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 : WillP Speaks on Winspear -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomato who wrote (22)	2/19/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 177

hiya WillP, who staked out the original ground where WSP is? We hear lots of talk about the fabled dyke but not much about where it came from. Any information would be appreciated. enjoy it while it lasts. aj

To: Tomato who wrote (22)	2/19/1999 10:49:00 PM
From: Tomato	Respond to of 177

Author: WillP -- Date:1999-02-19 19:09:28 Subject: "Teeny" Question I just got two questions concerning gems and microdiamonds via email. Perhaps some clarification is in order. The Winspear mini-bulk sample indicated that about 226 carats were recovered. Twenty five of these carats were contained in three fine gems. Given the dollar value attributed to the remainder of the parcel, and the publicly available price to size scale...it is clear that many other stones were of sufficient value to be considered gems. That...is a mathematical certainty. I had thought this was well understood. Various newsletter writers have addressed this issue with at least some degree of success. 'The Resource Indicator' was probably the best I've seen in dealing with the issue. The initial release by Winspear (that notorious coloured stones one) suggested about 44% of the teeny stones were white...and 88% were transparent. Those two qualities are the main determinants in defining 'gems' from 'industrial stones'. Winspear has not reported a percentage of microdiamonds as being 'gem quality'. This, of course would be incorrect, as microdiamonds, and macrodiamonds under 1 millimetre have no value...certainly not in excess of $50. The term may be used colloquially...as in they appear to be of some value...but this has not been the case with Winspear. The term 'gem quality' first made its appearance in June 1998 with the release of the mini bulk sample grade figures, where its use was appropriate. As I think about it... Only 40% of the stones in the smallest ranges were white and transparent...yet a substantial portion of the larger (greater than 0.10 carats) stones clearly were. This could be used as an argument that the quality of the stones did improve with stone size, and lend validity to accepting the bulk sample results as-is. The reasons this might occur are contained in previous posts, and I believe...in Winspear news releases. I'm still waffling on that issue, however. Hope this helps. WillP