The guide
What each diamond shape actually looks like on a hand, how lab-grown, natural and moissanite really differ, and which metal survives being worn every day. Written by the bench that makes them.
Last updated 2026-09-20
Shape is the decision people agonise over most and reverse least. It sets the character of the ring more than carat does, and unlike carat it cannot be adjusted later. Here is what each one actually does on a hand, including the part the shape does not flatter.
Fifty-seven facets cut to a formula that has been refined for a century to return as much light as possible straight back at the eye. It is the brightest shape there is, and the one that hides a slightly lower colour or clarity grade best.
The trade-off — It is also the most expensive per carat, because cutting one wastes more of the rough than any other shape. You are paying for the stone that was cut away.
A round brilliant stretched. The elongation flatters the finger, and because the weight is spread across a longer footprint an oval reads larger than a round of the same carat.
The trade-off — Elongated brilliants can show a bow-tie — a dark band across the middle where the facets shadow each other. Every oval has one to some degree; a well-cut one is faint enough that you have to look for it. Always see the actual stone.
A round at one end and a point at the other. Worn point-up it lengthens the hand more than any other shape, and it is the one people most often describe as looking like a flame.
The trade-off — The point is the vulnerable part of the stone and must be protected by a claw, not left exposed. Pears also show a bow-tie, and symmetry matters enormously — a pear that is even slightly lopsided cannot be unseen.
A square with rounded corners and large facets. It throws broader, softer flashes of colour than a round does, which is why it looks particularly good in low light and across a dinner table.
The trade-off — Those larger facets return slightly less light overall, so a cushion looks a little less bright than a round of the same grade. What it trades in brightness it gains in fire.
Square, with brilliant-style faceting underneath, so it keeps much of a round's sparkle in a modern outline. It also wastes less rough than a round, which is why it tends to be better value per carat.
The trade-off — The four sharp corners are the weakest points on the stone and must be covered by claws. An uncovered corner is the most common way a diamond gets chipped.
A step cut: long parallel facets instead of the triangular ones on a brilliant. Rather than sparkle it gives broad flashes and a clear window straight into the stone. It is the most architectural of the shapes and the most understated.
The trade-off — That clear window hides nothing. An emerald cut needs a higher clarity grade than a brilliant of the same size, because any inclusion is simply visible. Budget for clarity rather than carat here.
A square step cut with cropped corners, and concentric facets that draw the eye down into the middle in an X. Strongly Art Deco, and the shape that looks most obviously deliberate.
The trade-off — Same as the emerald — a step cut shows its inclusions, so clarity carries more weight than size.
The outline of an emerald cut with the faceting of a brilliant underneath. It is the compromise shape: the square silhouette people want, with the sparkle a step cut cannot give them.
The trade-off — Radiants vary more than most shapes, from nearly square to distinctly rectangular. Two stones of the same carat can look quite different, so the ratio is worth specifying.
Pointed at both ends and the most efficient shape on the hand: a marquise covers more finger per carat than anything else, so it looks the largest for its weight.
The trade-off — Two points to protect rather than one, and a pronounced bow-tie is common. Symmetry is unforgiving — the two halves must match.
A pear with a cleft. It is the shape that reads as a heart from across a room, which is the entire point of it.
The trade-off — It needs size to read properly — below about a carat the cleft and the lobes get too small to see, and it stops looking like a heart. Symmetry is everything.
The antique cushion, cut by hand before electric saws — a high crown, a small table and a large open culet at the bottom. It was cut to work by candlelight, which is exactly why it looks the way it does: big, slow flashes of fire rather than the fast white sparkle of a modern brilliant. We cut these on commission.
The trade-off — Modern grading is built around modern cuts, so an old mine will not score well on a cut grade. That is the cut being measured against the wrong ruler, not a flaw — but it does mean a certificate tells you less here than your own eyes do.
The antique marquise, with fewer and larger facets than the modern one and a softer, more irregular outline. It has the hand-cut character an exactly symmetrical stone cannot have. Also cut to order.
The trade-off — Genuinely uncommon, so it is a commission rather than a selection — and like the old mine, it is cut for character rather than to a grading sheet.
This is the decision with the largest effect on what your budget buys, and the one with the most nonsense written about it. All three are real stones. Only one of them is not a diamond.
Choose it if the origin is part of the meaning for you. That is a real reason and it does not need defending.
The honest caveat is resale. Lab-grown prices have fallen as production has scaled and there is no reason to assume that stops. Buy it to wear, not as an investment — which is true of natural diamonds too, rather more often than people are told.
Choose it if you want the largest, liveliest stone for the money and are not attached to it being a diamond. It is a legitimate choice, not a compromise — provided nobody is being told it is something else.
Every natural and lab-grown diamond we set comes with a GIA or IGI report, and the report number is yours to look up on the lab's own site before the ring is made. That is the one check that does not require trusting us. Moissanite is not graded the same way — there is no meaningful colour and clarity market for it — so it comes with its own maker's documentation instead.
The metal is the part that has to survive being worn every day for decades while holding a stone in place. It matters more than it gets credit for.
Seventy-five per cent pure gold, alloyed for strength. Warm, traditional, and the colour most people picture when they picture gold. It flatters warmer skin tones and it never needs re-plating, because the colour goes all the way through.
Yellow gold alloyed with white metals, then rhodium-plated for the bright cool finish people expect. It is the most popular choice for solitaires because it disappears and lets the stone do the work.
Worth knowing — The plating wears. Expect to have it re-plated every few years — sooner on a hand that is used hard. This is normal maintenance, not a defect, but nobody enjoys finding it out afterwards.
Gold alloyed with copper. The copper makes it both the warmest in colour and the hardest of the three golds. Like yellow, the colour is the metal rather than a coating, so it does not need re-plating.
Ninety-five per cent pure, naturally white, and the densest of these metals — a platinum ring is noticeably heavier in the hand. It needs no plating because it is already the colour it will always be, and claws cut in platinum hold a stone more securely than gold claws of the same dimensions, because the metal moves rather than snapping.
Worth knowing — It scratches into a soft grey patina rather than staying mirror-bright. Most people come to prefer it; if you want permanent mirror polish, it can be re-polished, but expect the patina to return.
Sterling silver is about 2.5 on the Mohs scale against platinum's 4 to 4.5. It bends, it wears thin, and claws cut in it loosen — which means the stone you spent the money on falls out. It also tarnishes against skin and needs constant cleaning. Silver is a fine metal for jewellery that is worn occasionally; an engagement ring is worn while washing up, carrying shopping and sleeping, for fifty years. We will not set a stone worth protecting into a metal that cannot protect it.
Fourteen carat is 58.3 per cent gold against 18k's 75. It is harder, which sounds like an advantage, and it is cheaper. But the colour is visibly paler and less saturated, and the higher proportion of alloy means more people react to it against the skin. For a piece meant to last, we would rather put the difference into the metal than the margin. If 14k matters to you for a specific reason, say so and we will talk about it rather than refuse.
Tell us what you are drawn to and what the budget is, and we will come back with what it actually buys — stones, sketches and a price — rather than quietly making the ring smaller to hit a number. There is no charge for the design work.