reference to adj grades.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Sorry that was a typo

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm sure that you're right.


In origin, I believe so and yes, Font and SS appear to have more in common than elsewhere. But this does not work in all instances. Just as MR is hard at 6A, it was the first one of that grade, traditional 6As/6a's, in the Forest and in Sussex, are hard for the grade. But there is equivalence elsewhere, a traditional 6A at Curbar (Smoke ont' Water start) is slightly harder than Hate (6a).

In general I'm sure that you are right that there is broad equivalence at 5a but I don't think that you will find routes graded 5c or 6a on limestone or rhyolite that would be graded similarly on SS. You'd be bloody disappointed and test your gear far more often if they were.

There's also the argument that you can break down a problem into a series of Font or V grades, which is overanalysing SS routes but might also make some sense.

Edited to say that I see GS has now spoken and has a far better understanding of the history of it all that I do.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I understand that other areas may be different but then people telling me why a specific case might be causing me difficulties because SS is generally different etc etc is a reasonable reason for me to assume that they think the pecific case I talk about is representative.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Oh and I was typing my response whilst you were typing the link to the table so I hadn't read that when typing about finding it hard to be believe Tech 6b equals 6B.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Well my top rope grade on SS is consistent at UK 5b/5c/6a compared with what I can second elsewhere.

I can give you examples of 5c's that are fair or even under graded at the grade on SS this is just at bowles:
Coathanger (6b+)
Meager's Right Hand (6b)
Lee Enfield (6a+)
Pig's Ear (6b+) (this one is highish in the 5c grade but never 6a)
Rib (6b)

"In general I'm sure that you are right that there is broad equivalence at 5a but I don't think that you will find routes graded 5c or 6a on limestone or rhyolite that would be graded similarly on SS. You'd be bloody disappointed and test your gear far more often if they were.. "

It doesn't make sense to compare sandstone with rhyolite or limestone they are totally different and the later are way more readable / predictable. I suggest you compare with other sandstone areas. Comparing grades above about 4b - with Northumberland / N York moors I have to say I think the southern sandstone grades (above about 4b) are easier, Torridon pretty similar maybe ss is a little harder, compared to Yorkshire and western grit about the same......

If you want to see the difference between the UK and font grades in the 6's just buy the jingo wobble guide (as that often has both) or have a look at climbs on UKC that show both the CC grade and the font grade eg: Bowles Rocks . You will in general notice a significant divergence above about UK6a (as that is typically where the two grades diverge)

In reply to puppythedog:


I would say 5+ to the first break (perhaps 6A on the grounds that it's hard for the short) and UK5b/c
I wouldn't venture an opinion on moving right and continuing to the roof - too highball for me to have a basis for comparison due to my back problem -it's got a broad yellow streak but definitely harder.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm not super experienced on SS being an occasional vistor but I found stuff in the 5b to 6a range genrally OK if not a bit easy cf Peak grit and soft cf, Yorkshire grit. The only hard grades I found were sub 4 where Gordon and I have to agree to disagree (I didn't find them linear or logical, but my time there was a couple of decades after his)

In reply to Offwidth:
Yeah there are certainly some anomalies especially in the lower grades but they are linearish kindof, some climbs need regarding partly due to erosion for definite. The grades at that end of the scale don't bare much resemblance to what you'd expect in the rest of the uk mind.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
I think you maybe mean "monotonic kindoff" (ie increasing grades normally indicate an increase of difficulty). To me 'linear' implies a proportionality of grade with noticable differences in increasing difficulty (as a good grading system should). Like Font I'd add at least a whole number to anything sub 4 when translating to UK terms (ie a SS 3a is likely a typical UK 4a).

I'd add I think I perhaps suited SS in the 5b to 6a range... I found it friendly on a first visit whereas others with more visits still found it a bit more of a struggle.

In reply to Offwidth:
No by linear I was comparing the difficulty of ss climbs with the grades they are given, not the rest of the uk grades

In reply to CurlyStevo:

For the record, I would say that the sandstone grades, in every edition of the CC guidebooks from c.1965 onwards, have been more consistent, accurate and reliable than those in just about any other climbing region in the UK that I can think of.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Do the math
s 4a
Hvdiff 3c
Vdiff 3b
Diff 3a
Mod 2c
3 2b
2 2a

Yeah I'm saying they don't make sense unless you interpret the grades as font grades up to f5 ish, basically the ss grades are not in sync with UK grades until around this level. Reading through the later part of your post you have basically agreed with what I'm saying regarding the lower grades and it sounds like you think the ss grades are a lot more than half a grade out.

