“…The large number of systematic classical and semiempirical quantum-mechanical investigations cited here have shown that ring-current theory can successfully account semiquantitatively for the relative trends in the experimental 1 H NMR chemical shifts of the condensed, benzenoid hydrocarbons provided that , before being confronted with these experimental shifts, shieldings at the various protons in these moleculescalculated via any of the several ring-current modelsare expressed as a ratio to the shielding calculated , by the same method , to prevail at a standard benzene proton , because of the ring current in benzene. The fact that this procedure appears efficiently to mask the effects of the large number of far-fetched and drastic approximations inherent in semiempirical ring-current calculations 2-4 has been emphasized on many occasions, by the present authors 77,139,172,187,210,218,220 and by numerous others. ,,− ,,, It may also be mentioned in passing that this practice of taking ratios to benzene was one that much exercised even the pioneers in this field, when they were dealing with properties of bulk magnetism (section III). Referring specifically to predominantly diamagnetic, alternant hydrocarbons, O'Sullivan and Hameka wrote that “London's calculation [our refs −118] is perhaps less accurate than Hall and Hardisson's [our ref ]” but that when only the ratios of London's results are used, it seems likely that “these ratios are quite accurate.” Furthermore, Davies has stated the opinion that “the comparative success of London's method [our refs −118] for aromatic hydrocarbons may be attributed to the dependence of the theoretical anisotropy on the square of the areas of the rings in a molecule” and that “any method that takes this into account is likely to give reasonable results for the ratio” of a given calculated anisotropy to that calculated, by the same method, for benzene (see also ref ).…”