Cut registry › Jewellery cuts › Pear
Jewellery cuts · Elongated brilliant
Half oval, half marquise.
A pear is the only common shape that is asymmetrical along its own long axis. That is what makes it graceful, and it is also why its light is distributed the way it is.
The short version
A pear shaped diamond is a brilliant cut with one rounded end and one point, giving a teardrop outline, and typically 56 to 58 facets.
It sits between the oval and the marquise: it keeps the oval’s soft curve at one end and takes the marquise’s point at the other.
Definition
A pear has its own anatomy, and the vocabulary is worth knowing because it is what a grader and a cutter will use. The rounded end is the head. The curves either side of it are the shoulders. The widest part is the belly. The long tapering sides running down to the tip are the wings, and the tip itself is the point.
Every common fault in a pear has a name in that list. High shoulders make the head look boxy. Uneven wings make one side of the stone look bent. A point that does not sit directly below the apex of the belly makes the whole outline read as crooked, and it is the first thing the eye catches.
The cut is old. A pear-shaped brilliant is generally attributed to Lodewyk van Berquem of Bruges in the fifteenth century, which makes it one of the longest-lived outlines still in regular production.
Proportions
Commonly cited ranges on the left, our measured reference stone on the right. The pear’s ratio is more setting-dependent than most: narrow pears suit drop earrings, fuller ones suit solitaires.
| Measure | Commonly cited | Our reference stone | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length-to-width | 1.45 to 1.75 | 1.50 | Around 1.55 to 1.60 is the classic teardrop. |
| Depth | 60% to 66% | 60.0% | Deeper than an oval, to hold the point. |
| Table | 54% to 65% | 55.1% | The flat top, as a share of the width. |
| Pavilion angle | not commonly published | 34.9° | Decides whether light returns or escapes. |
| Facets | 56 to 58 | 64 | Counted as facets that actually reach the surface. |
As with every fancy shape, GIA issues no cut-quality grade for pears. Symmetry and polish are graded. On a pear, symmetry is the grade that carries the most information, because the shape has more ways to go wrong than any other in common use.
The bow-tie
A bow-tie is a dark band lying across the waist of an elongated brilliant. It is a shadow rather than a fault: the facets beneath it draw their light from the part of the sky that your own head and shoulders are blocking as you look down at the stone.
That distinction decides what you can do about it. Light leakage is a failure of the pavilion angles, it is present under any light, and it shows on a light-return map. A bow-tie only appears when something is standing in the way of the light, which is why it darkens and lifts as you move your hand. A good deal of published advice calls the bow-tie a leak. It is not, and the two want different remedies.
Some central contrast is inherent to the shape, and we will not pretend otherwise. GIA describes the mechanism plainly: the band darkens as the difference between length and width grows, and as variation in the pavilion angle becomes more extreme. A well-cut stone reduces it. Nothing eliminates it.
What we can and cannot measure. Our engine illuminates from a narrow overhead cone and contains no observer, so by construction it cannot cast a head shadow, and our reference geometry for this shape carries no twist in the pavilion mains. We tested for a bow-tie twice, once under the standard face-up cone and once under full-hemisphere light with a modelled observer blocking the central 25°, and found none in either run while the round-brilliant control behaved exactly as it should. So we do not publish a bow-tie severity figure for this cut. We would rather leave the column empty than fill it with a number we cannot stand behind.
What we measured instead, and it is unusual. A pear is asymmetrical along its length, and its light is asymmetrical to match. Binning every returning ray by where it leaves the crown, our reference pear returns 61.2% at the rounded head and 31.7% at the point, with 77.8% across the belly. The point of a pear returns roughly half what the head does. No other shape we measure is lopsided in this way, and no competitor page mentions it.
Light
Measured on the census that runs on every cut on this site: 3,200 rays face-up, 2,200 at a 20° tilt, on exact facet geometry, against T57 as the standard.
| Material | Useful light | Leak | Fire | Scintillation | Global | vs the standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diamond | 53.36% | 21.60% | 83.80 | 75.88 | 71.55 | −17.06 |
| Moissanite | 49.11% | 21.67% | 95.11 | 75.88 | 72.94 | −16.88 |
| Cubic zirconia | 58.98% | 19.41% | 90.12 | 75.88 | 72.38 | −19.40 |
| T57 standard, diamond | 92.28% | 1.88% | 78.85 | 71.82 | 88.61 | 0.00 |
Our reference pear returns 53.36% of entering light usefully against the round brilliant’s 92.28%, and leaks 21.60% against 1.88%. Its Global score is 71.55 against 88.61, a gap of 17.06 points.
At 64 active facets it scores 75.88 on scintillation, below the oval and the marquise, both of which carry more facets. Its fire reads 83.80. A pear produces broader, less busy flashes than an oval does, which is consistent with how the two look side by side.
Its weakest axis is tilt. The pear holds 79.72 of its face-up return at a 20° tilt where the standard holds 90.41, so it dims sooner than a round brilliant as the hand turns.
Where the light is: useful return from point to head
Five equal bands along the long axis, point on the left, head on the right, each ray binned by the point on the crown it leaves through. This is the only shape we measure whose profile is asymmetrical, and it is asymmetrical by a wide margin. Setting the point in a V-prong protects it mechanically. Nothing protects it optically.
