Ooh, I love this rabbit hole! Have a crack at me too Approprio - please! I THINK I am a dramatic classic, light on the dramatic (AM - kin again!). I THINK this style suits me and is right for me ... however, I will echo the issue that there are not enough good examples of modern interpretations of the clothes ... so in terms of application, it's a bit of a guessing game. I do love the stripes example you found though Approprio ... it's the most helpful one I've seen. There are a couple of good ones on Pinterest, but most are collages of celebs from the 80's, sadly ...

I did this a while ago and I think I landed on Soft Classic, but now that I look at it all again, I think I'm a Soft Natural.

Oh my, oh me too! I actually have a lot of D answers - soft short body type, soft flesh (egad) with muscles I have worked at adding, but I am not really sitting well with the ornate romantic thing. Plus I do not have a tiny waist and never did. I do have a lot of asymmetry and angles in my face which adds some drama - but the questions don't really have the right answers. Lips - not full, not thin, but rather lopsided and uneven! Nose - not super big, not tiny, somewhat crooked and asymmetric! Full cheeks, angular brows - I am lost!
As for you Approprio, I think soft dramatic makes sense.

Runcarla I see you as having Natural qualities as well so I'm going to say Flamboyant Natural as another option to Dramatic Classic. Of course I'm not the expert here, we have to see what Aproprio says!

Viva -- what do you gain? To me this is mostly about fun, with a bit of self-awareness thrown in. Also it's interesting if we see ourselves as others do.

Shevia you look dramatic classic to me. Because you look like Jackie O to me who was a dramatic classic.

Man, I wish I knew. I think I did this quiz the last time someone posted a link, or at least attempted to. But I somehow ended up with a preponderance of answers that didn't put me in a type at all??

I had a visceral reaction to the Vivienne Files Calder versus Mondrian link: I am definitely a Mondrian. Which is funny, because I think the shape of my body, except for my height maybe, is totally Calder.

ETA: ok, went back and did the linked quiz, which is slightly different than the one I remember seeing before, or I'm just spacing. I got a) 1, b) 3, c) 5, d) 3, and e) 4. Which apparently puts me in Soft Classic, i.e. The most boring middle of the road type ever. I mean, who doesn't want to be compared to Olivia de Haviland (how old is this book again?)?

With Kibbe -- as with color-system books -- I don't think the quizzes, theories or celebrity examples help as much as just trying stuff on and seeing what the mirror says. It's like finding your colors -- the right ones just click. (Or they did for me.)

One interesting factor Kibbe uses in typing people is facial symmetry/asymmetry, which I don't think other systems touch on. Personally, I used to try on all sorts of lovely jewelry -- pearls, gold hoops, diamond studs -- and wonder why they never looked right. It's because my face has an asymmetrical quality and needs asymmetrical jewelry to not look funny. Same with prints -- neat geometric ones are all wrong on me, larger irregular ones work. (His advice is much more detailed.)

I certainly don't like or use all of Kibbe's suggestions (bold tropical prints, anyone? Bea Arthur vests?) but overall he's helped me see myself more clearly and dress accordingly.

I had a look at pictures yesterday and I don't think I'm a Gamine, not even a soft one, I'm not angular enough for that. I can see soft natural looking at body type, but most examples of outfits/clothes have me run screaming. Too drapey/fussy/detailed for my taste. I guess I can get behind it if I think soft straight lines with a little drape... Just like with the bag below, picking the first one over the second.

Disclaimer: this is entirely subjective and probably all wrong. Any styling advice you get from random people in the Internet is bound to be nonsense. All renderings of these archetypes you find elsewhere are terrible. You know better than anyone what suits you.

frannieb: I'm gonna say FN, on account of your dramatic choices and lovely poncho collection. I'm thinking locks are pretty yang-y, but I could be wrong there. They might be yin.

viva: Gamine tending to FG, just like Twiggy here you are in a great understated FG look.

AM: DC makes perfect sense, and explains why you remind me of my sister

Tania: I'd say Natural (on account of your strong features and athletic build) tending to SN?

torontogirl: how can I possibly tell when I can't see your face?

shevia: yes, I'd agree with CocoLion, SD works for you, but I also see a touch of FG.

One more note on the archetypes: I'm seeing these as guidelines on how to use colour and silhouette on the spectrum of opposing aesthetics rather than renderings of particular styles. I can't stress enough how badly these have been interpreted by random people on Polyvore.

