Cut registry › Jewellery cuts › Teardrop
Jewellery cuts · Elongated brilliant
A pear by another name.
Teardrop is the everyday name for a pear, and the library carries a second geometry under it. It throws more colour than our reference pear and distributes its light far less evenly.
The short version
A teardrop cut diamond is a brilliant with one rounded end and one point, the same outline family as a pear, carrying 74 facets on our measurement.
Teardrop and pear describe the same shape. This page measures a second, more heavily faceted geometry that the trade also sells under both names.
Definition
There is no technical distinction between a teardrop and a pear. Both are brilliant cuts with a head, shoulders, a belly, wings and a point, and a grading report will describe either as a pear modified brilliant.
What differs between individual stones is proportion and facet plan, and that difference is large. Our reference pear carries 64 measured facets; this stone carries 74. They are sold under the same words and they do not behave alike.
The point is the vulnerability on either. A V-prong, a bezel or a halo makes it as wearable as any brilliant; an exposed point in a plain claw setting is what chips.
Proportions
Trade description on the left, our measured reference stone on the right. Ratio on a teardrop is preference and setting driven, as it is on any pear.
| Measure | Commonly cited | Our reference stone | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length-to-width | 1.45 to 1.75 | 1.45 | Shorter than the classic pear ratio. |
| Depth | 60% to 66% | 60.0% | The flat top, as a share of the width. |
| Table | 54% to 65% | 55.6% | Wide for the shape. |
| Pavilion angle | not commonly published | 40° | Decides whether light returns or escapes. |
| Facets | 56 to 58 commonly cited | 74 | Considerably more than our reference pear. |
A report will call this a pear modified brilliant, exactly as it would call our reference pear one. There is no cut grade for either, and nothing on the report distinguishes a 74-facet stone from a 64-facet one.
Light
Measured on the census that runs on every cut on this site: 3,200 rays face-up, 2,200 at 20° tilt, on exact facet geometry, against T57 as the standard.
| Material | Useful light | Leak | Fire | Scintillation | Global | vs the standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diamond | 46.02% | 28.13% | 89.08 | 80.69 | 71.40 | −17.21 |
| Moissanite | 39.03% | 29.24% | 95.99 | 80.69 | 71.25 | −18.57 |
| Cubic zirconia | 54.50% | 25.72% | 95.21 | 80.69 | 74.11 | −17.66 |
| T57 standard, diamond | 92.28% | 1.88% | 78.85 | 71.82 | 88.61 | 0.00 |
The teardrop returns 46.02% of entering light usefully and leaks 28.13%, for 71.40 Global against the standard’s 88.61. It lands within a fifth of a point of our reference pear at 71.55, and gets there differently.
It buys colour and pays in light. Fire reads 89.08 against the pear’s 83.80, one of the highest figures we publish, on 74 facets against the pear’s 64. Useful return falls to 46.02% from the pear’s 53.36%.
Its light is the most unevenly distributed of any elongated brilliant we measure. Binned by exit point along its length, it runs 22.4% at one end, 77.4% across the belly and 33.6% at the other, a centre-to-edge spread of 50.2 points. A round brilliant is flat at 99.1% against 98.1%. Only the crownless Pixel is more extreme, and that is by design.
Where the light is: useful return from point to head
Five equal bands along the long axis, each returning ray binned by the point on the crown it leaves through. The belly carries the stone and both ends fall away sharply, the point end worst, for a centre-to-edge spread of 50.2 points against the round-brilliant control’s 1.0. Setting the point in a V-prong protects it mechanically. Nothing protects it optically.
Against the standard
Light return. 46.02% against the standard’s 92.28%, a Global gap of 17.21 points.
Against our reference pear. 71.40 against 71.55 on Global, but 89.08 of fire against 83.80 and 46.02% of useful light against 53.36%. More colour, less light, same name on the report.
Sparkle. 80.69 against 71.82, on 74 facets against 57.
Evenness. The worst of the elongated brilliants. The belly returns 77.4% and the point end 22.4%.
Durability. The point needs a V-prong, a bezel or a halo, exactly as any pear does.
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 teardrop returns 39.03% for 71.25 Global, with fire at 95.99. On a cut whose strength is already colour, moissanite pushes further in the same direction.
In cubic zirconia it returns 54.50% for 74.11 Global.
Set it against the reference pear in the Index.
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 teardrop cut diamond is a brilliant with one rounded end and one point. Teardrop and pear describe the same shape, and a grading report will call either a pear modified brilliant. This page measures a second, more heavily faceted geometry that the trade sells under both names.
As a shape, yes, and no laboratory distinguishes them. As individual stones, not necessarily: our reference teardrop carries 74 measured facets and our reference pear 64, and they behave differently. The teardrop throws more fire, 89.08 against 83.80, and returns less light, 46.02% against 53.36%.
Because the shape is asymmetrical along its own axis and its light is asymmetrical to match. Binned by exit point, our reference teardrop returns 22.4% at the point end, 77.4% across the belly and 33.6% at the rounded head. That is the most uneven distribution of any elongated brilliant we publish, and a round brilliant by comparison is flat.
The classic pear range is 1.45 to 1.75, with roughly 1.55 to 1.60 regarded as the sweet spot for a solitaire. Our reference teardrop sits at 1.45. It is a preference and setting decision: narrower stones suit drop earrings, fuller ones suit rings.
Yes, provided the point is protected. A V-prong, a bezel or a halo shields the one vulnerable part, and with that in place it wears like any other brilliant. An exposed point in an ordinary claw setting is the arrangement that leads to chips.
Conventionally toward the fingertip, which lengthens the finger. There is no rule: east-west settings and toi et moi pairings both place the shape differently on purpose and both are long established.
Most elongated brilliants show some. It is a shadow rather than a leak: the facets across the waist draw their light from the region of sky the viewer’s own head and shoulders block, so it darkens and lifts as the stone moves. We do not publish a bow-tie severity figure, because our engine contains no observer and cannot cast a head shadow.
No. GIA issues cut grades for round brilliants only, and it does not use the word teardrop at all: the report will read pear modified brilliant. Symmetry and polish are graded, and on this shape 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 teardrop 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.
80.69 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.