I don't think those pics prove one way or the other. From what I can make out it could be dirt, grime or nick.
Ron, please read my post: in the book there are several evidences, just look at them. All the statements I write here are fully supported.
I have to prove nothing here, and I don't want, all is already supported in the book and explained in a logic way
that is not possible to replicate here.
Anyway, that is not a nick (just look at the dimension and the shape; irregular borders are not nicks, nicks cannot happen that way!), nor grime. It is a missing piece of metal. Some are 200-400 µm.
Exacly as happened in other rings.... Or do you think someone excaved several rings with a mini tool just excatly inside the engravings? Just kiddin', it is impossible to obtain those shapes without leaving traces around the borders of the missing parts. A nick or hit simply move the metal, don't remove it, especially in a so small area. It is physically impossible to remove pieces of metal, like they were a layer, from a pressed or a cast piece. So, I am sorry for those who think rings are one piece made, because they will never find an answer for this.
Furthermore the XRF analysys confirm the metal composition of the inside is different from the central band (why if it is not made of multiple layers?). And again: the inner layer composition with tin make not possible to use X-rays with the same intensity of every other silver ring (made by casting or pressing). These are solid evideces with the bonus they were released by specialized firms (and reported in the book).
