Open back pave/side stones vs. Closed back

[iota15]

I notice some side stones/pave have an open back (holes behind the stone traveling into the shank) and some have closed backs.

Is there a significant difference - pricewise, cleaniness-wise, etc? What are their purpose?

Do you notice more or less dirt with open backs? (more grime from your finger travels into the holes?) Is it harder or impossible to clean closed backs? Is it to lessen the weight of the metal/ring? Which is "better"?



Here's an example of an open back: http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/Common-Prong-Engagement-Ring.html (See the holes)

Here's a closed back: http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/Ladies-18kt-White-Gold-3-Stone-Pave-Set-Diamond-Engagement-Ring.html

 

[TheDoctor]

IMHO, the holes should be drilled where there is appropriate metal thickness and width when setting diamonds. This allows for thorough cleaning. Without the holes, fine organic particulate (usually deposited when hands are wet) can become trapped behind the stones and becomes visible can but very difficult to remove, especially without the proper equipment and chemicals.
In thin, narrow bands or in fine areas that are subject to bending under moderate force, we resist drilling holes as they cause a sort of perforation effect, weaking the already thin material.
The holes have nothing to do with appearance, at least until the pasta sauce finds its way under the girdle edges of ther stones. The holes allow the easy passage of cleaning solution. No holes means trying to clean up from the top, to no avail.

 

[antelope1]

Exactly what the Doctor said!

 

[iota15]

Arg! There are so many closed back settings out there. I suppose an ultrasonic is not enough to remove the trapped dirt.

 

[IceExplorer]

I've seen both options in the past and often wondered why. Great question!
Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Anonymous6]

So, is the general consensus that we should look for settings with open backs? (the holes on the back)

 

[antelope1]

No, it depends on the setting.

I have a 1.8mm shank, and would be nervous about the strength if there were holes in the back. If I had a 1 tcw 5 stone ring, on the other hand, I would prefer open backs because there is enough metal to keep the ring from warping.

 

[Anonymous6]

what about a pave setting similar to the tiffany novo?

 

[slg47]

what about a pave setting similar to the tiffany novo?

I think all of these are closed back for the reason antelope mentioned (around 2 mm)

 

[iota15]

Interesting... Is it easy to drill holes where there were none? Do you think it would cost a lot? or be worth it?

If you have noticed postive/negative/neutral regarding the holes or lack thereof, I'd like to hear it.


By the way, that James Allen ring I linked is 1.9 mm's and it has holes.

 

[MarkBroumand]

Interesting... Is it easy to drill holes where there were none? Do you think it would cost a lot? or be worth it?

If you have noticed postive/negative/neutral regarding the holes or lack thereof, I'd like to hear it.


By the way, that James Allen ring I linked is 1.9 mm's and it has holes.

I personally wouldn't recommend going through all that trouble.

This is all a play between the shank's width, amount of metal used and size of diamonds being set.

On the JA ring, one can see the amount of metal used between the diamonds, giving better support and allowing for the drilled holes on an otherwise thin band.

 

[Cehrabehra]

IMHO, the holes should be drilled where there is appropriate metal thickness and width when setting diamonds. This allows for thorough cleaning. Without the holes, fine organic particulate (usually deposited when hands are wet) can become trapped behind the stones and becomes visible can but very difficult to remove, especially without the proper equipment and chemicals.
In thin, narrow bands or in fine areas that are subject to bending under moderate force, we resist drilling holes as they cause a sort of perforation effect, weaking the already thin material.
The holes have nothing to do with appearance, at least until the pasta sauce finds its way under the girdle edges of ther stones. The holes allow the easy passage of cleaning solution. No holes means trying to clean up from the top, to no avail.

Little holes also mean a build up of skin oils and dead skin cells in tiny little holes that clog up and can cause even dirtier looking diamonds. If you ultrasonic the heck out of it daily - either way you should be fine.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Arg! There are so many closed back settings out there. I suppose an ultrasonic is not enough to remove the trapped dirt.

my channel set band has open holes and they get SO filthy in there so fast... plus the holes irritate my finger. I don't like them. The stone in my avatar has no holes behind the melee - the designer (ocean pearlman) said that holes make it easier to clean behind the diamonds, but they make it way easier to get dirt behind them too. I've never had any issues getting stuff behind my diamonds that have no holes, but the ring that does it's a struggle. I'm not a fan. It's nice in theory but it's a double edged sword.

 

[Cehrabehra]

jftr my ring is 7mm wide and 15g of platinum so the choice wasn't made on it being thin or flimsy... in case that helps lol Oh and it's not because it's too thick either... the designer didn't want them and I easily agreed.