The fragment is edged with a flat-band moulding which expands into the undecorated, arched termination of the shaft. In the lower part of the panel the moulding erupts into nodding tendrils with simple volute heads. At the bottom are the remains of the broad, arched moulding of the lost panel beneath. Perched on the arch is a two-legged stool with bulbous feet and a 'Byzantine cushion'. On the seat is a profile human figure, his legs dangling and his pointed toes filling the corner by the tendrils. A kirtle is caught round the knees, but any signs of drapery folds have disappeared. The shoulder is humped and both hands extend in front of the figure to the left, with thumbs raised. The lower edge of the left arm is still pronounced as it is cut in a step; the right arm is much shorter and the hand appears to stem from the shoulder. The head is in half-profile with incised eyes and drilled mouth. The hair clings closely to the head in a raised moulding along the crown and the right side.

Features of the dress are indistinct, except for some faint signs of ribbing on the shins and some trapezoid areas which may be weathered drapery folds. One of these appears on the chest and has a narrow, slightly raised border.

The fragment is the top of a cross-shaft whose faces were decorated with arched panels. This scheme is found near by on Nunburnholme 1 which is, however, much more decorative, and whose lower panels are damaged, so that it is impossible to determine the shape of the panel junctions. A late Anglian shaft at Collingham, West Riding, does have isolated portrait figures in panels identical with the present stone in that the personages perch directly upon the arch of the panel below (Collingwood 1915, figs. a–d on 156), a characteristic shared with some Mercian shafts, for example, the churchyard shaft at Bakewell, Derbyshire (Cramp 1977, fig. 60b).

The figure should be compared with the 'warrior' portrait of the Nunburnholme shaft (Ill. 721): the stumpy arm near the chin works in a similar way and both may have drawn upon the same model. The half-profile face, however, is more ambitious than the silhouette profile of Nunburnholme and the posture of the body on the present piece is more easy and lively, more like the seated figure of Old Malton 1. The worn rectangular element on the figure's breast may also be related to the rationals on the ecclesiastics of the First Sculptor's work at Nunburnholme (Lang 1977, 85; below, p. 191), whilst the stool and its cushion seem to reflect manuscript portraits of Evangelists, of many periods.

Apart from the embellishing tendrils, there is little diagnostic stylistic evidence for the date of the piece. It certainly draws upon late Anglian traditions found in southern Yorkshire and Mercia, but at what period the carving was completed remains uncertain. The tendrils might be quite late. The relationship with Nunburnholme 1 is clear even if the relative chronology of the two monuments is doubtful. Seated personages, often secular, are a feature of Ryedale sculpture; see, for example, Middleton 2. Old Malton 1, whose chair differs from Holme's but is stylistically datable, has a figure in half- profile which, if the present piece is early, might derive from it (Ill. 736).