bettycrocker... well it sounds like classic may be where you should be. The only issue I have with Classic is that most types tend to drift to classic as they get older. And you have to really watch for the "frumps" with classic , more so than other types. You have to style it correctly and modern and you have to wear it sized perfectly- not to big or not to small. It sounds like you have a handle on this.

Most clothes on the racks were made for "classics" but now it is more a "natural " body IMO. ALOT of natural stuff out there.Classics can be difficult to type because they are right in the middle and can look good i

Ha Suz ! On boho... I have two sisters that do boho well. They are tall 5'10" plus and it looks super sharp on them. They are definitely FN"s. I am 5'7" and am struggling with maybe being a smaller FN. But to tell you truth, it overwhelmes me - completely. I am buried in fabric, the shoulders are all wrong (huge) and the sleeves hang down, I look like I have mended up a pair of curtains and decided to wear them. Boho is hard unless you have the height and shoulders to drape it IMHO. I think you might be similar to me in this. It is also not "formal?" enough for me.
The chart is from Rachel at Best Dressed Us- website. She was Kibbe typed 2 years ago as a Romantic ( that's pretty easy to see ) . She and Christine Scaman from 12 blueprints have a Pinterest board that is fantastic and shows modern clothing for the different types. They use Yin and Yang terms so they do not copy Kibbe but basically it is the same. The Yang Gamine that is close to Dramatic Classic is the same as Kibbe's Flamboyant Gamine. This is where I think you fit but this type can do alot with clothing but always shines in the dramatic, with the broken line. It is eye catching as there is not alot out there.

This has been such an interesting thread to read!

BettyCrocker, I suppose it comes down to why you want to know your Kibbe type: are you dissatisfied w your current style and looking for guidance to change it? Or just looking to affirm your style? Either works, as we all love talking about style here, but if it's the former you should probably add some full body shots or share some outfits to get the best feedback/suggestions. It's crazy how different people can look in the same clothes; even Suz and I, w very similar colouring and bodies, actually require surprisingly different clothes. Her crisp lines just don't work as well on me, even if the clothes technically fit, they don't read as natural. And somehow I doubt she'd be as at home in peplums and ruffles as I feel. Hehe

And on a selfish note, I'm curious to know where Shelia would place me. I ended up at soft gamine because I give a 'small, young, cute' impression in real life but have waist definition and a round face (and fleshy thighs & upper arms, lol). But I also like the SG polyvores best, so I'm sure that influenced me!

Hi E ! I will take a try at this for fun.
I moved the scale over on the chart for you.
The reason for this is that I see you as the Essence of Claire Danes.
You have undoubtably heard this before.
Claire is thought to be SN... but as you can see .. you are close to SG as well so somewhere here. To incorporate some natural elements and gamine with the soft( romantic ) side.

You said it when you mentioned Suz " crisp lines ". That is the difference. What you almost have to do is think " IF I were to draw this person would I use a ruler or a protractor as a tool ?". If you are using a ruler... especially vertically, you can typically expect more Dramatic ( or Yang) and if you are using a protractor... for curves you are more Yin on the scale.
This is an interesting article from Christine looking at dressing Claire from a couple of years back but there is still some relevance.
http://www.12blueprints.com/dr.....ire-danes/

This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Sheila, for some reason, I have an easier time understanding yin/yang than I do Kibbe, lol. There are several helpful posts on Imogen's Inside Out Style Blog about yin and yang.

I've been exploring this morning, and have landed on FG as a possibility. I arrived at this after looking at a facial collage and various pinterests that have more reasonable (not costumy) FG suggestions. Since my body is not overly curvy, this might be my best fit. My body is like Susannah and Trinny's vase shape (stretched out hourglass), except I'm not tall. I have a longer torso and shorter legs, which may explain this. I've always felt that if my legs were 2 inches longer and my arms 1 inch longer, I could wear regular-sized off-the-rack clothing without any alterations.

