Firecracker: that's interesting what you say about the shorter hair. The style you have right now rocks the house, so no reason to change a thing. But it's fun to decode the system, no?


Astrid: what did I just say about styling advice being bogus?

Yes, I can see you more clearly in those pics and I'd definitely say SN. Also, you could argue that the second dress is a bit more FG than SG on account of the bold colour and large print. I bet you could wear that shape in a more muted colour scheme.

I've been thinking that the naturals and the gamines should maybe be closer together in the diagram, because as I understand it these types carry more "contrast" than the classics (mixed yin and yang features).

But what do I know? I've only been doing this a couple of days

eh... AM: sorry, missed your question. Not sure what to recommend. I found the spreadsheet somewhat useful, but I'm not going to rush out and buy the book just yet. I'd much rather trust my intuition based on the continuum of value and contrast.

Oh I missed Runcarla! I looked at your pics before I looked at your scores. You're angular, but very well proportioned. I think DC before anything else, but you could play up your yin features and go for SN if you prefer.

Thanks approprio. I'll have a closer look at SN the next time I'm having too much time on my hands.

Thanks CocoLion, Approprio. This kind of musing around actually helps me a lot! Though I like the monicker of 'natural' the images used to illustrate are too flowy and bohemian for what makes me happy, whereas the tighter lines, and formality of 'classic' make my heart sing. The images for DC look like my Pinterest 'aspirational style' board!

Fun thread. I've just started reading the book & it's fascinating His sections on what the specific types are not is enlightening imo.

Kibbe also says it can be helpful to have someone else "type" you as they can be more objective about specific body parts. He also says to trust yourself - which can seem contradictory to the first statement but isn't when you explore his idea of resistance to your type.

Approprio, I agree they should be closer together. I think FN is higher energy, and SN is lower energy. FN is bold/geometric in patterns and color use, and SN is all about watercolor/blending. The one with the circles was done by someone else, and I used that for a model for my diagram with the lines. I will probably remake my diagram when I get around to it with FN in the first quadrant to show its higher movement.

(My diagram shows the types as a continuum--I.e., as an FG, I may be far more to FG side than G than some other FGs, and this affects how we interpret our type. http://stylesyntax.com/blog/wp...../graph.jpg)

Wow, how did I miss such great thread?! My Kibbe assessment several years ago (from CocoLion light hand) was really helpful. I placed myself as Soft Dramatic which really opened my eyes why I feel wrong in certain clothes. Realization that you need to embrace your own facial features and body and not trying to be something you are now was a turning point for me.
BTW it is so great to find a type twin in you Approprio I read your yang / yin categories and it sounded completely like me (with the only substitution of curvy hips / small bust). On the other hand while we both have the same Kibbe type of SD our styles are very different but both true to the Soft Dramatic definition I think.
Thanks for the fun read!

Hey psychedelicate! Thanks for a chiming in. And even more thanks for your critical resource on Kibbe archetypes. I've enjoyed exploring it.

I'm still trying to figure out how I think that graph ought to look, because my feeling is that the naturals and the gamines are more closely related. I'm also reaching the conclusion that TR doesn't take up much space on the continuum, and is actually pretty rare. I personally wouldn't expect to see a concentration of those "yin" qualities in real life, grown up women with actual lives.

Sveta: I'm still trying to work out whether I'm more comfortable with the SD or FN definition. From a styling POV, I feel I could go either way, and both feel like interesting starting points given my preferences. It's interesting to compare where you and I overlap, even though we have very different styles.

I think any style definition gives a wide range of possibilities to create something individual and personal, so I've found all the prescriptive styling recommendations to be quite problematic. I think the best we can do is treat it as a set of boundary conditions to help us define for ourselves what does and doesn't suit us. That's the aspect I'm finding most useful at the moment.

Approprio - I think my dreads are more yin then yang - the have much more movement, texture and look softer IRL.

Interesting assessment on FN will have to do more reading.

Approprio, what do you mean by "yin qualities"? TRs actually tend to be intense and intimidating-seeming--"resting b**** face" is a perennial TR issue. Personality, though, doesn't actually mean anything in terms of your Kibbe. It's what people would think your personality might be upon first impression (typecasting). Kibbe says that your external self is finite, and your internal self is infinite. Your Kibbe type and personality/tastes may match up; they might not. He has a quiz called "the fantasy quiz" in the book to determine whether they do or not. Then you have to reconcile the two. There are actually a fair amount of TRs around. Kibbe says that D and FGs are the type he sees the least. N types seem to be the most common. (If you were not aware, he no longer assigns N, C, and G as types. I wrote about it some here: http://stylesyntax.com/blog/20.....nt-gamine/ and am planning a bigger post on it soon.)