Window spout doesn't feel like ss 4a but with the errosion over the years it does feel like eastern grit severe now. When did you last do it?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

To be fair to Gordon they are more re-engineered grit grades and mountain grades can be less cruxy. Also in his day the 4a or 4b move on the mountain diff (equivalent to the low 3 moves on SS) were not explicitly graded like they often are now. He is also arguing from memories rather than recent experience with modern guides. The far more silly posts are the ones equating modern SS5c with modern F5C at Font.

In reply to Offwidth:

You think 5C tech equalling 5C is off? I've. Been thinking about this. I have found all 6As I have done more easy than I would expect a 5C tech move to be.

In reply to Offwidth:
Well ss 5c isn't far off the mark, you will be one of the few if you think they are all soft. Some of them are certainly nails.

So you think these bouldering tables are wrong then?
http://media.rockfax.com/2011/06/boulder_grade.jpg
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=108

cleary the bmc and rockfax think uk5c and font 5+ often equate.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Hi Steve, do you think they equate in your bouldering experience? Say in areas other that Southern Sandstone?

In reply to puppythedog:
Not done enough bouldering using font grades to be sure. All the tables I've seen on line suggest UK 5c is around mid grade f5+, my experience of ss grades are they feel pretty spot spot on in the UK 5's compared to other rock types ie I can reliably onsight 5a nearly reliably 5b and after a few try's nearly get all of them, 5c onsight about 1/5 and fail on about 1/3 after practice especially when foot holds don't exist or the moves are very bunched up, 6a is a real bonus if I ever get it! Limestone I'm more reliable on partly as it tends not to completely run out of foot holds or get too bunched up as often, and I guess it's more readable. My upper limit is still the same though (ie hardly ever get UK 6a moves) and my fail cases tend to be the same too (bunched up / lack of foot holds, I'm good with small feet and weight bearing smears)

In reply to puppythedog:


I've looked at Boulder Britain and both FRH and FLH are overgraded.

Can you help me understand you grading better by doing, say, Old Kent Road (stick to the stringent rule) and Honeycomb at High Rocks?

In reply to Mike Highbury:
I think puppy's post was related to bouldering and leading on other rock types / indoors

In reply to CurlyStevo:









I don't know anyone who ever uses adj grades on SS. Nor, conversely, anyone who uses technical grades on mountain routes of Sev and below (I never did.) So the above schema is lost on me. All I said was that the SS grades were very consistent internally.


c. 1983

In reply to puppythedog:
To be clear its SS 5c (which seemed pretty standard UK 5c from my limited experience) and 5C in font that I think are very different. The UK is 'reinventing' a much easier version of font grades sub 6 (and the same for lower V grades for that matter) partly becuase Font locals have been ridiculously stubborn in recognising many easier problems have got much harder with use (but not all, so grades are really 'scattergun') . I know SS grades came from Font originally, and became UK tech grades, but since then UK tech took on a life of its own; and there has been a lot of erosion and polishing of the problems (Font and SS).

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Not sure I can help you understand my grading by me climbing other problems. I assume that is you trying to get me to understand your grading better.

To be clear, I am happy to accept that Southern Sandstone is its own grading micro climate. What I am saying is in my limited bouldering experience all of the boulder problems with 5c moves in have been at least 6A. this contravenes the hard and fast 5c =5C rule talked about above. Then again, if tech 5c on Sandstone is more likely to be 6a elsewhere that makes a bit more sense.

Although Steve has highlighted the grade conversion i am not taking it as gospel because it is different to my experience.
for example Gruesome Mantel (f6A)
I don't think I found a move harder than 5b on this.

In reply to puppythedog:

Also if anyone can point me at a Southern Sandstone ticklist or several of them that would give me a good tour I would appreciate it.

And try to remember I don't care that much about this grading lark, I only thought 6C because a guidebook said it was.

