Waterville Valley: Probably Not What You Think

[NewEnglandSkier]

I think that likely the fact that this was a "new" mountain and trying it in less than stellar conditions is what led to these impressions. Often, trying a new mountain can be challenging in and of itself since you don't know the layout, how the trails ski or the best exposures for the conditions at hand (wind etc)--but add challenging conditions due to weather cycles into the mix and it makes it that much harder.
Since Mount Snow is Serafina's home mountain she's obviously really comfortable there and knows which runs she likes to ski and which ones are likely to be in the best shape on any given day. Everyone's expectations are different too, which is why I like reading reviews, as we get to hear about different perspectives and impressions.

 

[marzNC]

Perspective and context is a funny thing . . . every time I saw "WV" in this thread, my first thought is "West Virginia."

What's most useful about the review is that it covers how a beginner or cautious intermediate would view the day. That's a perspective that is rarely covered in posts on most online ski forums. However, that's probably of great interest to lurkers who are just getting started, or someone who is planning ski trips for a mixed ability group.

 

[abc]

Perspective and context is a funny thing . . . every time I saw "WV" in this thread, my first thought is "West Virginia."
What's most useful about the review is that it covers how a beginner or cautious intermediate would view the day. That's a perspective that is rarely covered in posts on most online ski forums. However, that's probably of great interest to lurkers who are just getting started, or someone who is planning ski trips for a mixed ability group.

That's an excellent point!

I wouldn't be able to provide that perspective even if asked specifically. So the review, if framed correctly, would be very valueable for many. Unfortunately, it was not clear at all until one reads it to the very end. Further more, the title itself adds to the misunderstanding: "probably not what you think", who were the supposed "YOU"? Only if "YOU" are lower intermediate or trying to get your lower intermediate family member to enjoy the mountain.

My view of WY in my limited visit, it can be an excellent mountain for a solid intermediaate on an average condition day. Particularly so if he/she is looking to be slightly challenged on slightly hard surface! (I don't like it though, I just don't find hard surface enjoyable)

I can understand the OP was frustrated by the experience. A rant is understandable after a week of that! And it can even be helpful for others in similiar situation. But a balanced review it was NOT. I'm glad it's now been put into better prospective.

 

[vickie]

Perspective and context is a funny thing . . . every time I saw "WV" in this thread, my first thought is "West Virginia."

What's most useful about the review is that it covers how a beginner or cautious intermediate would view the day. That's a perspective that is rarely covered in posts on most online ski forums. However, that's probably of great interest to lurkers who are just getting started, or someone who is planning ski trips for a mixed ability group.

I did the "West Va" thing too. I finally gave up and stopped correcting myself!

You are so right about the lack of information relevant to a level 2-5 (or thereabouts) skier. At those skill levels, I skied about 30 places in the northeast. I had the benefit of an advanced skier as a scout for blue trails. The ski club that I belonged to was continually clamoring for trip reports, so I wrote TRs of varying lengths that conveyed both my and my scout's perspectives. Only one of those ever got used. So I came to believe that either people don't really care about information that doesn't reflect their perspective - or I'm a poor writer. Or both.

@Serafina - if you and Mr S plan to travel and ski some, I'd be happy to share with you a little about my experiences and observations.