The five rows, three outlines across
Rows are the five parameters that decide whether a frame can be worn, made and ordered. Columns are three of this site's outlines, chosen because they are the three whose eyewear advice is published in English at a length worth comparing; the other four are not printed here because no English fitting page attaches a millimetre to them, and a blank column would say more about the research than about your face. Every cell is a published band restated in millimetres with inches alongside, except the square column's depth, which is arithmetic. Ratios and units: none of these numbers is a proportion, and none of them moves if you change your outline and keep your width.
| Frame parameter | Oval | Round | Square |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total width, hinge to hinge | 130 – 145 mm (5.12 – 5.71 in), and within about 3 mm (0.12 in) of your own cheekbone line | 130 – 145 mm (5.12 – 5.71 in), and within about 3 mm (0.12 in) of your own cheekbone line | 130 – 145 mm (5.12 – 5.71 in), and within about 3 mm (0.12 in) of your own cheekbone line |
| Lens width, first stamped number | 50 – 56 mm (1.97 – 2.20 in) | 50 – 56 mm (1.97 – 2.20 in) | 46 – 53 mm (1.81 – 2.09 in) |
| Lens depth, rarely stamped | 32 – 42 mm (1.26 – 1.65 in) | 32 – 40 mm (1.26 – 1.57 in) | 46 – 53 mm (1.81 – 2.09 in), a round lens being as deep as it is wide |
| Bridge width, second stamped number | 14 – 24 mm (0.55 – 0.94 in) published; 18 – 20 mm (0.71 – 0.79 in) at a medium size | 14 – 24 mm (0.55 – 0.94 in) published; 18 – 20 mm (0.71 – 0.79 in) at a medium size | 14 – 24 mm (0.55 – 0.94 in) published; 18 – 20 mm (0.71 – 0.79 in) at a medium size |
| Temple length, third stamped number | 140 – 145 mm (5.51 – 5.71 in) standard; 148 – 155 mm (5.83 – 6.10 in) on a wide head | 140 – 145 mm (5.51 – 5.71 in) standard; 148 – 155 mm (5.83 – 6.10 in) on a wide head | 140 – 145 mm (5.51 – 5.71 in) standard; 148 – 155 mm (5.83 – 6.10 in) on a wide head |
- Three of the five rows carry the same number twice over. That is not a failure of the table. Total width tracks the width of a face, bridge width tracks the width of a nose, temple length tracks the circumference of a head, and an oval face can be any of those sizes: two people with the same outline and different widths need frames fourteen millimetres apart.
- The lens-width row moves once, and it moves for a reason that has nothing to do with the face. Round and oval lenses at the same size are cut to different widths because the styles recommended for square faces sit lower on the size chart, not because a jaw redistributes the millimetres.
- Depth is the row where the outline really speaks, and it speaks as an exclusion list. The published ceiling for a round face is one the oval column does not inherit; the published exclusion at 44 – 48 mm (1.73 – 1.89 in) across 40 – 44 mm (1.57 – 1.73 in) is aimed at a different face.
- The guide that publishes the depth ceiling of 40 mm (1.57 in) also publishes, three rows above it, a style it calls the safest default at 38 – 42 mm (1.50 – 1.65 in). Two of those four millimetres are past its own line. Where a source disagrees with itself the table shows the ceiling, and the disagreement is in the section on depth.
No account · No tracking pixels · No photo upload
Detection runs on-device with MediaPipe. Nothing is uploaded — no account, no email, no storage.
What the query assumes, and what the numbers do about it
“Glasses for an oval face” is a search built on the assumption that the outline is the input that sizes the frame. Put the five parameters side by side and three of them refuse to move. That is not a defect in the advice; it is what the advice looks like when it is written down in the units it was always using. Styling pages can say that an oval face suits nearly every shape and be exactly right, because “suits” is about line. It is a much shorter step than it sounds from “nothing is excluded” to “the outline is not the thing to act on”, and most of the confusion in this corner of the internet is that step.
The asymmetry cuts one way, though, and the oval column is where. A round face is told to avoid a whole size band. A square face is told that a lens whose corners land inside the cheekbone line will reinforce the reading it is trying to soften. An oval face has no such sentence available, which means everything that can still go wrong is going wrong on numbers that are not about shape at all: the wrong width copied from a friend, a bridge bought at the catalogue default, a depth chosen for a photograph rather than for the mid-face underneath it.