In reply to puppythedog:
I think Gruesome Mantel is a victim of the messing around with grading systems and is also very morphological. As such its a terrible grade standard. Rockfax have reinvented UK V3 as UK f6A when virtually everyone else has UK V2 or hard UK V2 as UK f6A. They have also have V2 as f5+ and V1 as f5 etc... at least a half grade softer on V grades than other guidebooks. The best way to judge Peak standards around f6A is to pick starred routes in VG Peak Bouldering and see what their VG and BMC grades are (the BMC left out stars but there are clues for classic status in the text)

In reply to puppythedog:
There is almost never a hard and fast grade conversion especially when they are measuring different things (ie hardest move Vs whole problem), much of it is a matter of opinion, variable and subjective anyways.

Maybe this table is more accurate?

http://javu.co.uk/Climbing/Guides/DartmoorBouldering/Grades.shtml

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Most severe's now normally get a tech grade, the norm is to grade this now if it's 4a or above, if they are bold I'd say there is even becoming tendency to show this by grading S 3c!

Yeah the SS grades are quite consistent but they need a bit of rethinking here and there partly I suspect due to erosion of the rock and ground.

I guess my point is look at this table:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=108
What tech grade do you think a mod would get? my guess around 2c/3a. 3a on SS is normally closer to a severe than a mod in terms of how it feels to top rope / second both, I solo mods regularly, there is many SS 3a climbs I'd be wary of soloing and don't find super easy, sometimes I find the more positive less sandy climbing at 4c/5a and above easier!

In reply to CurlyStevo:

All these tables agree from f6B but all have variations on a theme below.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


I haven't a clue. Mostly because a Mod has virtually no 'technical' difficulty. I know that when I starting climbing/leading in 67/68 we really didn't take grades very seriously. They were really just useful guidelines. The first climb that really felt like a proper rock climb, the full monty, was Terrace Wall Variant at H V Diff. But, even then, we didn't feel we were quite doing 'the real thing' until we were climbing VS. I remember that was the attitude of most of the people of roughly our age and climbing ability/experience at the time too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But there is a difference in the technical difficulty of climbs at this level, that's partly why we have 3 scrambling grades below the rock climbing grades.

Anyway I guess if you don't want to extrapolate past the uk tech grades in common use fair enough. I can only compare to climbs that are graded in the uk. In my experience currently SS 3a is more like 3c/4a elsewhere, SS 4a closer to 4b/4c.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Well, the difference between a Grade I and II scramble I suppose is a bit like the difference between walking on cobbles and walking on very rough scree (bearing in mind that what the body is doing in all walking or climbing up and down stairs etc etc is quite 'technical', yet totally natural) I think exposure and perceived danger comes into those scrambling grades a bit too. i.e how it 'feels'.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You could tell similar moves on some lower grade mountain routes were harder than others and you said already the lower grade SS routes made sense grade-wise so you know perfectly well what technical difficulty is on easier routes even if the label was only used sub 4a on SS (unless you count the Paul Nunn peak guide). Scramble grades are more adjectival.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yeah, but the tables do fairly consistently put mid grade UK5c at mid grade font 5+. I wasn't specifically comparing to font grades at font by the way, as I've never been. I'm not really a boulderer, so I was just using the tables to extrapolate and also from experience of low grade SS routes and other low grade UK routes.

Sandstone 2a I think is about the same as a diff elsewhere. I've even done some grade 1's on sandstone and they can often be harder than any scrambles IMO.

There is a further oddity on sandstone, there is no 1c or 2c grades!

If you search the UKC threads this SS - font grade thing has been done before, consensus seems to normally agree that below about UK5a SS grades are basically font grades and above they aren't too far out compared with normal UK grades.

In reply to Offwidth:

I have to agree, grade 1 scrambles are pretty much a ladder on a slab or just a rough walk with a lot fall potential. Things like Angles Ridge (Cairngorms), Zig Zags (Glencoe), CMD arête. Grade 3 is much more technical and involves smearing, rounded holds, Cracks and bridging things like Easy Route (Glen Coe), Tryfan Fach, Clogwyn y Person Arete. Grade 2 is somewhere in between and for me is less scary than a 3 which can require sometimes a cool head and a bit more commitment (without a rope) because the moves are harder and / or more sustained and there is less leeway for error, especially if climbing alone.