Oval diamonds

[meely]

I have been scanning lots of old threads regarding ovals as soon I will be choosing one but I am finding it difficult to find much technical information, both here and generally online.
I know that your own eyes and asets are considered to be more reliable than purely looking at the numbers and I have been looking a lot at the videos on James Allen. I have found an old thread with old GIA recommended parameters. I realise that many ovals that fall within may not be very attractive (is this why these numbers are no longer officially used?) but are the numbers still useful as a weeding out tool? I have found several diamonds that I find visually appealing (lots of contrast of movement, less pronounced bow tie etc) however they tend to be deeper or/and with a smaller table than is recommended. I realise a deep diamond will have less spread, if I am ok with that because I believe the diamond to be within the 10% of ovals I find attractive what are the other potential negatives if any?

 

[msop04]

I have been scanning lots of old threads regarding ovals as soon I will be choosing one but I am finding it difficult to find much technical information, both here and generally online.
I know that your own eyes and asets are considered to be more reliable than purely looking at the numbers and I have been looking a lot at the videos on James Allen. I have found an old thread with old GIA recommended parameters. I realise that many ovals that fall within may not be very attractive (is this why these numbers are no longer officially used?) but are the numbers still useful as a weeding out tool? I have found several diamonds that I find visually appealing (lots of contrast of movement, less pronounced bow tie etc) however they tend to be deeper or/and with a smaller table than is recommended. I realise a deep diamond will have less spread, if I am ok with that because I believe the diamond to be within the 10% of ovals I find attractive what are the other potential negatives if any?

No, you cannot use numbers to weed out fancy cut diamonds (anything other than rounds). You need to be able to see the oval in photos and videos, at the very least. I wouldn't get caught up in table and depth... Look for crisp, lively faceting, minimal or no bow-tie, and no "mush".

 

[tyty333]

Ditto msop04...
Unfortunately, using the numbers tends to lead to including stones that arent that attractive and excluding stones that are attracting.
You can try using them but its usually easier to just use your eyeballs to find the pretty ones...looking at the numbers can be a pain.
Once you pick out the ones you find attractive, you can narrow down by the numbers if you choose and see which ones drop out of
your selection and which ones stay (that would be more just for fun and if you have time).

Also, listing color/clarity/budget/size specs and getting help is a quicker way to find nice stones.

 

[msop04]

Also, listing color/clarity/budget/size specs and getting help is a quicker way to find nice stones.

What are the specs you're looking for, OP? Budget? Typically, we recommend not dropping below H color in ovals (they tend to show more color on the ends). What type of setting and metal do you want? If you plan on setting in yellow or rose gold, and don't mind a little tint, you could even go I/J/K, depending on your tolerance. Also, do you like a "chubby", more rounded oval, a very elongated one, or something in between?

 

[meely]

Thank you both for your replies - you have given me more confidence in my own opinions when I have been viewing stones (although I still need help!).
I am going to start looking early to mid August as this will be when I have the funds. I won't say what I am looking for at the moment as I am not yet in a position to buy anything and I think it could lead to disappointment if I see something perfect!
I have been waiting for five years for my engagement ring so as you can imagine I am quite excited (but a bit more of a wait makes little difference!). I have just received my quote from David Klass to make my ring which I am going to go ahead with as all the design elements I am after I have seen him do in one form or another.
It will be a twist on a double halo which takes its cue from Edwardian design but will be quite modern in its execution.
With regard to the oval, pretty standard ratio 1:35-1:45. I find a bulge appealing but I am not sure that it will work with the design I want, so I may go with a more classic shape. I think the cads will actually help with this which he has offered to get started on.
With regard to colour I really want to stick to G and above - I am colour sensitive and it will be in platinum.
I can't wait to post when I am further along and see what others think. This ring will never be upgraded, it will be passed down to my daughter and I want it to also be very saleable in case she needs funds one day so lots of things to think about.

 

[msop04]

This may be obvious, but I wanted to say that you need to have your stone before CADS can be done. But I guess he's just working out the rough design?

 

[meely]

Well that's what I assumed and I think you must be right. Having said all that, I think it will be beneficial to me in The diamond selection process as there is such variance in shape/ratio it will have impact on the overall shape which is really important to me. Therefore I might end up going a different route with regard to the shape of the oval that is different to what I am currently envisaging - if that makes sense?!

 

[msop04]

Well that's what I assumed and I think you must be right. Having said all that, I think it will be beneficial to me in The diamond selection process as there is such variance in shape/ratio it will have impact on the overall shape which is really important to me. Therefore I might end up going a different route with regard to the shape of the oval that is different to what I am currently envisaging - if that makes sense?!

That makes sense... a halo will add more "roundness", lowering the ratio of the overall shape.

 

[drk14]

Do you have a range of preferred L/W ratios for the outline of the outer halo? If you want the outer halo outline to look like a "standard" oval (L/W 1.33-1.5), then you will need a skinnier oval for the center diamond.

