New to PNW requests skis to buy recommendations

Speaking of. Jane Goodall is speaking here in Seattle soon.

A coincidence? I think not!
Prepare for a major article in National Geographic regarding the strangeness that is TAY!

yes, I'm aware, but I'm thinking of the edge to edge / quickness thing, which, despite what the physics might suggest, still seems to be affected by width..

Attaining edge-to-edge quickness on wider skis (I presume that aspect of the conversation is about turning on groomed or non-powder snow) requires some adjustment of your technique. As snottsman says, it's about getting the ski up on its edge (though I might debate with him the finer points of whether or not that's achieved by rolling your ankles) as opposed to ONLY  applying pressure to the edge to turn as you would a more traditionally narrow underfoot ski.

It's not difficult to learn but takes some practice and acclimation to doing things differently than you're accustomed to, which can be a challenge for some of us geezers. Once you do that the ski will behave according to its shape (sidecut/radius) which, just as with a narrow ski, will be a quicker or slower turn depending upon the shape of the ski.

These days, at 50+ years old I rarely if ever ski on anything much less than 90mm underfoot, and those seem pretty skinny. My daily drivers are anywhere between 100-110 or so. When I get out the 'euro-carvers' at 67 underfoot it feels a bit odd, but they now occupy a very specific spot in the quiver and only come out for icy or very hard conditions.

Once you learn to commit to the turn and get that ski up in its edge the ski will do all the work for you. I've spent a lot of time following my kids' race coaches around and poaching their technical expertise, and it seems that the current wisdom for all high-performance skiing on race skis or wider ones is the same. Get that thing up on its edge, and turn with BOTH skis weighted anywhere between 60/40 and 70/30. Again, it's a leap of faith to change your technique after many (35+ in my case) years, but when you get it right (not that I always do by any means) you'll wonder how you ever did it the old way, and why the hell it took you so long to ride them fatties.

I am accumulating great appreciation particularily for the comments of Zap, Scotsman and Offpiste as well as others.  While I'm not certain that 50+ qualifies as geezer status, it nevertheless brings experience.

Of course, getting the ski 'up on edge' is part of where it's at.  The other part is to be weight centered, or slightly forward, which is a challenging concept when things get steep or dicey, yet it remains your only salvation  ~ get in the back seat, and you're history.  I visualize feeling boot tongue pressure on my shin and reaching forward to open the door and pull myself through the opening.  Tele skiers (in particular) need to pay attention to weight distribution, visualizing loading up the little toe of the back ski.  For those who have not yet done so, try reading Paul Parkers chapter on Mogul skiing.

What does this have to do with wider skis?   Nothin'...     Just sayin'.    But when folks with experience toss their stuff in the pot, I'm gonna listen.  Thanks guys !

One of the aspects of skiing I really enjoy is the continuous search for an optimal "system", and how we can all have such divergent approaches to the same end goal. I've had all kinds of ski and boot quivers over the years to cover various snow conditions, purposes, and seasons. I've also tried various alpine/rando setups to use both in area and out. The irony for me is I've essentially landed at having just two dedicated rigs - one alpine, one touring, and also that both are decidedly counter the current trend of fatter is better, rocker rules, and crossover rando/alpine boots are best.

My alpine skis are 122-80-108@178cm, my touring skis are 113-77-96@174cm, both have zero rocker, and both sets are relatively heavy with two layers of titanal each. I know, crazy heavy yet skinny kinda old-school skis. The thought is for the alpine set I invariably ski terrain that has already been skied out or is fast becoming skied out, so the narrow waist is simply more efficient from edge to edge on hard pan, and when conditions are bottomless the 122 shovel is plenty to keep ski tips from diving. The touring set is even more narrow as when touring most of the time is spent skinning, and skinny skis skin more efficiently. The two layers of titanal and heavy construction provide each with plenty of dampening and mass to deal with all sorts of varied snow conditions and crud. The experience is decidedly more skiing "through" the snow than floating on top, but that can be part of the appeal.

I only use dynafits for touring, am heavy at 195lbs, and like to get a ski on edge. On wide skis I've had trouble pre-releasing at the toes with GS turns in icy conditions unless I lock out the release, but with narrow skis I can rail a turn with no worries and still run the toes in ski mode. On my alpine set up I use straight alpine boots and heavy full-metal alpine bindings. Mass can be your friend with the typical chopped-up ski area crud, and nothing beats the elasticity, retention, and dependability of release from a good alpine binding mated to a DIN sole.   

Lastly, I'm getting older with 50 just around the corner and am very busy with work and young kids. I simply don't have the time to keep multiple rigs or a full quiver dialed in any more. My feet are getting more temperamental with regard to fit, so getting just two pair of boots to work well is quite a trick in itself, let alone multiple pairs to support a quiver. Besides, its kind of nice to keep the decision process to a minimum. Yeah, I still have a silly number of skis, boots, and bindings tucked away, but these days it's essentially down to just two rigs that actually get out to see snow...

Very interesting on your different take.
Why do you say skiiny skis easier for skiinning.
obviously its not weight you are referring to as you say your skisi are heavy so you must be referring to some other parameter

My experience in winter touring says fat easier when breaking trail in deep snow because you don't sink in so much.
however definitely more difficult on hardpack traverses so maybe that's a trade- off.

Yeah, my comment was based more on reduced surface area of the skins, and a bias towards hardpack rather than breaking trail in winter. The narrower skins are also nice as they take less room in the pack. But agreed, they're less than optimal breaking trail in deep snow.

I do wrestle with the weight issue for the touring skis, and I may revert back to lighter skis someday. A few years back I was on a tour with some very difficult snow conditions and a guide made a comment that resonated with me. He essentially said to select a ski for the broadest range of difficult conditions (boilerplate, breakable crust, heavy mank, etc.), as any ski can be fun on a powder day. He was also suspect of ultralight skis for longer multi-day tours out of concerns for reliability. Its always tricky to take advice from a guide as their considerations (and fitness level) can be quite different, but so far I've been happy with how they ski though I groan a bit while throwing them on my pack.

I'm not denying the benefits of a quiver or the latest developments in ski shape and construction. I just wanted to offer how my personal experiences and the need to simplify things landed me in a different place, and thought it interesting how out of step my approach has become from current trends.