And I'm a professional designer and visualisation specialist, so there's that.

Approprio, you're right - most of these interpretations are pretty bad. But I think it's good to keep in mind as a concept. It's probably comparable with the Soft Summer color examples you find on the internet (Pinterest and Polyvore) which are mostly horrible or plain wrong. No wonder people don't want to be a Soft Summer...

Here's another yin/yang article:
http://stylesyntax.com/blog/20.....ction-part

LOL, Approprio ... what, you're not psychic?!?!?
I'll pm you ... some of my old WIWs have face pictures

Interesting! Thanks for the analysis - I have only begun to realize my dramatic size lately. FG is something I had never considered. It is always intriguing to hear how others see you. And Denise, I am not going to complain about being compared to Jackie O, thanks for the wonderful compliment!

Shevia, I see you as Flam Gam as well !

approprio... you have a good sense for this !

It is kind of the same territory I see myself in... FN/SD... but sometimes I think DC or TR or even SN....
Yang for sure... I just can't see whether it is sharp yang of blunt yang... Hard to tell the difference ourselves.

Ooh, I love that link of viva. FG is a good call. And it makes me feel I can see the difference between FG and SG now (and that I'd be on the SG side).

But ok. So what does it all mean? I'm looking at the spreadsheet and it's talking to me about tulip and mermaid skirts. I guess I could find a mermaid skirt (but I don't think it would be that easy). Also, it's not clear to me that the goal is any less classical... albeit perhaps it's not conventional, in that everyone should look like the "classic" type.

ETA: Sudden realisation - an SG body type, for example, is not necessarily the same as gamine clothing style.

Right. *Duh*.

OK, I'm at least peeking down the rabbit hole.

I tried the quiz again, and some things I'm just not sure how to interpret, when it comes to my own body/face. But here are my best guesses:

a - 1
b - 4
c - 3
d - 4
e - 5

And there is no corresponding category that seems to fit those numbers. I seem to be "e" dominant, but I balk at the "romantic" moniker. Does anyone care to venture a type for me, based on what you see of me? Maybe I'm just really bad at identifying my own traits.

Just curious.

ETA: I just read a bit more, and through process of elimination, I guess the most apt description for me is Theatrical Romantic? ("Very curvy body type, with an hourglass figure; slightly angular bone structure (small, delicate, and slightly sharp); facial features are round, full and lush; facial bones are delicate, narrow and slightly sharp.")

Most of the others seem completely off the mark for me; I'm not symmetrical, I'm definitely not a gamine, etc. But then, the description for Soft Natural seems somewhat applicable too:

"Soft body type that tends toward fleshiness and curve, particularly in the upper arm/thigh and hip area (may become extremely soft when overweight); softly angular bone struicture that tends towards soft width or a slight elongation; facial bones are very full, very soft, and somewhat rounded."

Actually, I think the facial description of the TR is more accurate than the SN for me. And either one could describe my body type -- fine-boned, even though I'm not small in stature. A curvy figure but with prominent shoulders and bony hands, feet, wrists, ankles…

See why this is confusing to me? So much is interpretation.

Janet, I find it confusing too. Actually I just saw that the definition of SN means you should have dominant answers in B which I definitely don't have. Maybe I'm a soft classic instead? That would mean C, paired with D/E. I have no idea...

Ok, I bit and took the quiz. a - 4, b - 7, c - 5, d - 1, e - 0. What this means? I have no clue. A natural classic? And I do not get the yin/yang.

Deb, if I have understood it right the yin is soft/round (D/E) and the yang is straight/angular (A/B). C is in between. So if a type mentions yin when it comes to facial features you are supposed to have more D/E in that part of the quiz.

When I took the Kibbe test, I had mostly Classic answers, but I know I'm not a Classic. The closest I might be to a Classic would be Soft Classic, but I'm not sure. I lean towards Soft Natural because my body type needs soft tailoring and my answers to his essence quiz (in his book) put me squarely in the Natural category.

I agree those questionnaires are hard to interpret, but I think the Kibbe system gets a bit clearer if you can first figure out where you are on the yin/yang
dimension. Words like soft, rounded, delicate, and small describe the feminine yin and sharp, angular, broad, long describe the masculine yang. If you look in the mirror and focus just on your physique and features, it's often not that hard to see which side is stronger--all the while realizing that most of us will be a blend. The stronger the influence of either yin, or yang, the easier it is to recognize which side is your dominant player.