But the graph has nothing to do with how many people there are of X type. It is simply the range that you see within in a type in terms of amount of yin/yang and movement. In TR's case, there may be so much yang that whether this person is an SD or a TR is a hard call, or they can seem very close to straight R.
FN is close-ish to FG. FG has N in it, and FN is fairly high contrast. SN can seem close to SG because there are youthful SNs who many may think are SG (Emma Stone), but it is actually closer to SC. Watercolor and jersey dresses are fabulous on SNs and a G-type's nightmare. SN is very far from G.

psychedelicate, I think these points you make are so important:

"Personality ... doesn't actually mean anything in terms of your Kibbe. It [Kibbe type] is what people would think your personality might be upon first impression (typecasting). Kibbe says that your external self is finite, and your internal self is infinite.

"Your Kibbe type and personality/tastes may match up; they might not. ... [If not], then you have to reconcile the two."

I guess people might balk at the "have to." Obviously, no one is forcing a system on anyone, and if you're a radical dresser, none of this matters to you anyway. But the sheer realism of Kibbe's approach -- upsetting the "one hourglass fits all" and "a long leg is the only leg" advice of most style gurus -- is what made it enlightening and worthwhile for me.

gauche - I couldn't agree more with:

"I guess people might balk at the "have to." Obviously, no one is forcing a system on anyone, and if you're a radical dresser, none of this matters to you anyway. But the sheer realism of Kibbe's approach -- upsetting the "one hourglass fits all" and "a long leg is the only leg" advice of most style gurus -- is what made it enlightening and worthwhile for me."

I'm still reading the book but much of the Kibbe stuff that is on the www doesn't relate to his concepts AT ALL.

gauche, yes, "have to" obviously only applies to people who wish to follow Kibbe's system. You are right that the idea of not trying to create some idealized vision of "symmetry" and highlighting exactly what it is that sets you apart is where Kibbe radically departs from other style gurus. If you compare me in my Kibbe type (FG) to me in what Trinny and Susannah prescribe for my body type in their system (skittle), there is no contest at all.
caro in oz, what have you been reading? Most get it wrong, I think, and focus more on "essence" rather than line and you end up with "SN is boho" and "FG is punk or mod," which is what you see on Pinterest and Polyvore.

psychedelicate - I've mostly read info on forums, Pinterest & from clicking through to various links from them. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book & I'm really glad I bought it I agree that people get very confused with essence, imo it's still a fantastic concept though.

Hi psychedelicate. What I meant about people balking at "have to" was this: I think some people dismiss Kibbe's system out of hand because they think it means submitting to some soulless, personality-less straitjacket of dress. They hear "have to" and shut down even considering what it might have to offer.

Interesting. I am an INTJ, so to me it just means less wasted time. I can go to a store and just immediately look for the things that are FG and Bright Spring and know they will look good and that's it There are no guessing games. Some people enjoy the mystery, though.

" think the best we can do is treat it as a set of boundary conditions to help us define for ourselves what does and doesn't suit us. That's the aspect I'm finding most useful at the moment."


Love that.

I feel as if Kibbe gives us a set of useful guidelines (not rules) about line, detail, proportion, that are all about flattering who we are vs. making us conform to some unreal idea. These guidelines complement an understanding of colour.


Thanks for starting this thread, Approprio -- it's a fun and fascinating one. Caro, your enthusiasm is making me want the book itself. Approprio, I couldn't agree more that the internet Polyvores are mostly pretty awful and unhelpful...

Your typing, though, has been fascinating! Having spent a fair bit of time trying to figure it all out and having also spent a lot of "time" with forum members here (and in some cases also in person) I wanted to shout "BRILLIANT" at most of your designations and even at your hesitations.

I had planned, actually, to start a personal "Kwibbeling" thread as part of my "Evolving my style" series, but now I don't feel like I need to; the discussion here has been just what I was hoping for only better!

So, do you think I'm right in thinking FG for myself now? I had originally thought DC, but more and more suspect FG, but (as I have confessed on another thread) have some trouble...um...shall we say, reconciling, myself to some aspects of Kibbe's FG styling suggestions (or at least, to my understanding of them, which is possibly mistaken).

FG and DC are very close. They are made up of the exact same components in the same amounts--just in one, they are put together in a contrasted way, and in the other, they are blended. If you look better in a long line than FG's chopped-up silhouette, you are DC. FG has a lot more going on.

