I also think the emerald is too narrow. I like the oval better for its fire.
Emerald vs Oval e ring (with pics)
- Thread starter ffflyin
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Hard choice and I can't add much to what has already been said. This 3 stone emerald is my first step cut and most recent ring. I absolutely love it but I also love my brilliant and antique cuts for the way they sparkle. This flashes, it is different. Can't say which I prefer, they're all gorgeous in their own way. Hence I have more than 1. 
Thank you! I appreciate your pointers and agree with them all. Taking them into account, I am still struggling… would be grateful for your views on my thoughts below please!Hi! You have gotten a lot of great advice, and I'll add mine.
The two stones vary greatly in terms of brilliance, so you need to decide if brilliance is as priority for you.
I went through something similar for my upgrade.
An oval / round will have maximum sparkle. You will see the colors of the rainbow, the disco ball effect... brilliance. That's why rounds are call brilliant cuts. They are cut to maximize sparkle. An oval is similar.
An emerald / asscher is step-cut, meaning the facets are in parallel lines. This will not give you sparkle, but rather, it will give you a sleek, smooth look.
I went through a similar decision when I upgraded my engagement ring. I was dead set on an asscher cut (square emerald cut with clipped corners). It is my favorite cut, and when cut perfectly, it looks like you are staring into infinity. I also looked at an emerald cut. However, while these step-cut diamonds are super beautiful and gorgeus to me, I wanted sparkle above all else. I went the boring route and chose a round brilliant cut because I wanted super brilliance. A diamond with super briliance/sparkle was the #1 priority for me, and of course we all know for maximum brilliance, it's the boring round.
I love love love my boring round brilliant diamond!
My sister-in-law has a 3 carat Cartier engagement ring (D Flawless), and she is constantly wiping it to clean to make it sparkle, but it will never sparkle like an round or oval. She regrets getting an emerald cut as she did not realize how much she valued sparkle when she purchased it, especially when she sees other rounds / ovals.
The emerald / asscher steps cuts remain my favorite cut. However, I satisfy that urge through my colored gemstone rings.
I want to share this as it's something to think about. I would suggest you try on oval and emeralds that are already set. Look at the brilliance and see if that is a priority for you. It was for me. Also, for step cuts such as the emerald, you can see flaws and color much more than an oval; hence emeralds require a cleaner stone (e.g. higher clarity, higher color).
To answer your question on which stone...
I prefer the oval. It has a lot of sparkle and is lively. The oval has life when I stare at it, and it looks great on you. I also do not see a huge bow-tie which indicates the oval is cut well.
Something else to consider on the emerald above...
Cut ratios are 100% preference, but to me, the emerald in the photo is a bit too skinny. The ratio looks like a 1.6? The ideal ratio is 1.4, but again, ratio is 100% preference.
Hope this helps in your decision.
So both stones are cut pretty well and are of high colour and clarity… I have loved stepped cuts all my life. While I really love bling too, my personality is and style is pretty understated, eg if I were to wear labels I usually opt for those without huge logos etc. and like to be a bit different, which is why my initial thought is that emerald cuts are ”aligned” with my personality and style? That being said when I envisioned an emerald I envisioned a bigger stone. So I looked at other fancy shapes and also then fell in love with ovals because they are classic with a twist - which is what I normally go for too! Sooo… Truly I love both cuts!!!! They both satisfy my need for being “different”.
So I guess in essence my main thought taking your points into account is this - I wonder if the step facets of even a good quality emerald cut stone are lost if the diamond is too small. And so, in this case, wonder if the emerald above is too small in that sense? Emeralds being deeper cuts will face up smaller than ovals, and if the budget doesn’t allow for a larger emerald cut diamond of the same quality/specifications, am I better off with an oval? Does that make sense?
(PS. Emerald stone I’ve shared is a 1.54 ratio. You are right in saying it looks skinny, that’s because my fingers are relatively wide! That’s why I would like a 3 stone ring, to add coverage to the sides… But yes maybe I can source for one a little lower in ratio. I guess the issue is that at that general size to go down in height and up in width may make the stone appear stubby and small on my hand. Hmm.