Once you've figured out which side best describes you, then you can eliminate some classifications which, in turn, makes it easier to concentrate on the descriptors that fit in your end of the yin/yang continumn. That's why the grid is handy, as are the descriptions in the spreadsheet. I think it's also easier if you just think of the labels as letters so you don't get sidetracked by your reaction towards a celebrity or word. As Rachylou points out--Gamine as a type isn't the same as a gamine style.

I have to say I see neither side on me- definitely not small or delicate and not sharp and long either. A mix of softness with moderate angels, blunt and/or wide. Whatever... I give up.

Sorry to see that I've woven you into the Kibbe web of doom, approprio! I don't have time to read all the responses now, but this thread looks fascinating, and I will be back to fall further down the rabbit hole. Ha.

I do want to say that that chart you found on Style Syntax is quite interesting. It would seem to indicate how, once you have pinpointed your main style, you could move to nearby styles and make them work for you with some tweaks. For instance, I am SG, and from the chart, it appears that TR is right next door, and that is a style that infuses some of my own dressing.

Janet I think theatrical romantic suits you well. But lets see what the thread-owner says, you do have a great eye Approprio, I'm not surprised at all you are a design pro.

Janet when you wear that 3.1 Philip Lim vest it suits this style well. So I think you can still be modern and edgy but have this type. I guess to me the awareness that comes through identifying oneself is of the most benefit. While his style recommendations are difficult as they are so dated, not relevant to how we dress today (for one thing, much more casual than in the 80s).

I'm going to repeat my disclaimer - don't take my word for this and don't for heavens sake let this prompt you to start dressing like Dita von Tease because someone on the Internet said you're a TR...

This system is based around a fairly simple set of principles of proportion. Don't feel bad if you can't see it. I've always had a freakishly sharp eye for these sorts of things and I'm quite often able to spot things that are invisible to other people. It is what it is, it's why I do what I do.

DO NOT take any styling advice based on this, unless you've understood why these classifications exist and what they mean. Anything you find online will be completely bogus. Just keep wearing whatever you want to wear.

torontogirl: You're tall, slender and angular in the body, with quite classic facial features. DC looks about right.

Deb: you're a natural. Possible FN?

Janet: SN tending to TR. Don't feel bad. It's probably why you can still wear cowboy boots.

By the way, if I've assessed you, please feed back to me. I'd really like to know if this is making sense.

I bow to your suprior eye. Just a question - you mentioned SN or SG at the start. In that graphic they are definitely apart, so there seems to be no overlap. I think SG has a lot more tailoring, while SN is overall more flowy/ornate. Is that right? The first dress I'm wearing is rather flowy, the second one more angular/sharp (but I also weigh way more there). While I think #2 is a great dress, the first looks somehow more harmonious. Do you agree? That would mean SN and not SG, or not?

(I'm sorry for taking over your thread.)

I've had limited internet time lately, on a trip. But I wanted to respond approprio: I think your analysis of me makes sense. I've gone back and re-read the quizzes and come up with a lot of C answers, plus a few Bs for body type, and then Cs and Ds for face/bone structure. So I think I'm a dramatic classic, and I agree with you that my hair skews my face toward the soft side. In recent years, when I have tried to wear my hair short as I used to, I feel my face looks too severe. Looking at the spreadsheet of styles, lines, etc., I get quickly confused. For dramatic classic, it lists a bunch of sharp angled, high contrast looks that I feel overwhelm me. Maybe I'm more classic-classic after all.

I think Astrid looks like a Soft Classic. Don't ask me to explain myself too much, though. I've been focusing on "classic," since that's where most of my answers lie, so I have a thin if nonexistent grasp of the other types!

p.s. this is a fun thread, approprio! I really appreciate your eye.

Thanks Sharan. That's the other option I was thinking of. I rather liked the description of shape/line.

Uh oh, I just got pulled in! Attempting the quiz myself, without consulting anyone else, I got a result of Dramatic Classic. I'm surprised about the Classic part; will have to think about it some.

approprio: Glad you agree with my DC assessment (and light on the D). I can't decide if I should purchase this book or try to find more shortcuts for understanding DC...any thoughts? Do you find the spread sheet valuable?