Need QUICK response please to possibly stupid question...

[Spuncorpceo]

What are the pros/cons of the holes in the back of the band?

Which is better to get?

 

[Spuncorpceo]

VS

 

[MissAva]

option 1 you may be able to do a better job cleaning
2 you can engrave something on the inside of the band

 

[Spuncorpceo]

You can always count on Matadora to come through in the clutch.

Thanks!

 

[Kaleigh]

The holes also allow the light to shine through so the stones appear brighter. And it makes cleaning easier.

 

[Spuncorpceo]

Thanks again!

I''m sure there are moderators on this forum...you can close this thread if you would like now

 

[BigToque]

This is just my opinion, but I think that rings with the holes look kinda tacky and seem like they would be less strong than a solid ring.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 11/1/2005 3:12:16 PM
Author: BigToque
This is just my opinion, but I think that rings with the holes look kinda tacky and seem like they would be less strong than a solid ring.

no one can see the holes on the inside of the band when someone is wearing it and mat is right it can help in cleaning. Of course there is the other side that says no holes will allow less dirt and lotion etc. to get into the ring to begin with...

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 11/1/2005 3:08:07 PM
Author: kaleigh
The holes also allow the light to shine through so the stones appear brighter.

How does that work in practice? If you are wearing the ring, then no light is going to come up through the holes from your finger. I thought the light that makes a diamond sparkle is reflected light from above, so what''s below shouldn''t matter. Otherwise no one would have enclosed bezel settings. Or is it different for coloured stones, like the ones being discussed here, and some look better if there''s no "bottom" to the setting?

 

[JohnQuixote]

There is no advantage of open backs for light performance unless you have badly cut diamonds that draw light from behind - and in that case you shouldn't wear the ring, because your finger would block off such light anyway.

The primary reason for open backs is to seat the diamonds, keeping them properly centered, and for cleaning purposes: When you close the backs, matter can get behind the diamonds (soap, oil, hand lotion, etc) with no way to clean their pavilions. When soap or another substance sticks to the back of the diamond it changes the refractive index and the light reacts in a different way.

Open holes do reduce the strength of the band. Bob, our senior GG often uses this comparison: Imagine bending a thin but solid wooden dowel. Now imagine bending the same dowel if holes were drilled along its length to accomodate diamonds... As you can imagine, it's much less durable with the holes.

It should not be a problem as long as the size of the holes relative to the thickness of the band follows a proven formula by the craftsman making the band.

 

[Tali]

Date: 11/1/2005 3:56:49 PM
Author: cinnabar

Date: 11/1/2005 3:08:07 PM
Author: kaleigh
The holes also allow the light to shine through so the stones appear brighter.

How does that work in practice? If you are wearing the ring, then no light is going to come up through the holes from your finger. I thought the light that makes a diamond sparkle is reflected light from above, so what's below shouldn't matter. Otherwise no one would have enclosed bezel settings. Or is it different for coloured stones, like the ones being discussed here, and some look better if there's no 'bottom' to the setting?

Yeah, I've seen this corrected in other threads. The holes are just for cleaning, not for light. Or maybe Kaleigh has a prosthetic finger that looks doubles as a light saber, a la Luke Skywalker!! Now that'd be some bling!

ETA- oops! posted at the same time as JQ........

 

[Spuncorpceo]

Holes it is!

 

[partgypsy]

Just wanted to point out that the second ring may actually have holes as well but cannot see them, as it appears stones do not go all the way around.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 11/1/2005 4:09:09 PM
Author: part gypsy
Just wanted to point out that the second ring may actually have holes as well but cannot see them, as it appears stones do not go all the way around.

very true, good observation...

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 11/1/2005 4:04:23 PM
Author: Spuncorpceo
Holes it is!

just noticed you decided and did move quickly..pics of spuncorpceo''s new purchase
here

 

[WinkHPD]

If you look at option two carefully you will see that the channel on the top for the stones is entirely open, no small holes, just one big long one. At least that is how it looks to me. (Not my idea of quality workmanship if true.)

John Quixote nailed the eplaination perfectly fow why we normally use the holes, which are called azures.

Wink

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/1/2005 3:58:29 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

The primary reason for open backs is to seat the diamonds, keeping them properly centered

Ok.... the bands I've found made without holes were usually also too light weight, done with thin metal, unstable stones and other of the like. Only the very, very narrow ones (below 2mm) take exception. In theory this doesn't have to be the rule - for some reason, it seems to be so. Am I seeing things ?



Spuncorpceo, Those little pinholes also let you see the thickness of the band - if it doesn't come easy to guess what is going on by weight.

The line about 'letting light in from inside the finger' is all over the web, unfortunately. So often said, it's hard to brush off at first impulse...