The effect will be more pronounced when you do a double halo, and more significant for diamonds that aren't huge. For example, my wife's ring has a 1-ct marquise with L/W=2.22, set in a double halo. The inner halo outline has L/W=2, and the outer halo outline has L/W=1.75.

If you can provide an estimate of the size oval you will be looking for, as well as the width of the halos and your preferred L/W for the halo outline, I can give you some guidance on the L/W you would need for the center oval.

 

[meely]

Thanks drk14 that would be much appreciated - Your wife's ring is fabulous!
So aesthetically I find 1:35-50 ratio more pleasing for ovals however I suspect that the overall shape I'm after may warrant a longer oval. That concerns me however as I have read that it is likely bow ties and mush will be more pronounced.
The rings with the emerald and pink sapphire centre stones show the kind of overall shape I'm after.



The ruby ring I am not so keen on the shape, it is too rounded.

However I am not after a traditional halo, basically I want a bezelled halo, followed by an inner halo of small melee (not bezelled) then the outer halo I would like to be larger diamonds each in individually bezelled like those in the diamond ring with emerald.

It definitely requires some careful planning and the selection of the right oval shape is crucial.

 

[valeria101]

A rectangular (rather than square) cushion would fit the design at least as well as an oval - I think ...

Not that this shape is any more common than the perfect oval !

 

[meely]

I considered a cushion but I think with a double halo the overall shape will be too rectangular for what I want.

 

[meely]

I have had a very rough measure (I do not have a printer to do this more accurately) of the centre stones in the two halos I liked, the emerald was around 1:30 ratio, the pink sapphire around 1.40. Most of diamonds I have been looking at fall between 1:38-44 so I feel slightly reassured that I can achieve the look I want. Here are close ups of the two stones and one of the diamonds I was looking at. What do others think? I prefer the shape of the pink sapphire ring overall but would be happy with the look of the emerald ring.

 

[meely]

And the photos

 

[drk14]

I have had a very rough measure (I do not have a printer to do this more accurately) of the centre stones in the two halos I liked, the emerald was around 1:30 ratio, the pink sapphire around 1.40.

I estimate 1.26 for the emerald and 1.38 for the pink sapphire. The outlines of the corresponding halos have L/W 1.09 and 1.20, respectively.

You are right that you should be able to find a nice oval with the required aspect ratio.

For feedback on any specific ovals you are considering, please post link to video (e.g., post a link to the JA page for the diamond).

 

[meely]

Thanks for taking the time to do that, I appreciate it. I do not mind if I have a slightly longer looking ring so I will aim for around 1:38-1:44. Do you think I would be better off with a oval that bulges at the shoulders or will it make little discernible difference? Also I have asked about numbers already but how important are symmetry and polish?

 

[meely]

Oh and yes when I get to the point of deciding between specific ovals I will link to them! At the moment I'm still trying to educate myself.

 

[drk14]

Do you think I would be better off with a oval that bulges at the shoulders or will it make little discernible difference? Also I have asked about numbers already but how important are symmetry and polish?

I don't think the shape factor (bulge) will make a major difference as far as the appearance of the outer halo. The main thing for you to do is to decide on desired spread (minimum length and minimum width), color, clarity and budget. With these parameters, we can hunt for ovals that have decent light performance. In recent searches that I've done, I've found that it is easier to find good sparkle in slightly chubbier ovals (L/W 1.33-1.36), although not impossible in the more elongated ones. Nonetheless, you should consider whether you're comfortable extending your L/W range downwards. As per the pictures you posted, you can achieve the halo shape you want for L/W>1.3.

I don't consider symmetry an important search parameter for ovals (if poor symmetry has adverse effects on the diamond performance, we'll be able to exclude the stone when looking at the video), but I like to restrict polish to Excellent, in order to get crisper flashes.

 

[meely]

Ok all very interesting and points I will bare in mind thank you. Out of curiousity have you come across any exceptational ovals recently? (with no regard to colour/clarity/carat/cost) if you have and it isn't too much trouble would you be able to share them and what makes them special in comparison to most?

 

[meely]

Oh and I should say I don't feel so inclined to go as low as 1:30, 1:35-1:45 if definitely my sweet spot. But who knows if the best option turns out to be a 1:30 then I will reconsider!

 

[drk14]

Ok all very interesting and points I will bare in mind thank you. Out of curiousity have you come across any exceptational ovals recently? (with no regard to colour/clarity/carat/cost) if you have and it isn't too much trouble would you be able to share them and what makes them special in comparison to most?

If you go through my recent post history, you will see a number of ovals that I have recommended (or you can do a search on keyword "oval" for posts by user drk14 in forum RockyTalky).

This post from July 12 describes my approach to evaluating fancy cut diamonds (like ovals) using online video, and should help you understand how I make my selections:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/posts/4187619/

If you have questions about why I've recommended a specific stone, let me know.