Square off: OVAL vs ROUND *pics, please help*

[Heidibrooke]

I'm more confused than ever. I truly love both! Whichever I choose will be set in a 1.6mm thin micropave platinum setting. I probably will wear the engaged look for awhile, not enough insurance money for a band. So, quickly, here are the stats again. ROUND: 1.00 H SI1 POL:EX SYM: EX Ideal cut. OVAL: .94 G IF POL: EX SYM: EX. PLEASE help me decide!! I think I will be truly happy with either though. I love the look of the oval, and that it's IF. I thought the round would sparkle A LOT more than the oval, but it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, it sparkles a little more, it's just not by a landslide. Both are GIA certified.

I really need your opinions, please!!

 

[Heidibrooke]

And here are hand shots of each....

 

[yennyfire]

Oval, hands down. It's a tad more unusual than the round, which I like and it's a stunning oval at that. I also think it looks larger than the round. However, YOU have to chose what you love now and will love for years to come. You really can't go wrong either way....

 

[Tekate]

the Oval.. it's sparklier.. and it looks bigger.. I like ovals best, I had one but it had a horrible bowtie.. if you don't have a bowtie, it's sleek and elegant..!! either way, both are simply gorgeous.

 

[needsomebling]

I kind of like the round one better, but yeah it's a personal thing. I'd say go with your gut instinct. I like the traditional round shape, and I find the oval one looks a bit like a crystal jellybean. The interior reflections of the facets looks kind of busy to me. You could always get the other one later on and swap between the two depending on how you feel like.

 

[Gypsy]

You are overpaying for IF clarity on that oval. I'd get a larger oval, but go for an oval.

 

[yennyfire]

You are overpaying for IF clarity on that oval. I'd get a larger oval, but go for an oval.

I totally agree with you about overpaying for the IF clarity, but I've seen no lovelier oval than that one (other than my own of course! ). I think it's going to be tough to find one that rivals this one.

 

[Heidibrooke]

I can't seem to find a bigger oval, in my price range, with at least G color (don't want to go lower due to the elongated shape holding color), without a prominent bowtie. I reset my fields to G SI1, and the biggest oval in my price range is 1.11, and it's a IGI cert with only good polish and symmetry.

 

[Gypsy]

Hmm. Okay I can see that.

The only one I can find that may (may) be okay is this one: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.13-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-171378 But it is 1mm shorter and 1 mm fatter. So... no gain there. Plus it's holding weight in the girdle.

I do like that oval. They both look good on your hands.

How are you thinking of setting them? That may make a difference to me.

 

[Mayk]

I'm a MRB fan... But I love that oval and it looks right at home on your hand!

 

[Niel]

you said this would be set in a solitaire right? im not a big fan of ovals in solitaires. i feel like they need a little more umph

 

[Heidibrooke]

That's a nice oval. I actually like that one. My only hang up on that one would be its ratio. I'm planning to set the diamond in this setting (platinum):

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/platinum-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-2018

What do you think? Would that look good with an oval? I love halos...but I don't think I would love it long term.

 

[motownmama]

I voted for round - I do not think the oval looks bigger - longer yes, bigger, no. The round just looks nicer to me.

 

[Enerchi]

I went for the MRB as well. I do love the fancy shapes and that oval is beautiful on your hand... but that MRB just had me at "hello" It has a great presence on your hand, and while it is the most common diamond shape out there, its still a classic for a reason! I also think that as a solitaire, you can totally bling up a wedding band/eternity band to go with it. My guess is its a whole lot easier to find a wedding band to fit a MRB than an oval.

But never mind all that - go with what you love the best - you will be wearing it, not us!

 

[Niel]

That's a nice oval. I actually like that one. My only hang up on that one would be it's ratio. I'm planning to set the diamond in this setting (platinum):

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/platinum-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-2018

What do you think? Would that look good with an oval? I love halos...but I don't think I would love it long term.

im not the biggest fan of that setting, the cads look good but the actual photos dont seem to be that flattering, i cant see much of the side diamonds.

