Thanks to threads by caro in oz, Gigi and links posted by Suz, I got sucked into researching the Kibbe archetypes and I wanted to record my thoughts here. Apologies if this retreads ground already covered in the other threads, as this is as much for my benefit as anything else.
I found basic idea and the archetypes themselves very useful. From an aesthetic perspective, it makes perfect sense to accentuate your physical proportions and attributes with whatever you're wearing, which is what I've been trying to do all these years, so it's interesting to read how these have been interpreted by stylists.
I did the quiz and downloaded the spreadsheet. I reached the conclusion that I'm somewhere on a continuum between Soft Dramatic and Flamboyant Natural with a touch of the Dramatic. This made a lot of sense, considering my preference for loose pants, sharp shoulders, graphic patterns and oversized pieces. So far, so good.
Where it all collapsed a bit was in the style inspiration I found on the Internet. This is terribly subjective and there are interpretations out there which read to me as extreme and/or wide of the mark, not to mention a load of things I wouldn't be seen dead in. It's not really helped by Kibbe's own instructions, which in spite of their wisdom are by now terribly dated, as others have pointed out.
However, I did find a few things which resonated.
First, this graphic, via Pinterest, which struck me as a very good representation in contemporary styling of how I understood the type definitions. I can see immediately from here the outfits which would suit me best. I could easily wear SD or FN as they are, and D would also work with a little tweaking.
I found some interesting commentary on Style Syntax, who approaches the system critically, albeit from her own FG/SD perspective. Being a huge nerd and a visualisation specialist, I really like this diagram. Yin-yang is on the x-axis, blend-contrast is on the y-axis. I can see exactly where I fit in here.