Good question Rundle. Based on my experience, the time for assay results does not necessarily have something to do with their quality...although I have to admit the ones with excellent results often do have faster results because of that word "RUSH".

It only took two months from when BMK commenced their drilling to when the first set of results were reported. Were they spectacular? No, not so far but many are still being assayed. (Drill start date to result date..2 months)

On August 29, 2007 this company called Noront (wink) reported "copper sulphide mineralization (chalcopyrite) in a pyrrhotite - chalcopyrite - peridotite geological setting." This was almost immediately after they started drilling Two weeks later their assay reports came back from the lab and showed those now historic results. (Drill start date to result date...2 weeks). The difference was that Noront had a very strong feeling they were on to something good based upon visuals and sent things out with "RUSH" marked on them.

So, the word RUSH would be an excellent indication things have an excellent chance of being of exceptional quality. If they don't, well then there was visually nothing that got somebody excited. But thats not always reliable anyway...look at GRW's chart before and after people were excited by the visuals. It sunk big time after the visuals were analyzed. (2 month turnaround BTW)

Only a lab will be able to tell exactly what is in the cores and how good they are. And they will do them all at their own pace unless somebody wants to pay more for the RUSH priority.

{