I'm throwing this out again to forum.

Last weekend I asked for some help to decipher a confusing issue. I appreciate the few "nice post" slaps on the back, but it's not what I was after. I was hoping some of our posters more versed in geology or perhaps someone who has already spent countless hours conversing with the company brass would be able to shed some light. So far next to nothing.

Late last week I decided to put an initial question to Mr. Sasha Asgary. He kindly replied in a matter of hours. Thank you very much, Mr. Asgary. Your reply was very gracious and professional, and I apologize because I now see that my question may have been posed in a manner less gracious than your answer.

"Good afternoon Mr. Asgary.

I have a question about trench assay results which I cannot find archived anywhere on your website. I posted the question on Agoracom a couple of days ago hoping that an astute investor would have seen the information in the past.

In 2009, Golden Hope Mines announced that bulk samples would be taken from both the T1 and T2 zones. The assay results from T1 were announced in March 2010 and the details can be easily accessed from your website, namely trenches 09A, 09D, 09D1, 09D2, 09E, 09F, and 09G. (See http://goldenhopemines.com/_resources/2009_trench_results_summary_table_2_mar_5.pdf.) However, there does not appear to be a record on the website of the results for 09B and 09C, both of which are delineated on the map as crossing the mineralized zone of T2. (See http://goldenhopemines.com/_resources/Trench_09A_Comparison.pdf ) Were these results for 09B and 09C ever released to the public? If so, how can I access them? If not, will they be forthcoming, and if not, why not?

Thank you for your kind attention,

John #####
GNH Investor

John,

I agree it is not as straightforward to see data for 09B and 09C. If you open http://goldenhopemines.com/_resources/Bulk_Sampling_Data_2009.xls you will be able to see the raw data for those 2 trenches.

Best regards,
--
Sasha Asgary
Director of Corporate Communications
514.347.1329
www.goldenhopemines.com

Thank you Sasha.
Now Agoracom board, my nice hat is coming off again and my critic's hat back on. The assays in question were indeed made available to the investing public. But "raw data" buried in a complicated spreadsheet that few will take time to peruse is hardly what I would call "published". The T1 trench results on the other hand were "published", "publicized", "publicitized", and otherwised very "popularized"; they have been repeatedly touted as the touchstone for ascertaining grade throughout the Timmins-Bellechasse area. The T2 trench results were buried in a mountain of data, unprocessed and uninterpreted for the average investor. Now I realize that often mediocre assay results are treated this way, however we are not talking about drill core samples. Being that these bulk samples, as I understand it, were taken with the express purpose of combatting a possible "nugget effect", thus proving that the true deposit grade was significantly greater than the drill core grade, should these results not have been more visible, more "published" if you will, and if they are not supportive of the hypothesis, an explanation given? Or even a "we don't know yet" might suffice?

If you were to open the spreadsheet that Mr. Asgary refers to, you will find a series of tabs at the bottom. The one referencing 09B reveals data in column "S" corresponding to assays from the preliminary samples (the first section) and the bulk samples (the following sections scrolling down the page). 09A shows prelimary assays of 0.14, 4.89, 0.27, and 1.06, for an average of 1.59 g/t. The bulk sample assays for each successive section show 0.23, 1.926, 0.62, and 0.51 for an average of 0.822 g/t.

09B similarly shows 8 preliminary assays of 0.63, 0.225, 0.068, 0.685, 1.91, 0.053, 0.073, and 0.053 for an average of 0.46 g/t. The bulk sample assays for each of 9 successive sections are 0.327, 0.287, 1.243, 0.578, 0.045, 0.333, 0.611, 0.466, and 0.269 for an average of 0.462 g/t.

These are confusing numbers for me. These 2 trenches supposedly went right across the mineralized zone of T2. The other two trenches, done in 2007, were perhaps marginally better, but then again the following release does not appear to report all sections actually assayed: "The 2007 Timmins 2 trenches yielded intervals of 5 metres of 0.633g/t and 4 metres of 1.265g/t in the eastern trench. The gold bearing zone gave 4 metres of 1.486 g/t in the western trench." (news release Sept 20, 2008). My conundrum is that none of the 4 bulk assays appear to reflect grades any higher than the majority of the drill core assays. Perhaps even lower.

The Ascot/Road zone surface sampling may also have been somewhat unimpressive (see http://agoracom.com/ir/GoldenHope/forums/discussion/topics/443207-the-sellers-were-not-shareholders-who-bought-below-30-cents/messages/1446045#message).

So what is going on here? Is the deposit and its "nugget effect" really as homogeneous as we are being led to believe? Do these marginal zones perhaps get more "nuggety" or more "plug-like" with depth? If so, is there ample drill or other evidence yet to confirm or at least suggest this? I believe YukonCornelius alludes to this possibility when he responded to my initial post: "This characterization, to me, suggests that there are T2-like domains below the Ascot/road zone and that there may be rationale for exploring these domains as possible economical structures. While I might agree that identification of T1- type anomalies along the length of the 20 km stretch would be optimal, I would not be willing to bet that these structures do not converge in T1-type domains at depth."
Thank you kind sir for responding with a reasoned, albeit measured explanation. I believe you were the only one so far to attempt to do so. And I hope you are right, because I have again taken a modest equity postion in Golden Hope Mines.

Anyone else out there want to tackle this issue? I'm a little shy about writing to the company again, since I may be way off base. But I will if it turns out none of you guys really know the answer either.

Respectfully submitted,
Johnny