The ladder that does the work
Since three rows ignore the outline and follow the width, the useful object is not a shape table but a size ladder. This one is published, dated July 2026, in millimetres, and it runs from a face that measures 126 mm (4.96 in) across the cheekbones to one that measures 154 mm (6.06 in):
A published size ladder, July 2026, in millimetres — the inches alongside are this site's conversions, since the source prints none. Read the last column first: it is the only entry you take off your own face, and it selects the row. Lens depth is not on this ladder, because depth follows the style you chose and the prescription you are wearing.
| Size | Frame total width | Lens width | Bridge | Temple | Face width it is cut for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XS | 122 – 127 mm (4.80 – 5.00 in) | 42 – 45 mm (1.65 – 1.77 in) | 16 – 18 mm (0.63 – 0.71 in) | 130 – 135 mm (5.12 – 5.31 in) | up to 126 mm (4.96 in) |
| S | 127 – 132 mm (5.00 – 5.20 in) | 46 – 49 mm (1.81 – 1.93 in) | 17 – 19 mm (0.67 – 0.75 in) | 135 – 140 mm (5.31 – 5.51 in) | 127 – 133 mm (5.00 – 5.24 in) |
| M | 132 – 140 mm (5.20 – 5.51 in) | 50 – 53 mm (1.97 – 2.09 in) | 18 – 20 mm (0.71 – 0.79 in) | 140 – 145 mm (5.51 – 5.71 in) | 134 – 142 mm (5.28 – 5.59 in) |
| L | 140 – 145 mm (5.51 – 5.71 in) | 54 – 56 mm (2.13 – 2.20 in) | 19 – 21 mm (0.75 – 0.83 in) | 145 – 148 mm (5.71 – 5.83 in) | 143 – 147 mm (5.63 – 5.79 in) |
| XL | 145 – 148 mm (5.71 – 5.83 in) | 56 – 58 mm (2.20 – 2.28 in) | 20 – 22 mm (0.79 – 0.87 in) | 145 – 150 mm (5.71 – 5.91 in) | 148 – 152 mm (5.83 – 5.98 in) |
| XXL | 148 – 150 mm (5.83 – 5.91 in) | 58 – 60 mm (2.28 – 2.36 in) | 20 – 22 mm (0.79 – 0.87 in) | 148 – 150 mm (5.83 – 5.91 in) | 152 – 154 mm (5.98 – 6.06 in) |
- Read the last column first. It is the one you can check in fifteen seconds with a soft tape across the tops of the cheekbones, hair pushed back, and it selects a row. Then read the row from left to right and you have four of the five numbers in the table above, filled in for your width rather than for an average. The fifth — lens depth — is not on the ladder, because depth follows the style you chose and the prescription you are wearing, and the next-to-last section takes both.
- The ladder's own tolerance line is worth quoting rather than paraphrasing: “a good fit puts the two within about 3 mm of each other”, the two being the total width and the face width. Note what that permits. At size M, a face measuring 142 mm (5.59 in) may be given a frame 140 mm (5.51 in) across: a frame that finishes two millimetres inside the widest line on your face, which is the opposite of the instruction every styling page in this corner repeats about reaching the cheekbone.
The disagreement about how far past the cheekbone
Three published numbers sit on this one question and they do not agree. The size ladder allows a frame to sit about 3 mm (0.12 in) either side of the cheekbone line, which is symmetric and so tolerates ending short of it. A fitting guide dated July 2026 puts the total width at 130 – 145 mm (5.12 – 5.71 in) for most adults and instructs that it should meet or slightly exceed the cheekbone, scale the target by about 2 mm (0.08 in) for every 5 mm (0.20 in) of face width. A specialist brand cut for wide heads gives the tolerance as face width plus nothing to plus 3 mm (0.12 in), one direction only. This site's own reading, worked out against lens blank diameters on the round-face page below, lands at seven millimetres past for one particular face and treats anything wider as a lens the laboratory will decline to cut.
So the band that is safe in all four readings is narrow: from your cheekbone width to about 3 mm (0.12 in) past it. Outside that you are choosing which published source you disagree with, and the honest thing is to know that is the choice you are making. A frame that ends inside the line is the more common failure, because it is the one an average stamped size produces by default: 52□18 is a 122 mm (4.80 in) lens-and-bridge span, which becomes roughly 128 to 130 mm (5.04 – 5.12 in) once the hinges are counted, against a cheekbone line of 134 mm (5.28 in) or more on a great many adult faces.
Do not copy a size
The most reliable way to buy a wrong frame with an oval face is to read the three numbers off a pair that suits somebody who looks like you. Those three numbers are a lens width, a bridge width and a temple length. They are not a fit. They are the arithmetic that somebody else's pupil distance and somebody else's cheekbone width happened to land on, and a copied size inherits both of those inputs without asking.
The failure has a shape you can predict. A stamp of 46□16 puts the two optical centres 62 mm (2.44 in) apart, which on a 60 mm (2.36 in) pupil distance is a two-millimetre shift per eye and looks like a gift. The same frame measured across the front, from the inside edge of one lens opening to the inside edge of the other, can run several millimetres wider than the two stamped numbers add to, because a bridge stamped 16 describes a metal part and not the gap you are buying through. At 69 mm (2.72 in) of true lens-to-lens span on that 60 mm (2.36 in) pupil distance, the shift is not two millimetres but nine (0.35 in), and no amount of bending the arms later recovers it. This site can find the definition of the stamped bridge in English, and cannot find the discrepancy documented anywhere in English; the arithmetic above is therefore treated as a warning about copied sizes rather than as a published figure.
