Holes in Rings

[VapidLapid]

I need to avail myself of the collective wisdom of PS. Does there need to be a hole in the ring shank under a stone? Obviously I am not asking about the hole for one's finger. The little hole underneath the stone that goes to one's skin. I am looking for reasons both for, and against, theories of function, practicality and purpose. While the discussion should not be limited to mens' rings I will point out that many men's gem set rings, especially signet type, have no such bilge hole under the stone. While I am interested in the context of a large center stone type ring, the rationale(s) for and against may delve into the use of such holes under melee and pavé.

 

[chrono]

The hole makes it easier to clean and for me, there is more comfort when there is less metal touching my skin. Having less metal under the stone might also help with the weight balance of the ring so that it is less top heavy.

 

[VapidLapid]

Thanks Chrono. These are some of the theories I thought would come up. I am wondering then, does it get dirty under the stone because there IS a hole and thus having the hole makes it easier to clean? If there were no hole, the pavilion enclosed and fully bezeled from above, no access for dirt to enter there should be no need to clean. Also, the edges of the hole, I think, could be terrible irritating, with the tiniest bur catching on one's hairy fingers or slowly abrading the skin. The weight issue I think might be negligible, since the weight it terribly small, low in a center of gravity kind of way, and the increase surface area of an absent hole would create greater drag between the inside of the ring and one's skin that would cancel the benefit of the minimal lower weight.

How about issues of stone performance, aesthetics and design practicality?

 

[chrono]

Dirt has a nasty way of getting under the stone, even in a fully enclosed bezel. I've seen such settings opened up to reveal horrid looking crud which seems to be a one way street in, but not out. I think the hole also allows for a tiny bit of swelling too, especially in larger azures. Very very few stones, including diamonds, are unaffected by a fully enclosed bezel, be it light performance or colour, often in a negative fashion.

 

[Euphony]

Holes underneath the centre stone are a good idea for cleaning. Holes underneath gyspy sets are entirely a matter of preference. I usually drill through when I do them, but that it because I like to test the setting by trying to gently force it the stone out from the back. Holes underneath pave I would not do, as you are weakening the structure. Pave already removes a lot of metal from the shank, no need to remove it all the way thorough at make it weaker in my opinion. I have seen polishing compound get behind pave that an ultrasonic and streamer just couldn't get to, but I don't think it is a risk with general wear and have never actually had a problem with any of the pave I have polished.

As far as the hole allowing dirt to get it, that is certainly true. But a sealed back does not insure that nothing will get in there. I would prefer the option of cleaning.

 

[VapidLapid]

well considered. But then too, I must ask about this dirt. Most stones in the upper register of RI, when well cut, return light from the viewer rather then allowing the viewer to look through them at the dirt that has collected behind them. This is, of course, the principle of total internal reflection that is near the center of gemstone design, and its antithesis, the window. I ask then, if the stone is well cut, what dirt will be visible?

 

[VapidLapid]

I do believe holes, or rather openings, in and around the basket will aid in light performance, but I doubt that on a regular day much light is being emitted by my finger. I would add that a nicely finished closed interior could aid in performance by reflecting stray light back into the stone, instead of simply illuminating a tiny spot on one's skin.

 

[chrono]

The dirt will distort the light path. Few are cut to super tight precision standard, some have no precision standard and coloured stones are a totally different world. As for metal being reflected back, I've seen fancy cutout designs or piercings where it is mostly enclosed with a beautiful design that still allows dirt to be removed by ultrasonic or steamer.

 

[VapidLapid]

I could be totally wrong on this, but it seems to me from my limited experience, that in ancient and antique jewelry a closed back is the norm. While on the one hand I can imagine that sometime after the industrial revolution, jewlers' tools were improved to make more delicate or task oriented details easier to perform such that the hole underneath became a norm because it could, but then I second guess myself and think that the ancient and antique jewels that survive show tremendous skill and finesse with rudimentary tools, while with a magnificently outfitted studio today many of us can barely size a band.

 

[JewelFreak]

Much antique jewelry had foil behind the stones to intensified color, so a closed back was necessary to keep everything in order. Even the Staffordshire Hoard, 1300 yrs old, had the garnets foiled (the level of skill blows my mind, miniscule as they were)5. Medieval jewelry up to 18th century jewelry was made this way. That might have mitigated the effect of dirt entering the setting -- tolerances would be very tight also, preventing much gook from getting in.

In a modern setting without a bilge hole (love that, VL!), even cleaning could leave some residue of cleaner behind the stone -- hard to picture a gem performing as well against a background of ick as opposed to the setting's metal. Have you ever heard of an opening causing discomfort? Seems to me if it scratched or caught on hairs, it is a poorly made piece.

--- Laurie

 

[LD]

Yes if the gem needs light (or performance will be inhibited by a closed bottom).

No if the gemstone will perform without needing any other light and is completely enclosed and dirt can't get in.

You need to think about cleaning and how you will prevent getting trapped dirt between stone and setting. If you can achieve it with a completely enclosed setting then go for it!

 

[yssie]

well considered. But then too, I must ask about this dirt. Most stones in the upper register of RI, when well cut, return light from the viewer rather then allowing the viewer to look through them at the dirt that has collected behind them. This is, of course, the principle of total internal reflection that is near the center of gemstone design, and its antithesis, the window. I ask then, if the stone is well cut, what dirt will be visible?

Critical angle determines the range of angles at which total internal reflection can occur, and dirt/grease/oils on the outside surface of the stone change critical angle - rays incident on the stone/air bound need to contact at steeper angles (further from the normal) to reflect internally. Assuming there's air between the stone and metal of the setting - if stone and metal are actually touching like w/ foil-backed rhinestones then it's just reflection.

 

[Laila619]

I think it's good to have a way to clean/reach the pavilion of a stone, so the holes are a must for me.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

I like the designs it leaves on my fingers after I take the rings off