It measures approximately 17 metres east to west and 19 metres north to south, with a sunken interior that drops sharply from the western edge down toward the centre, a difference in ground level of around 1.6 metres. There is a faint raised rim, a shallow external ditch visible only along the northern arc, and a low scarp on the southern side. Nothing about it announces itself clearly; the edges blur into the slope rather than forming the crisp bank and ditch you might expect of a well-preserved prehistoric monument.

The feature appears on the 1838 Ordnance Survey six-inch map as a roughly circular outline marked with a dashed line, with trees shown inside. By the 1930 edition, the line has become solid and the trees remain. Whether those details represent genuine cartographic confidence or simply copying from one edition to the next is hard to say. A ring barrow, when intact, is a Bronze Age burial monument consisting of a low mound or flat central area enclosed by a bank and ditch, and this site was classified as one by Lavelle in 1994. That same publication, however, incorrectly identified it as the location where two stone burial cists had been excavated. The cists, recorded by Movius in 1934, were actually found roughly 30 metres to the north. The misidentification has added another layer of confusion to a site that was already uncertain. Current thinking allows for two possibilities: either this is the remnant of a ring barrow whose interior has been disturbed or deliberately quarried away, or it is something far more recent, an ornamental estate feature or tree-ring, the kind of landscaped enclosure planted for aesthetic effect on improving estates in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. No excavation has resolved the question.