I value the points you’ve all raised! Curious for your thoughts on this…
(PS. Emerald stone I’ve shared is a 1.54 ratio. You are right in saying it looks skinny, that’s because my fingers are relatively wide! That’s why I would like a 3 stone ring, to add coverage to the sides… But yes maybe I can source for one a little lower in ratio. I guess the issue is that at that general size to go down in height and up in width may make the stone appear stubby and small on my hand. Hmm.)
Last edited:
I’ll leave it to the diamond experts (i am not one of them) but I think it’s possible to get a shallow stone with more surface area. I also think it’s possible to get the stone set such that it maximizes light. . .
The current emerald I’ve shared is
1.5 ct F VS2, 1.54 ratio (8.39 x 5.45). It’s really a good balance of all the specs imo. Happy for the experts to chime in on what I can relent on for a bigger stone, without compromising on the overall look and of an emerald cut! They are just so high maintenance
Ideally I would get a slightly larger stone however, at the 1.8+ ct mark, slightly longer and wider. But to retain the colour and clarity etc. I would probably have to up the budget by quite a fair bit…
Whereas with the oval, the one pictured is 1.5ct and it already faces up slightly larger than the emerald cut. I don’t know if it’s just me but maybe the brilliance also helps to make up for size…
If you really love the emerald cut and want a three stone ring, have you explored other options for the surrounding stones, like yellow or blue sapphires etc. There are also very nice looking emerald cuts surrounded by triangular stones. . . Also, many of us change things around or upgrade later on. . . IMO it’s the marriage that’s forever, not the ring.
I love your ring! That is the setting I’ve got sketched up too
May I ask for the dimensions of your emerald cut diamond? My main dilemma lies with overall coverage…
Thank you. 2.9 ct centre (9.7mm long x 6.4mm wide) with 0.7 ct total side traps. My finger is 5.25 if that helps. All the best with deciding. It's the most fun part when buying jewellery.
Some vendors have upgrade programs so you can eventually trade your current one for a larger one later on ( read the information carefully). Can you save a little longer so you can go up in size?
I say don’t rush into a purchase. Take your time.
Some people are comfortable buying online diamonds, others aren’t.
I say don’t rush into a purchase. Take your time.
Some people are comfortable buying online diamonds, others aren’t.
Hi. I completely understand your dilemma. Here are my thoughts to answer you questions...Thank you! I appreciate your pointers and agree with them all. Taking them into account, I am still struggling… would be grateful for your views on my thoughts below please!
So both stones are cut pretty well and are of high colour and clarity… I have loved stepped cuts all my life. While I really love bling too, my personality is and style is pretty understated, eg if I were to wear labels I usually opt for those without huge logos etc. and like to be a bit different, which is why my initial thought is that emerald cuts are ”aligned” with my personality and style? That being said when I envisioned an emerald I envisioned a bigger stone. So I looked at other fancy shapes and also then fell in love with ovals because they are classic with a twist - which is what I normally go for too! Sooo… Truly I love both cuts!!!! They both satisfy my need for being “different”.
So I guess in essence my main thought taking your points into account is this - I wonder if the step facets of even a good quality emerald cut stone are lost if the diamond is too small. And so, in this case, wonder if the emerald above is too small in that sense? Emeralds being deeper cuts will face up smaller than ovals, and if the budget doesn’t allow for a larger emerald cut diamond of the same quality/specifications, am I better off with an oval? Does that make sense?
(PS. Emerald stone I’ve shared is a 1.54 ratio. You are right in saying it looks skinny, that’s because my fingers are relatively wide! That’s why I would like a 3 stone ring, to add coverage to the sides… But yes maybe I can source for one a little lower in ratio. I guess the issue is that at that general size to go down in height and up in width may make the stone appear stubby and small on my hand. Hmm.