I love, love, love my classic sheath dress and the wrap dresses I bought, but know I'll want to accessorize them in non-classic ways. I don't feel at ease with any Classic hairstyle. So many people tell me a pixie really suits me, so I'm sticking with it. It's easy, and it's me. I have some C jewelry, but only wear it for formal events. I'm more of a casual, friendly and open person who loves to get to know people and loves a good laugh. I'm not a quiet or reserved person, and I hate it when people don't put aside their differences and get along.

FG sounds like fun!

Sheila how interesting! I hadn't read much about soft naturals (I hopped almost immediately to gamines), so I did a bit of reading. I do love textures and drapey fabrics for sure. Perhaps if I have the energy I'll do a couple different outfits for comparison this weekend. Although I must admit I doubt I'll give up my cinched waist skirts any time soon! (I'm not one to follow strict rules of dressing anyhow.)

I've never been compared to Claire Danes before! When I was in college and dyed my hair a lighter blonde, I did get compared to Reese Witherspoon (several times strangers stopped me to tell me) but that's the only actress anyone's ever mentioned.

You hit the nail on the head, E. It's all about fun, which is what the Classic type lacks. I like the idea of FG, but will have to tweak it to work for me. I would never describe myself as "flamboyant," which is probably why I didn't picture myself in that category. But I read online that DC's style would be described as "tailored chic" (I'd go for that for business clothing) and FG as "sassy chic" (also something I'd try). I think if I use these descriptors rather than try to decipher what Kibbe means, I'll come closer to developing my own signature style. Sheila, what do you think?

So enjoying this. On my phone now and can't say more but will return to this thread.

Bettycrocker, I do think FG or yang gamine fits you much better than classic. Like you, I do not identify with the word flamboyant. But I definitely gravitate to asymmetry and angles. They are drawing me with a ruler for sure!

E. I think SG with a N wing makes sense for you. Just as I have a hint of DC.

Betty, it's all in the tweaking, isn't it? But adding in some fun & 'sass' sounds like an excellent goal!

And Sheila, mulling it over a bit more & looking at Rachel's yin natural board, I feel even more inspired. I think I've been mixing soft natural & soft gamine elements without realising it (interesting that there's more space between them than the other options on the chart; I'll just pop myself into the middle). So thanks for the extra insight into myself & my style preferences. (All in a spirit of play of course!)

I found this: http://colorconnection.yuku.co......VJWiksAKA

A lot of it resonates with me, but I strongly disagree with the shoulder pad and makeup recommendations. Still, I have to remember when Kibbe's book was written. In the '80s, shoulder pads were in everything and makeup was clownishly applied. My shoulders are not overly strong, but they are strong enough that I don't need shoulder pads. The only shoulder pads I have ever worn have been in suit jackets, and they were the smaller ones--not the linebacker sized ones. My makeup has always generally been applied the way you see it in the 1985 pic. I don't like heavily applied, theatrical makeup or makeup colors that are too strong for my personal coloring.

I am going to need to sort this out, and post pics when I get a chance. This will involve taking pics of pics, lol. I have a folder full of old photos to sort through. I only want to post pics of outfits I really felt great in.

You know I think it is hard to guess.
E,,, you are lucky to have a couple of celebrity role models Reese ( SG ) and Clair ( SN ) that are close to you in height, face shape and general build. It would be up to you to progress further and do try-on'sI guess. I am thinking that waist emphasis may be more a G trait though. N usually skims the waist or implies it with a fit. It is often empire waisted... somewhat drapey around the curves.
Yes Flamoyant is not the proper word here... it is a gamine with a few more yang traits. Makes it a bit edgy... can take more drama etc..can get away with higher contrast... more lines than SG. Can push the limits more than any type and get away with it.

bettyycrocker... it's all so confusing huh ? Just crazy. The way I see it is maybe gamine height, but natural shoulders, yin length limbs, oval/ classic face shape ... oh my !... T Shape is a fairly yang/ natural trait.... ahh !