 

[Heidibrooke]

I have questioned it too. I've seen a few actual photos of this setting, and the thing I like best is its thinness. I want something super dainty.

 

[Gypsy]

I don't like that setting either. And that stock basic head is just not going to make for a nice profile, and you will be seeing your ring in profile a lot.

And I get wanting dainty but you want durable too. http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/18k-white-gold-pave-set-four-prong-diamond-engagement-ring-item-22612 This one is only 1.6-1.9mm. That' is dainty. http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-pave-cathedral-claw-prong-engagement-ring-item-1637 this one is another option.

Is there a price difference between the two stones?

 

[Niel]

I always liked this one. The head particularly. I do think it looks quite dainty and well made, compared to some other ones around this price at JA. Plus I think it would look very "blake lively if you went this with the oval. Though I still vote round lol.

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-rounded-pave-engagement-solitaire-item-8116

 

[Laila619]

I like the round better.

 

[LaraOnline]

This thread is making me feel torn...
I can't help you make this decision, as I myself was all geed up to swap my MRB for an oval, then I backed out.

Advice from my trusted diamond guy is that the light return is not as good, and so I may not be satisfied...
But the shape is so refreshing, and look so elegant on the hand.

 

[Heidibrooke]

I like the first link, but the second is cathedral, and I just don't like cathedral. I'm kind of strapped, as my insurance claim gave me 3k less than I paid for my rings that I lost. I'm trying to put the majority of our money into the stone, and I can always change a setting. The round is $880 more than the oval. I've already requested a different head, when I'm ready to order. I like thinner prongs, and I want to see the bottom of my diamond. I know most like a very low setting, but I like mine a little higher.

 

[Heidibrooke]

I know, right? I feel so torn too. I love the pattern of a RB, but I don't like how it's so common. Ovals look very classy to me. I just wish they had cut grades, like rounds. They are hard to shop for.

 

[Gypsy]

You have to shop with your eyes.

For 800 difference... I'd go with the oval.


Hon, why did you get so much less for you set from your insurance. That doesn't sound right.

 

[woofmama]

I voted oval because I think that particular oval is a great stone. I almost always choose fancies over rounds for a solitaire style ring.
Personal preference, I just like to be different and unique. I do love rounds but appreciate them more in three stone or five style rings.

 

[Christina...]

I have questioned it too. I've seen a few actual photos of this setting, and the thing I like best is its thinness. I want something super dainty.

I purchased the thin French pave awhile back and exchanged it for the .32 version. The thin was very dainty however, each time I looked at the setting I felt that I saw more metal than diamond. The .32 is still very thin and the overall appearance more pleasing IMO. ETA I had the head changed as well.

 

[GreenBling]

I voted for the oval because the icy whiteness really catches my attention. I am partial to high color though.

 

[Acinom]

I voted for the oval as it is special and unusual an very elegant on your hand!!

U fortunately I cannot open the link due to a server error, but I will come back later to peek.
1.6 mm seems very thin? I would follow the advice of the experts here and choose dainty+durable.

 

[soxfan]

If you are doing a solitaire, I vote round. If you are doing the oval, I really like it with a dainty halo. It seems like it doesn't give you as much finger coverage as the round.

 

[Niel]

Go oval and put that money toward the setting. I still think the last setting I suggested would be killer with an oval. No head switching, and would be in budget I assume as the difference between oval and round would make up that price increase. Its dainty( if I read it right its under 2 mm) and doesn't have a cathedral.

 

[yssie]

I prefer the idea of an oval - unique, unusual, classic with a twist - but in your pics, the two handshot comparisons especially, my eyes go straight to the round. I don't know why... your fingers look quite long so maybe I appreciate the horizontal coverage of the RB more...

Hon, why did you get so much less for you set from your insurance. That doesn't sound right.

I'm wondering about this too - what happened here?