I value the points you’ve all raised! Curious for your thoughts on this…
(PS. Emerald stone I’ve shared is a 1.54 ratio. You are right in saying it looks skinny, that’s because my fingers are relatively wide! That’s why I would like a 3 stone ring, to add coverage to the sides… But yes maybe I can source for one a little lower in ratio. I guess the issue is that at that general size to go down in height and up in width may make the stone appear stubby and small on my hand. Hmm.)
Size...
Yes, I think emeralds (and all step cuts) need to be a certain size to truly show their beauty.
The beauty of an emerald cut is the "hall of mirrors" effect as you know. I don't see it in the emerald posted above, so if you really want an emerald, I would not get that stone.
Finger coverage...
I know you are worried about finger coverage, but adding side stones is not going to make the emerald look bigger. It will just look like you added side stones to make the "ring" look bigger. To me then, you then get the three-stone ring effect. I'm not a fan of the three-stone ring setting because that is exactly the purpose of this setting... to make the ring look bigger.
This is 100% preference, but to me, with a three-stone ring, the center diamond is no longer the star. Yes, you get a bigger "ring" look, but the side stones compete, and the eye is all over the place. The center diamond gets a bit lost.
Emerald cut...
The emerald cut is your favorite cut, yet the stone has not "wowed" you...
I personally think this is because the emerald stone is not sparkly enough and too small, even if you add some side stones.
Again, it's the nature of a step-cut... it looks like a hall of mirrors, not a disco ball. This is exactly what happened to me when I looked at asscher and emerald cuts. No wow, no love at first sight, no ear-to-ear grin (my wow asscher is Elizabeth Taylor's 33ct asscher... super wow!). I then decided on a round and asked Tiffany to bring in several rounds I had chosen from specs. It was love at first sight. Ear-to-ear grin, stuck on my face. The super sparkle I wanted.
You mentioned you wanted to add side stones to give it more presence... this says to me the emerald diamond alone is not sufficient. To me, the center stone alone should wow you! You should love love love your center stone.
When it comes to an engagement ring, for me.. it is all about the diamond, not the ring setting. I like the diamond to be the star.
Full circle back to ovals...
Ovals are beautiful! I had an oval as my original engagement ring (the Tiffany round was an upgrade ring). It was a surprise from my husband, then boyfriend. I never even thought about an oval, but he picked the shape as he said it was so sparkly and unique. Ovals show bigger than their carat weight due to the shape. Ovals also have a lot of beautiful sparkle.
If I were you...
I would put all my money into one single oval stone and let it be the star. You will get super sparkle and the stone will face up larger than an equivalent weight emerald. Plus, you won't feel the need to wipe it down constantly like an emerald, thinking it's dirty and hoping it will sparkle more, trust me, you'll do this with an emerald if sparkle is what you want, especially when you see it next to other rounds/ovals.
All that said...
If you still really want an emerald, I would look for a 1.4 ratio, add some traps, use a knife-edge shank, and call it a day!
Just my thoughts to share. Good luck in your decision!
And... congratulations to you on your engagement!
Last edited:
Thank you everyone who has taken the time to chime in and help guide me along. I think you are right. The emerald cut is a nice stone but I’m not in love with it.Hi. I completely understand your dilemma. Here are my thoughts to answer you questions...
Size...
Yes, I think emeralds (and all step cuts) need to be a certain size to truly show their beauty.
The beauty of an emerald cut is the "hall of mirrors" effect as you know. I don't see it in the emerald posted above, so if you really want an emerald, I would not get that stone.
Finger coverage...
I know you are worried about finger coverage, but adding side stones is not going to make the emerald look bigger. It will just look like you added side stones to make the "ring" look bigger. To me then, you then get the three-stone ring effect. I'm not a fan of the three-stone ring setting because that is exactly the purpose of this setting... to make the ring look bigger.
This is 100% preference, but to me, with a three-stone ring, the center diamond is no longer the star. Yes, you get a bigger "ring" look, but the side stones compete, and the eye is all over the place. The center diamond gets a bit lost.