I had another Yin/Yang aha moment this summer when I went into a fairly high end consignment shop looking for a purple tunic... to go with a Frank Lyman cardi I had purchased. The lady brought me a pretty long shirt with gathers under the bust and lace around the top and puffy gathered sleeves. I had looked at it twice but put it on. I just stood there horrified looking in the mirror. She asked... "What do you think ?" Well... what I thought was... "OMG ! I look like I'm in drag ". What I said was " It doesn't fit well in the bust ".

Sheila, check this out:
http://stylesyntax.com/blog/

Scroll down and read the part about there being 2 types of FGs. I wonder if I might be a FG with N. ??? God only knows. Like you say, it's confusing!

and this:

http://stylesyntax.com/blog/20.....uidelines/

According to this, there can be curvy FGs.

E, could I trouble you to post a link to Rachel's boards? I'd like to explore them as well.

Sure Alasse! I thought you knew about them, sorry I should have thought to link.

Here's her pinterest page. If you scroll down, there's boards for each Kibbe type & each of the 12 SciArt seasons. Lots of eye candy! The top boards inc discussion boards related to both Kibbe & colour season.

Sheila, it's tricky for me to find blouses w the kind of SN waist definition that actually fit, which is part of why I so often shortcut with a cinched waist skirt and/or belt. And I like that SG cinched look, but I'd also like to add some softer, more SN, type waist definition looks to my repertoire, so to speak. After all, variety is the spice of life! And I love all of the drapey goodness shown on the SN pages, although I'm not sure how much it would love me back. I've already been wanting more drape in my closet after watching the 20s fashions of Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries, so it'll be fun for me to explore.

Betty, I feel like Suz that Kibbe is more valuable for the ideas than getting bogged down by a specific label. So I like that he provokes these kinds of questions: do you look better in a column of colour or broken up? Does a lot of detail look fussy or natural on you? Do very simple clothes look boring or elegant? Do you wear drape or does it wear you? Do you sleek or blocky in straight lines? etc.

This board depicts FG as having a strong mod influence, which sounds like it could fit into your current preferences for sheath dresses and the like. Maybe try incorporating a mod element or two and see how it makes you feel/how others respond?

Well, here goes... I can't picture myself in any type of mod outfit, so maybe FG isn't the right fit for me after all. I looked at the SG pics, and readily identified with it because they were the types of things I wore when I was in my teens and twenties. Body shape wise, SG is spot on.

The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that I no longer identify with SG because the outfits are too youthful for me now... which leads me back to some type of C or N.

Holy cow!

bettycrocker -- don't take that board too literally. It is inspirational. Not meant to be taken "as is" -- but as a mood board of sorts.

I could never wear all the bright clear colours, loud and brash effects, or the kinds of details that are typically shown for FGs. That is one reason I never saw myself there.

But -- no wonder. In terms of colours, I'm a true or maybe a soft summer (I don't actually care all that much -- the point is, I wear cool, composed colours best). So I need to blend my softer colours with the sharp lines of the FG (or even the DC, for that matter). In my own case, mod SHAPES appeal to me hugely. The colour schemes, not so much. The colours and the specific details don't matter -- it is overall shape and line that marks the distinction, I think. In terms of yin-yang categories, at least.

That's just it. I'm not sure about shapes. I'm posting pics oft body shape (see first post) and a couple of others to see if we can narrow this down a little bit.

I don't see any yang in my body except the straight shoulder line. In my face, the yang is more obvious--nose, lips and eyebrows are all yang. My body shape is softer, which I have to consider when choosing clothing that fits.

Please give your thoughts, fellow YLFers. From what I can tell, I think I'm either a balance of yin and yang, which would be C I believe, or I'm a little more yang than yin, which might push me over into DC or FG. ??? I don't pay too much attention to height, as I'm not a very short petite like some women I know. At 5'2" tall, I'm almost at what is considered regular height for ready-to-wear clothing.

