Avg: 2.9 from 7
votes
Pitch 1: climb the first pitch of Excalibur to a modern anchor with brown hangers/hardware (the anchor was upgraded in July 2025). You'll see two bolted anchor options - Merlin traditionally uses the right anchor, leaving the left free for parties on Excalibur.
Pitch 2: Place pro high in the corner then move right to the first bolt (pg13). Continue up good holds to the first crux on the arete. Get a rest underneath a roof then fire the second crux to a good stance on the arete. From here it is easy to be suckered left into Crybaby. Stay right on the arete through some more balancey moves, plug a cam, and pull onto the ledge.
Pitch 3: There are two options. Immediately above the anchor you'll see bolts the bolts of Alchemy moving up the face. This is the preferred and most logical finish. The original exit pitch moves to the right and finishes up the corner you rapped in on (standard sandia rack, 5.9).
Located just to the right of Excal, this is the obvious arete with the best position of all the climbs on this wall.
set of draws, trad rack up to #2 or Camalot. 2 x 50m doubles is great.
Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Denver, CO
Why the PG13 rating? Are there any sections of hard climbing where you don't want to fall?
Is the direct finish to this crybaby or something? 13a? Nov 30, 2007
Albuquerque, NM
I haven't been back on the route since the 5.13 variation was established and the new final pitch to the top. Nov 30, 2007
Austin, TX
The Dungeon, NM
-I got a bomber #0.3 in the corner above the belay, before traversing. Sure was glad when I clipped the first bolt anyway.
-Alchemy appears to be the most obvious and direct finish, it's straight up over the anchors (would recommend this way). I haven't done the 5.9 crack finish, so maybe I dont' know, but it doesn't seem to be 'the line'. Feb 8, 2025
Albuquerque, NM
Albuquerque, NM
Some notes for those who would try it (small amounts of 'beta' - ye be warned):
-I did some cleaning on this route in July 2025. The rock is a tad crumbly in places still but would clean up with traffic. I found the rock to be solid where I needed it to be.
-Gear: .3 right off the belay, #1 before the chains. 8 draws and 3 alpine draws is plenty for the crux pitch.
-The 3rd or 4th bolt is a little suspect (a lot of bolt showing) and should be replaced. Fortunately it doesn't protect any hard moves.
-It makes the most sense to me to add one more bolt in the middle of the traverse at the start. This would make for less drag and remove the pg13 rating on this pitch.
Edit: forgot to mention this the first time and Bryan and I discussed this but you can easily accomplish the same intent by moving the first bolt so that you clip it before doing the committing move.
-Routefinding: from the 'stance' after the first crux you could theoretically step right into Watchman's, head up the end of the corner, and then step back left to some easier, mungier rock to still get to the anchor (avoiding the second crux). I don't recommend this as you'll miss out on the amazing position and climbing on the upper half of the route. It's easy to get sucked left into crybaby - once you clip one more bolt above the second crux that's your last bolt for Merlin. If you find yourself doing a third crux you've gone astray. Aug 3, 2025
The Dungeon, NM
-I agree the traverse at the start is a bit out of character and could be seen as a contrived (minor) runout.
-And yet, a part of me would love to redpoint the climb as it was when the good climbers I look up to did it (i.e., without a bolt there), including my friends Sebastian (above post), and Josh, of whom a photo of leading this pitch (and skipping the 0.3 as well) is on the cover of the guidebook that I carry around so many days up there, and a couple others who've left comments on this page. I want to climb as hard as they all did.
-And yeah, I’ve led the pitch, without sussing or TRing it first.
I guess I’m asking please either talk to me or wait until I send before changing it? It’s a great pitch, and could definitely see giving it 5 or 10 tries.
Respectfully,
George Aug 4, 2025
Albuquerque, NM
I respect the history of the route and the achievements of those who climbed it in what’s considered a bold style. That legacy will always be there for anyone who chooses to repeat it the same way — skipping a piece of gear or a bolt is a personal choice. But in this case, we’re talking about adding a single bolt on a non-crux section — one that a respected climber and developer has noted is “not a good place to fall.” Idolizing skipping the trad placement there, or having it fail, could result in a factor 2 fall onto an anchor. That’s not an outcome we should normalize, teach, or revere as a reasonable risk for the sake of preserving someone else’s ideal of boldness. By adding a single bolt, the experience would be altered in only the most trivial way compared to the safety benefit at large, and does not represent a slippery slope towards over-bolted lines some may fear.
Beyond this route, my concern is when admiration for past ascents becomes a reason to delay or prevent changes that benefit the broader community. Fixed protection decisions shouldn’t be about preserving one person’s active or future project, or replicating a single climber’s path. They should be about safety, accessibility, and ensuring everyone — regardless of experience level — has a fair, safe, and reasonable chance to climb.
And this is where the deeper issue lies. When compared to recent bolt discussions on the mountain (for example, the Pino Route, amongst others), it’s telling of the underlying issue when adding a bolt for hard climbs and strong climbers is deemed worthy of conversation, while doing the same for easier climbs — where more climbers are at risk — is dismissed outright. The difference in tone is equally telling: one thread ends with a polite “respectfully,” while another had to be rewritten for “lack of tact” and contained personal call-outs by subsequent commenters. This is more than a difference of opinion — it reflects a pattern where less experienced climbers are dismissed or belittled, while those deemed strong enough are given deference and respect.
This gatekeeping, this tolerance for bullying under the guise of authority, undermines our community. It divides us, feeds ego, and discourages new climbers from engaging, contributing, and growing within the sport. As climbing grows, this is exactly the culture we must resist if we want our community to remain healthy, inclusive, and vibrant.
Again, at its core, this is not about a bolt. It is the discussions around it serve as a reminder that our climbing areas are shared resources, not trophies for a select few. Let’s honor the history, but also move forward in a way that keeps them open, welcoming, and safe for all who want to enjoy them.
Ultimately, with this route, it’s the FA’s decision. I will work with them on that front. Aug 6, 2025
The Dungeon, NM
Mike's bigger picture Sandia culture/ethic/community rant probably has an appropriate place, but it isn’t here. So I will not reply to it other than say that I’m quite upset that I’m being personally attacked as hindering “progress”, and characterized as exemplifying gatekeeping, bullying, and ego. I really don’t think I’m doing any of that. Super disappointing. Aug 6, 2025