Emerald cut...
The emerald cut is your favorite cut, yet the stone has not "wowed" you...
I personally think this is because the emerald stone is not sparkly enough and too small, even if you add some side stones.
Again, it's the nature of a step-cut... it looks like a hall of mirrors, not a disco ball. This is exactly what happened to me when I looked at asscher and emerald cuts. No wow, no love at first sight, no ear-to-ear grin (my wow asscher is Elizabeth Taylor's 33ct asscher... super wow!). I then decided on a round and asked Tiffany to bring in several rounds I had chosen from specs. It was love at first sight. Ear-to-ear grin, stuck on my face. The super sparkle I wanted.
You mentioned you wanted to add side stones to give it more presence... this says to me the emerald diamond alone is not sufficient. To me, the center stone alone should wow you! You should love love love your center stone.
When it comes to an engagement ring, for me.. it is all about the diamond, not the ring setting. I like the diamond to be the star.
Full circle back to ovals...
Ovals are beautiful! I had an oval as my original engagement ring (the Tiffany round was an upgrade ring). It was a surprise from my husband, then boyfriend. I never even thought about an oval, but he picked the shape as he said it was so sparkly and unique. Ovals show bigger than their carat weight due to the shape. Ovals also have a lot of beautiful sparkle.
If I were you...
I would put all my money into one single oval stone and let it be the star. You will get super sparkle and the stone will face up larger than an equivalent weight emerald. Plus, you won't feel the need to wipe it down constantly like an emerald, thinking it's dirty and hoping it will sparkle more, trust me, you'll do this with an emerald if sparkle is what you want, especially when you see it next to other rounds/ovals.
All that said...
If you still really want an emerald, I would look for a 1.4 ratio, add some traps, use a knife-edge shank, and call it a day!
Just my thoughts to share. Good luck in your decision!
And... congratulations to you on your engagement!
If that’s the case while I love love love the emerald, it’s either I size up size and budget wise, or as you say, put all the money into a single wonderful oval. I feel a little sad letting go of the emerald lol, the shape is… the kind of glam I love. But it’s not the end, and as with all things it’s all about compromise and sacrifice to get the wiser option I suppose! Hopefully I’ll find an oval I love a lot and am wowed by that I’ll no longer have FOMO over the emerald!!!
As for 3 stone rings, yes I agree - the size of side stones and type is important so as not to detract from the centre! I don’t think I could carry off a massive stone even if my budget would allow, and I don’t enjoy single stones nor halos (my fingers just can’t carry them off!)… just love the look of 3 stones and the overall spread of them all together! Tapered baguettes and traps are my fave
but I get what you mean. Some settings if not done right can make it look too busy!If any of you have tips on ovals, do let me know! I am fortunate to know a dealer who specialises in good cut fancy shapes so most of them should not have obvious bow ties… any other tips re sweet spot for colour/clarity/other specs?
I am grateful to all of you for taking time to read of my dilemma and share your experiences!!! It has truly helped.
Here is a website for a diamond expert, Jonathan. https://www.distinctivegem.com/ Look at his ovals for cuts with no bowtie. He is amazing with diamond cuts and alot of research is on his site.
I think you will love love love your oval. You love sparkle, and the oval will give you the sparkle you want yet be "different" than just a round.Thank you everyone who has taken the time to chime in and help guide me along. I think you are right. The emerald cut is a nice stone but I’m not in love with it.
If that’s the case while I love love love the emerald, it’s either I size up size and budget wise, or as you say, put all the money into a single wonderful oval. I feel a little sad letting go of the emerald lol, the shape is… the kind of glam I love. But it’s not the end, and as with all things it’s all about compromise and sacrifice to get the wiser option I suppose! Hopefully I’ll find an oval I love a lot and am wowed by that I’ll no longer have FOMO over the emerald!!!