Which is the whole argument for measuring the frame you already own rather than the frame you admire. Lay a ruler straight across the front, outermost hinge to outermost hinge, and write that number down; that is your total width, and it is on no stamp. Then the ladder fills the rest. If the copied size and your own measurement disagree, the measurement wins, and the gap between them is the size of the mistake you were about to make.
Depth, the one row that is genuinely yours to choose
An oval face inherits no published ceiling, so depth becomes a proportion decision instead of a limit — and unlike most of the proportion talk in this corner, it can be stated in millimetres. The published per-style depths run 32 – 38 mm (1.26 – 1.50 in) for a rectangle, 34 – 38 mm (1.34 – 1.50 in) for a cat-eye, 36 – 40 mm (1.42 – 1.57 in) for a square or a browline, 38 – 42 mm (1.50 – 1.65 in) for the wayfarer shape a fitting guide calls the safest default for a different face. A shallow lens in that set leaves more of your mid-face uncovered and reads sharper; a deep one covers more and reads softer, and past about 40 mm (1.57 in) it starts parking the lower rim on the fullest part of the cheek. That last clause is written for round faces and it is a physical statement, not a shape one: it applies wherever the cheek is full, which includes a good many oval ones.
The other constraint on depth is optical and it is indifferent to your outline. Lens depth is one of the two terms that set how large a lens blank has to be before your prescription can be cut out of it, and past roughly −6.00 D published guides start calling a deep, wide front a trap rather than a style choice. The square-face eyewear page further down this list runs the decentration formula this ties into; this page will not repeat it. What the formula adds here is one number: if your prescription is past −4.00 D and your taste is running to 40 mm (1.57 in) of depth, the depth you are choosing is being paid for out of your lens width, at the exchange rate on the round-face page.
Three ways a face with no exclusions still gets it wrong
The third number is not your face. A temple length of 145 mm (5.71 in) is the run of an arm from hinge to ear, not a measurement of anything on your head's front. It is the number people reach for when told their face is 145 mm (5.71 in) wide, and it is usually a coincidence: an adult face that wide is at the top of the published ladder, while a 145 mm (5.71 in) arm is the standard fitting for a face fourteen millimetres narrower.
The catalogue default is a size, not a compromise. An 18 mm (0.71 in) bridge and a 52 mm (2.05 in) lens is what the middle of a stock range looks like, chosen for a 62 to 64 mm (2.44 – 2.52 in) pupil distance. If your pupils sit at 58 mm (2.28 in) or at 68 mm (2.68 in), the default is not neutral for you; it is a specific wrong answer with the most stock behind it.
A narrow front is not an adjustment problem. Bending the arms recovers how a frame sits, not how wide its front is; the hinges do not move apart. This is geometry, and it is the reason a frame bought two sizes short stays two sizes short however it is flexed afterwards, and why the fitting you want happens at the point of choosing a number rather than later, in a shop, with pliers.
Before you order: four numbers, one ruler
- Tape across the tops of the cheekbones, hair back, and write the millimetres. This is the number the ladder is read against, and it is the only one on this page that has anything to do with your face as such.
- Get your pupil distance from the refraction, not from a photograph of a similar-looking person. Two published adult ranges disagree about the average — 50 – 70 mm (1.97 – 2.76 in) with an average of 63 mm (2.48 in) in one place, 60 – 65 mm (2.36 – 2.56 in) in another — and both are right about the populations they measured.
- Measure a frame that already fits you across the front with a ruler and compare it to the stamp. Where they disagree, keep the ruler's number and throw the copied one.
- Ask for the lens depth of anything you intend to order online. It is printed on almost nothing, and it is the one row where your outline leaves you a real choice, so choosing it blind is the way an oval face ends up with the same complaint as every other one.
- Then wear the candidate for twenty minutes before you decide, in bright light and dim, looking at distance and at reading range. Twenty minutes is this page's instruction and we could not find it in English; the reason for it is that a frame that is two millimetres short across the front does not announce itself while you are standing still in a shop.
Where this leaves the shape word
It does the work of an exclusion list and almost none of the work of a size. On the evidence in the first table, being oval costs you nothing and buys you one row: the depth band is open end to end, while two other outlines are held to a ceiling and a third is steered toward circles. Everything else — total width, bridge, temple, and the lens width that the decentration arithmetic hands you — arrives from three measurements that have nothing to do with whether your jaw is angled or your forehead is broad, which is why the millimetres for an oval face live on this page, and the oval outline guide on this site prints none of them.
There is a version of this that is disappointing, and it is worth saying plainly: nobody searches “glasses for an oval face” to be told that the query's own adjective is the least active term in it. But a recommendation you cannot size is a picture, not an instruction. The useful form of the advice is four millimetre bands, one ruler and one number off a refraction — and the fact that an oval face is the shape for which that sentence finally stops being a euphemism is the most interesting thing about it.