What''s the deal with the tiny holes?

[beebrisk]

I''ve noticed that on many rings, if the shank includes pave'' or channel set stones, there are tiny holes on the underside...under each stone.

What would be the reason for this? It doesn''t make sense to me that it would be to allow light to enter the stone from underneath, since once it''s on the finger any light from below would be blocked.

Is it merely to save on the gold or platinum... to make the setting a bit lighter in weight?

I think it looks very nice, but is it necessary?

Thanks...Just curious!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

It''s so the stones can be cleaned underneath in an ultrasonic, or with a toothbrush. Keeping stones clean underneath keeps them looking bright and lively.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I have heard that some eternity and so on bands do not have those holes? it sounds like I might would do better to pick one that has said holes or is it not actually a dealbreaker issue?

 

[beebrisk]

Thanks Rich...Still a little perplexed--If you''ve got tiny pave'' without any holes in the metal below, then how''s the underside of the stones get dirty in the first place? Is it possible that they can dirty at the bottom in a bead set pave, etc?

THANKS!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

The vast majority of rings will have small holes underneath the diamonds. It''s very seldom you find closed settings.

While the majority of light (probably 95%) which exits a diamond comes through it''s crown, bounces around and then comes back out through the crown again, there is still that 5% factor and then an additional darkening factor if metal touches or encloses the bottom of the diamond. Add to that the fact that dirt seems to have a way of finding it''s way practically anywhere and you have a good argument for avoiding closed back settings.

I don''t know if this plays into it at all, but closed back settings are the norm for costume jewelry with imitation diamonds, whereas openback is the norm for diamond jewelry. I think some jewelry designers are just loath to have their jewelry resemble costume in that respect.

Me, I would avoid closed back settings.

 

[surfgirl]

Funny you should mention this because I noticed this looking for my wedding band. And what I found was that the antique/vintage eternity bands have much larger openings on the underside than most newly set bands. I wonder why? Maybe because it''s easier to clean them now with US and steam? The holes under each stone in my eternity band are completely square and very large compared to any newer ring I saw...

 

[ericad]

Hmmm, I actually have a pave white gold and diamond set that has no azures ("holes") under the pave and I LOVE it. I prefer it because the rings feel much heavier due to the additional gold used and the pave doesn''t cloud up after every application of hand lotion (of course I remove the rings first, but the azures just seem to suck the lotion from my skin onto the underside of the pave!). No lack of sparkle on these rings, trust me, they are blinding

I also find the non-azure rings to be more comfortable as the underside is so heavy and smooth.

PS - the only costume jewelry I''ve seen sans azures are the super cheesy kind where the pave is GLUED in - I don''t think anyone would mistake a piece of fine jewelry with that junk.

Personally, after wearing this set for awhile, I have come to the concluion that it feels like a higher end choice than most settings - something about it is just...FINER than other fine jewelry. But that''s just my humble opinion

 

[stebbo]

Date: 8/19/2007 11:55:20 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
While the majority of light (probably 95%) which exits a diamond comes through it's crown, bounces around and then comes back out through the crown again, there is still that 5% factor and then an additional darkening factor if metal touches or encloses the bottom of the diamond.

Still 'perplexed' Beebrisk?

No? ok, consider this then. The ring sits on a finger, the holes are effectively now closed, but now by a finger which is less-reflective than metal. In fact, costume and antique diamond jewelry regularly employ(ed) foil backing to pump up the brightness.

Back to being serious though, open holes do allow more dirt to get in but at least you have a chance to clean it. No holes still allow liquids (like chlorinated water!) to get in and stew, possibly causing the some of the non-gold metals in rings to start oxidizing (and darken).

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 8/19/2007 11:14:55 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
It''s so the stones can be cleaned underneath in an ultrasonic, or with a toothbrush. Keeping stones clean underneath keeps them looking bright and lively.

That''s it for me, like being able to clean the stones from underneath.

 

[denverappraiser]

Unless the design of the mounting simply doesn’t allow for a place to put the holes, I recommend that they are preferable to the closed back designs. The crud of the world has an annoying way of seeping into even the tiny spaces whether you want it to or not and, by it’s nature, there is a tiny space behind each and every diamond. Cleaning is the key to keeping it looking it’s best and this cleaning is MUCH easier with the open backs.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[beebrisk]

Thanks folks!

I never knew they were called "Azures"...The things you learn around here!!

My new ER with the TEENSIEST pave'' around the shank, does not have these holes, but I guess a really good cleaning should do the trick.
I hope!

My band is 2mm wide with 20-something bead set diamonds (melee?). I assume with regular, good cleaning it''ll be okay? It''s a beauty and I get it in 2 weeks. I had it made by ERD in New York and they did an amazing job. I had given them a ring I wanted them to "interpret", and the ring I showed them did not include the holes, so I can''t complain.

Thanks for all the info! I''ve become diamond-addicted because of this site. If only I could afford my habit !