As for 3 stone rings, yes I agree - the size of side stones and type is important so as not to detract from the centre! I don’t think I could carry off a massive stone even if my budget would allow, and I don’t enjoy single stones nor halos (my fingers just can’t carry them off!)… just love the look of 3 stones and the overall spread of them all together! Tapered baguettes and traps are my fave
If any of you have tips on ovals, do let me know! I am fortunate to know a dealer who specialises in good cut fancy shapes so most of them should not have obvious bow ties… any other tips re sweet spot for colour/clarity/other specs?
I am grateful to all of you for taking time to read of my dilemma and share your experiences!!! It has truly helped.
Not to confuse you even further, if you hate rounds, I understand, and peace. We shall speak no more of rounds.
However, if sparkle is your #1 priority as it was mine, don't dismiss them yet. Take a look at rounds when you look at ovals. I was anti-round, it was not even under consideration, yet with sparkle as my #1 priority (after size), I ended up with a round. My boring round is super sparkly, and my ring is all about the diamond. I will say this, my boring round gets a lot of "your diamond is gorgeous" comments. There is a reason why rounds are the #1 cut sold, super sparkle like no other cut.
For your oval, some thoughts...
I agree tapered baquettes are super gorgeous with an oval. Thin baquettes are an "accent" stone, not part of a "three-stone" look. The oval will clearly be the star. By the way, even for larger stones that you see celebrities wear, the side stones are mostly accent stones such as a tapered baquette. The sides stones do not try to do the "three-stone" look, so the center diamond still pops.
On the oval cut...
You are already aware of the bow-tie and length/width ratio. The other thing to consider is the shoulder of the stone. The l/w ratio or specs will not indicate the shoulder width, and you need to visually look for that. The shoulders do not really impact the sparkle; it is more aesthetic. It's subtle, so be sure to stare at the slope carefully.
Just to be sure and in case you don't know what I mean, here are photos I posted from GIA.
The first photo points to the shoulder (e.g. the curve of the oval) to be sure we are on the same page. The three other photos show you different shoulders in an oval.
This is where 100% preference comes in. I prefer an oval that has tiny tiny bulging shoulders. I think it gives it ever so more a presence, like a "plump oval." I think if the shoulders are too flat, it tends to lean toward a marquise. That's just me of course.
This is pure preference, but pay attention. The shoulder will matter to you once you've stared at your gorgoeus diamond 50 times... you will see every angle of your stone.
And of course be sure the shoulders are curve the same at the top as they are at the bottom (the oval in the photo you posted does not look perfectly symmetrical to me, the shoulders at the bottom look more flat, but it could be the photo)Yikes... Sorry for the long post. I get carried away sometimes as I love jewelry and bling. Hope this helps, and happy Sunday!
Last edited:
I just want to caution you regarding giving up on the emerald cut.
I had a certain style in mind for years and I searched and searched without luck. Ppl started to advise me to go with something different & logically it made sense ( it was truly beautiful) , but emotionally I couldn’t let go of that dream.
I waited so long and I knew I would always feel like I compromised.
I decided to keep waiting and searching (and yes I upped the budget) but in the end I got what I dreamed of and it was worth it.
So be very sure you won’t feel that regret even if you end up with the most beautiful oval.
I suggest trying on a bunch of ovals and emeralds and just see how you feel about each shape and whether you prefer the sparkle or the flashes.
Perhaps you will end up preferring a different shape altogether who knows.
But for now, go try on .
I had a certain style in mind for years and I searched and searched without luck. Ppl started to advise me to go with something different & logically it made sense ( it was truly beautiful) , but emotionally I couldn’t let go of that dream.
I waited so long and I knew I would always feel like I compromised.
I decided to keep waiting and searching (and yes I upped the budget) but in the end I got what I dreamed of and it was worth it.
So be very sure you won’t feel that regret even if you end up with the most beautiful oval.
I suggest trying on a bunch of ovals and emeralds and just see how you feel about each shape and whether you prefer the sparkle or the flashes.
Perhaps you will end up preferring a different shape altogether who knows.
But for now, go try on .