The only visible face is surrounded on all four sides by an undecorated border of rectangular section. It is unclear which (if any) borders represent the original angles of the stone. Within, the panel is divided into two zones, both decorated with interlace in low relief. The two zones are divided by a central undecorated border of rectangular section, from three corners of which both runs of interlace develop. The zone on the right is filled with a three-strand unit of half pattern D. To the left is an irregular unit including a free ring motif below. This run terminates most uncomfortably in the upper left hand corner of the stone, against what appears to be a damaged interlace feature, but which might be all damage.

No. 2 is the only item at Dowsby which matches that said by Davies (1915, 53; 1926, 12) to include a 'figure'. There is no sign of any such detail, and he may have mistaken the central border between the interlace runs for a flat, skittle-like, figurine.

Without knowledge of the other faces it is hard to understand this fragment. A shaft is merely one amongst several possible origins; the fragment could equally come from a cover, or from a more specialised piece such as a decorated cross-base. The interlace style does not help greatly with the problem. The interlace detail, with strands developing from the corners of border mouldings, is strongly reminiscent of the mid-Kesteven cover group, where this detail is widely used (Fig. 9). However Dowsby 2 is made of a quite different stone type and the disposition of the interlace itself is unknown within the very standardised mid-Kesteven group. These similarities of detail with this group, however, do allow a general dating of the fragment to the later tenth or early eleventh century.