RE: To cap cobalthead, I am hardly a proponent of capping. Rather I recognise the complexity of nuggety deposits and look at real results.
I had expected the Rubicon bulk samples to be higher than because of the nugget effect. It didn't happen. So, based on available evidence, capping appeared to have been appropriate for the F2 deposit. And i've hear the sad story about the mistakes in the Rubicon bulk sample, blah, blah, blah. Stories don't cut it. Facts do. The bulk sample results were are hard facts.
At CM, the assay results from the twinned holes will be hard facts. I have no idea what the results will be but I was suggesting that if the twinned holes show lower grades than the originals then that would be evidence suggesting it is appropriate to cap grades. That is all.
When I see more hard facts, I will update my opinion on capping grades. Right now, I'm most interested in seeing the assay results and the subsequent interpretations by QPs.