At this juncture, I think I'm headed towards more tailored styles, but those styles can't have straight lines, as my body isn't straight. My favorite dress styles are sheath and wrap. I have one pencil skirt in my closet, but am not sure I'm going to keep it. Every time I put it on, I feel like it makes me look boxy or something. I keep thinking I need a skirt that has more movement to it, which might be the reason I love my wrap dresses so much. I love wearing skinny jeans tucked into boots with tops that skim my body so as not to hide my figure. I don't mind wearing one color head to toe, but I much prefer wearing a combination of colors. I'm not the least bit scared of color or of prints, but I don't like geometric or mod prints. When it comes to prints, I love paisley, certain florals (I'm very picky!), jacquard (my absolute fav, by far), and stripe (again, I'm very picky). As for jewelry, what I have right now is a few C pieces (pearl necklace, diamond stud earrings) and a lot of what I think is more N pieces (lots of gemstone necklaces and Bali style stuff).

Now that I sit and type all this out, I think I may be some sort of N, Sheila. But I'm not tall. ???

Style Syntax is my site, so I thought I'd clarify some things about curvy FGs that I have realized since writing my initial posts about it.

First, while an FG's measurements may be curvy, it usually won't be a nice, smooth curve, an elongated hourglass, etc. It will be full of angles. My waist-to-hip ratio is <0.7, which should give me a wasp waist like a theatrical romantic, yet my hips are boxy and my rib cage is very triangular. A square is formed by my shoulder line and the lines of my hips.

Also, the outfits you are wearing in your photos are things that FGs or DCs would never be able to pull off, unless MAYBE if they were in such good shape that they looked good in everything. Structure is absolutely key for FG and DC. My worst look is a jersey wrap dress.

When I look at pictures of your face at different ages, what jumps out to me is the S-curve of Soft Natural. There is a service called Guiding Lines (https://www.facebook.com/guidinglines) that has determined the basic lines that define each of the Kibbe types, and S-curves is it for Soft Natural.

Wow ! Psychodelicate ! You have given this a fair bit of analysis. I read your blog for about 30 minutes yesterday and really enjoyed it. You have wrapped up many of my thoughts on Kibbe lately. I worry about the recent visits. It was not my intention to visit him but I also wonder how some of our picture analysis was so wrong. Really wrong.

For betttycrocker...I think just watch the classics. They dress Helen Mirren in Classic lately and I think they are just trying to play her down. I don't especially like it. Weight gain can also be a clue and I tend to go rectangle when I gain weight but you have your curves at all weights so that is also a clue.

It's funny as in one pic your face reminded me of Uma Thurman but I checked and she is SD - she is 5'11" so she is likely to be more on the end of the Yang scale.

Pschodelicate... do you think I am close on FG for Suz ? Do you see this as well? or not ?

Your reply

Thanks Blogging has been fun, because I can watch how my understanding of Kibbe has evolved over the past six months or so.

Yes, I could see FG for Suz, just looking at her profile picture, but probably an FG without N influence (so closer to mid-G). The fact that she relates to DC is also a big indicator, since FGs who are close to mid-G have less of an "extreme" look to their facial features than a textbook FG.
Btw, if it wasn't clear, I was addressing Bettycrocker in my comments about SN.

Thanks so very much, Psychedelicate! You have helped me immensely. I had considered SN when Sheila said she thinks I may be an N, but my height made me veer wast from N to G.

Sheila, I have purposely tried not to dress in a strictly C way, as I know it's not "me." I prefer more relaxed styles, but nothing oversized, if that makes sense. Like I posted earlier, if I'm any type of C,I'm not a straight up C. I do have some C styles in my wardrobe, but always feel the need to style them in a different way. This may be from an intense desire I've always had to personalize my outfits so as not to look exactly like everyone else. I like to add touches to express my individuality.

Also, if I still had that plum dress, I would have it shortened to hit right above the knee, and I certainly wouldn't wear pumps, as my fussy feet can no longer tolerate them. I'd probably try to wear ankle boots or tall boots. Lastly, there's be a statement necklace with it--something eye catching but scaled to my body type so as not to be too flashy.

