Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (6423)	6/27/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Respond to of 14226

Ed, Zeev was talking about the stock price, don't be so defensive IMO. Zeev has been more supportive of GPGI than any other dirt. I like his doubts, that's what makes a market.

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (6423)	6/27/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 14226

Ed, last time I had a cyber wager (at IPMCF), my favored charity was never paid, so I do not cyber wager anymore. Ed, it is time for GPGI to grow up, even little discrepancies are now looked on by the market place as a big problems. Even if GPGI puts on the web site copies of 10 cheques for payments, the market will still want to see audited reports or something else. No fault of GPGI, but so far the market has seen promises form IPMCF (which was considered the "leader of the pack"), and DELGF both of which proved empty promises, and the trio of MXAM, MGAU and CHIP is lingering in the doldrums as well. Actually, it seems as currently GPGI is the best performer (stock performance) of the pack and it remains to be seen if they are going to lead the pack higher or be dragged down further by the group. We still need to see a number of consecutive results that are the same. The fact that the "Bonanza Aussie" reported numbers that are one fifth of the current numbers is also troublesome to the market, people ask themselves which are the numbers we should rely on when these are all over the map. We had numbers from Twiford as high as 16 Oz/ton equivalent goodies or so and as low as 2/5 of an Ounce per ton (Aussie). This is quite a range, and one news release is simply not going to cut it with the market. What I think is quite irrelevant, it is what the market think, and before Friday was out, the price was already coming down a bit. Do not blame it on me, I did not buy at $.58 when you posted the news nor sell at $.73 when the bid got there. I think you should blame it on Jack for not buying at market his 10,000 shares (VBG). Zeev

To: Ed Fishbaine who wrote (6423)	6/28/1998 11:03:00 AM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Ed, My research continues. I have looked at every annual report from the Bureau of Mines and the US Geological survey and the US mint and others that I could get my hands on. The only mention of the Oro Grande I can find is from The Arizona State Mine inspector in 1934 and 1935. At that time there was some short lived activity that resulted in no production but rather some speculative development. These reports are very detailed in that they even mention miners recovering gold by crushing ore in mortars and amalgamating. They report shipments as small as five ounces of gold for the year. The mint in San Francisco mentions receiving small shipment of bullion from porducers and then separating the gold from the silver and using both for coin production. No mention of any penalties. The only platinum production mentioned is from placers in CA, OR and WA. This was all shipped to refiners back east. It might be that the Oro Grande was part of the Vulture Mining District, (which shut down in 1917.) Do you know if the Oro Grande had a different name? I do have references to some articles written in the Engineering and Mining Journal about the Vulture in 1922. I will attempt to find these next week. I think the NMT library has a complete set of old EMJ's. Can you find infor about the name? Tim Hall