Sir: We welcome this opportunity to clarify points raised by Groves and Goldfarb (2007) in their discussion of our recent Express Letter (Kesler and Wilkinson, 2006). Their first concern centers on our modal age of 160 Ma for orogenic gold deposits; they state that “…it is unclear how the stated theoretical modal age was calculated….” The modal ages that we gave for the three deposit types are not theoretical. As explained in the text, they are simply the most common age in a best-fit curve to the age-frequency distribution for each deposit type. For orogenic gold deposits, the...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.