Now I'm off to study SN and see what I think.

Height is less key to your type than people seem to think. An SN on the shorter side is definitely possible, and short does not automatically mean G.

If you feel the need to alter classic looks to make them work, that's a big hint it's not you! Classics need very little--no statement necklaces for sure. Relaxed but not oversized sounds very in line with SN.

Thanks! Your blog, and your comments here in this thread, are so helpful. More than you know, actually. In trying to understand Kibbe, it has never made sense to me why he divides women according to height. That is really confusing and misleading. Then again, I'm not the only one who has had trouble grasping Kibbe's categories.

I've always had difficulty figuring out which direction to go with my style. In my teens and 20s I tried a few looks, such as boho and straight classic, that clearly didn't suit me. I know I can't pull off anything super dramatic. This whole exercise reminds me of what I did to figure out my personal color palette. I eliminated all the seasons I'm not. Posting photos and gaining insight from the comments posted is valuable. I do want to look at SN--not only at Pinterest pics but also at written information that will give me more insight into this particular style.

I'd like to see this thread continue, as I'm sure my journey will continue and other women will want help with this type of thing.

I think it has to do with vertical line--I.e., a dramatic has a long line, so they are perceived as taller, and gamines have a broken-up line, so they are perceived as shorter than they actually are. I'm glad my blog/comments have been helpful to you!

OMG I'm not believing this! I just found a SN pinterest board that has so many outfits and accessories, in soft colors, that I would wear. I feel at ease, like I can finally breathe, looking at these styles. There are even some necklaces that I had actually looked at online a couple of weeks ago. I feel like I've found my "home," though I'm still going to read up on the definition of SN and all that it entails before making a final decision. Many thanks to Sheila for her N suggestion and to Psychedelicate for her knowledge of the SN and how it applies to me.

Psychedelicate, I never completely understood the meaning of perceived height. I have never felt "short." It's hard to explain, but I meet other petite women who are indeed delicate, and completely understand how the common style recommendations for petites would apply to them. I never felt like I fit in that category. I've always felt like a slightly short woman, not like a petite woman. Does this make sense? And is the long line in the body shape? I'm not getting that part.

It's how you're seen. I'm 5'4", but people see me as petite and shorter than I am. This can be reflected in how you dress. So a D may look good in a floor-length sleek dress, but a G would have to break it up. SNs look good in separates, but I don't think the vertical line question is as important, since N tends to be more about horizontals.

i had to google it so i am no help but am following this thread with interest.

Thanks, Psychedelicate. I've never felt the need to adhere to general petite guidelines regarding vertical lines. I break my lines up fairly often. For example, the other day I wore a dark navy 3/4-sleeved sweater layered over a navy/ivory long-sleeved striped shirt. This was with ivory skinny jeans tucked into chocolate brown boots. So the color line was broken at the hip and at the top of the boots, as well as at the sleeves of the dark navy sweater. Never once did I feel like I shouldn't have done that. As a matter of fact, I felt great in that outfit. Is this what you mean when you say N is about horizontals?

Ns tend to have a strong shoulder line. FN, especially, tends toward a t-shape. They tend to be wider. N is soft yang, so D yang softened by yin. This yin adds width. Ns are broader than Ds.

SN is about detail at the bottom, rather than near the face, so it's interesting that you seem to have been instinctively doing that by putting your line breaks there.

Interesting indeed, Psychedelicate! This entire exercise is really helping me to understand why I do certain things, whether knowingly or unknowingly, as well as why certain style elements or combinations work and others don't.

My shoulder line is definitely not T. I know people who have that type of shoulder line, and I don't. That said, I've never put on a garment--whether regular sized or petite--that was ever too large in the shoulders. I have, however, tried on petite garments that were too narrow in the shoulders (and too short in the sleeves). From what I can tell, my shoulders are pretty much in line with my hips. I do wear the same size top and bottom, and finding dresses that fit is easy.

Yeah, T is more for FN. I think SN is more equal/hourglass.