Variants
Both are pear modified brilliants and both are measured on the protocol above. They are the same shape cut to different proportions, which is exactly the variation you meet in the market.
| Geometry | Facets | Useful light | Leak | Fire | Global | What differs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pear on this page | 64 | 53.36% | 21.60% | 83.80 | 71.55 | The reference stone every other figure here describes. |
| Teardrop | 74 | 46.02% | 28.13% | 89.08 | 71.40 | A second library pear at different proportions: more facets, shallower crown, and it pays for both in leak. |
They finish within a fifth of a point of each other on Global and get there differently: the Teardrop carries more facets and more fire, the reference pear returns more light and leaks less. Two stones described by the same three words on a report. The Teardrop has its own page.
Against the standard
Light return. 92.28% for the round against 53.36% for the pear, on identical protocol. The outline costs light, and the point costs more of it than any other part.
Sparkle character. 64 facets against 57 gives the pear a slightly denser flash pattern, and 83.80 on fire against 78.85.
Movement. The round holds 90.41 of its return under tilt; the pear holds 79.72. In practice a pear rewards being looked at straight on more than a round does.
Durability. The point is the pear’s one real vulnerability, and it is a genuine one. A V-prong, a bezel or a halo makes a pear as wearable as any brilliant. An exposed point in a plain claw setting is asking for trouble.
Price. Generally less per carat than a comparable round.
The baseline for all of this is the round brilliant itself. Its facet plan is set out in the anatomy of a round brilliant, and the measured standard we compare against is T57, the stone Tolkowsky published in 1919.
Materials
In moissanite the pear returns 49.11% and scores 72.94 Global, leaking 21.67%. Its fire climbs to 95.11 from 83.80 in diamond, which is the trade-off moissanite always offers: more colour, less white light back.
In cubic zirconia it returns 58.98% for 72.38 Global. Zirconia’s lower refractive index changes the critical angle and, on this geometry, holds the light better than diamond does while giving up tilt stability.
Watch the same outline change material in the Index. The facet plan stays fixed and only the refractive index moves, which is the cleanest way to see how much of a stone’s behaviour belongs to its shape and how much to what it is made of.
Trade-offs
Questions
The questions buyers actually ask, answered in full. Where the answer is ours to prove, the figure is measured on the Index; where it is an established gemological fact, it is stated as one.
A pear shaped diamond is a brilliant cut with one rounded end and one point, forming a teardrop outline, usually with 56 to 58 facets. It is also called a teardrop cut. The outline is generally attributed to Lodewyk van Berquem of Bruges in the fifteenth century.
Most do to some degree. The bow-tie is a shadow, not a leak: the facets across the waist draw their light from the part of the sky the viewer’s head and shoulders block. GIA describes it as darkening as the difference between length and width grows and as pavilion angle variation becomes more extreme. Ask to see the stone move on video, because a bow-tie that lifts with movement is behaving normally.
The classic range is 1.45 to 1.75, with roughly 1.55 to 1.60 regarded as the sweet spot for a solitaire. It is genuinely preference-driven and setting-driven: narrow pears suit drop earrings, fuller pears suit rings. Our reference pear sits at 1.50.
The trade commonly cites 60% to 66% depth and 54% to 65% table. Light return falls away outside those ranges, shallow stones passing light through the pavilion and deep stones burying weight below the table. Our reference pear measures 60.0% depth and 55.1% table.
Conventionally the point faces the fingertip, which lengthens the finger. There is no rule: east-west settings and toi et moi pairings both place a pear differently on purpose, and both are long-established. Wear it whichever way you prefer.
Yes, provided the point is protected. A V-prong, a bezel or a halo shields the one vulnerable part of the stone, and with that in place a pear wears like any other brilliant. An exposed point in an ordinary claw setting is the arrangement that leads to chips.
Look for shoulders that match each other and do not sit too high, wings that curve evenly with no straight sections, and a point that lines up directly below the apex of the belly. Uneven shoulders and bent wings are the classic faults, and both are visible face-up without magnification.
A pear has one rounded end and one point, which reads softer and more graceful. A marquise has two points and reads sharper and more dramatic. On our engine the marquise returns more light, 92.28% being the round-brilliant reference for both, and the pear distributes what it has far less evenly.
Generally yes, per carat, at comparable colour and clarity, because cutting a pear wastes less rough than cutting a round. The size of that gap moves with market demand, so treat any fixed percentage as a snapshot rather than a rule.
Usually, because the weight is spread over a longer outline so more of the stone faces up. We deliberately do not quote our Index spread axis in support of this, because that axis is derived from depth alone and takes no account of outline. Compare face-up millimetres instead.
No. Cut grades are issued for round brilliants only. A pear’s report carries symmetry and polish grades, which describe finish rather than light performance, and on a pear the symmetry grade is the one worth reading closely.
Next
See the whole set on the jewellery cuts index, or the measured house and historic cuts in the cut registry.
Method
Monte-Carlo on exact facet geometry: 3,200 rays face-up plus 2,200 at 20° tilt, cosine-weighted from a 7° near-vertical cone. Useful light is what exits through the crown within 64° of vertical. The same protocol runs on every cut on this site, so the figures are comparable to each other.
They measure our reference geometry for the shape at the proportions listed above, not an average of stones on the market. A pear cut to different proportions will read differently. Treat them as a like-for-like comparison between shapes, not as a grade for any individual stone.
Engine estimates, ±2 points, not lab-certified grades. We do not publish the Index symmetry axis on these pages: it scores facet regularity within each pavilion family, which is meaningful for a round brilliant and misleading for a shape whose pavilion is deliberately irregular.
75.88 here against the standard’s 71.82. The term is 100(1−e−n/45) on the count of facets that actually reach the surface, so it is a pure function of facet count and nothing else.