Oh just blinking as I take my first sips of coffee but Suz I am extremely intrigued since I have been put in the DC/FG box up thread. FG is something I had never even considered, so of course I was fascinated. So please muse your pretty little head off on the topic.

Approprio you have a wonderful eye, thanks for all the effort you are putting into this. Your assessments all have been "aha" moments for me. Psychedelicate you are a true Kibbe resource! Carry on!

Thanks, psychedelicate.

Well, maybe I will have to start that thread after all, to do a "showdown."

It's a bit tricky in my case because I am relatively low contrast with soft (fair) colouring as well. A true summer or soft summer.

You don't normally think of high contrast for a summer. In favour of a FG designation, I have always liked high contrast in some forms. And I think I do carry it off. NOT a big bold black and white pattern near my face (that would totally wash me out). But two tone shoes, contrast on the bottom, a white top with navy jacket or vest—all these I can do.

Then again, at least one forum member here whose judgement I trust (CocoLion) prefers me in very simple outfits (which typically have involved a long line...I believe, though I might be wrong about that.)

Another forum member who knows a fair bit about this (Sheila) sees gamine and in particular remarks how I can manage a broken line.

My hunch, actually, is gamine. I've always liked a high-hip length jacket, never worry much about wearing a contrasting top and bottom (even though I am short at 5'4"), wear belts happily, etc. Also, I am in love with asymmetry. And have a markedly asymmetrical face and body.

Shevia, I am absolutely on board with both of those for you. I agree that you have a resemblance to Jackie O. But the way you wear that asymmetrical hair and something about your "thrown together" tomboy style screams gamine to me, so I suspect that is more accurate. I think DCs are more STILL vs. DYNAMIC. There is so much fun and mischief in you. So much movement.

So what's supposed to be closest to SN on the scale? He got rid of Natural, right?

I don't find his book dictatorial. I think he presents his ideas as guidelines; not like the Colour Me Beautiful book that made women feel like they had to fit into one of only 4 seasonal categories and stick to a very limited number of colors. Oh, and Kibbe's book gets into that 4-season color analysis thing, too. I just ignore it because I prefer the newer 12-season system, and even then I wear a few colors that aren't in my palette.

Oh if you are markedly asymmetrical, welcome to FlamGamLand

Re: being a summer. You would wear something that looks high contrast--on a summer. So a winter FG would wear black and white. As a Bright Spring who leans a bit dark (even though I'm blonde, go figure), I'll wear a mid-tone color from my palette with black. As an summer, you'd wear something even closer in value, but it'd look as high contrast as b&w would on a winter.

http://www.bestdressed.us/blog.....unexpected

Here is SSu FG. I think the skirt of the dress is a bit off, but it should give you a good idea of what "high contrast" looks like on SSu.

Thanks, psychedelicate! I saw that board a while ago but forgot it, yes. I'm probably true summer, so can go darker. This still feels too "soft" and not "crisp" enough for my personal style, but I like how it highlights the lines of the clothes in combination with a softer palette than is typically shown.

Here was how I interpreted an outfit I copied lock, stock, and barrel from Angie -- except she is a spring so can go higher contrast than I can.

(Oh, and Approprio, apologies for the threadjack).

So, Angie's is both higher contrast to her skin/hair (since she is fairer than I am) but also higher contrast in itself (B&W skirt). I went for the dark jacket (probably a bit darker than my ideal, but I like it) with a light grey and the lower contrast skirt. A bit of higher contrast in the shoe.

This post has 2 photos. 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.

Suz, just curious ... where do you see marked asymmetry in your looks?

Mostly my face. Crooked nose, deviated septum, one eye markedly bigger than the other, crooked smile. I know everyone has some asymmetry (well, most) but mine is strong enough that when getting professional head shots, the photographer remarked on it. The eyes in particular are noticeable IRL if you are paying attention to it. You can see it in quite a few of my WIW photos (not this one due to the angle).

I'm also slightly (but less noticeably) different on the left and right side of my body. Again, I know that to some degree this is normal.

Would you say your features are clearly mixed? Like my nose, face shape, and eyebrows are Dramatic, and my lips and cheeks are Romantic. Overall, my face is angular, but there are marked touches of yin.

I actually just got my nose fixed, but I had a crooked one with a deviated septum as well, as you can see in the pic.

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.

Interesting! Thank you. You have an amazing face. I see lots of drama in it. I definitely understand why you would say you are FG based on facial features alone.

It is always hard to be objective about ourselves. My best estimation for myself? Predominantly yin features. Predominantly yang facial bone structure. High cheekbones, squarish jaw, long face, high forehead, big ears. Some pics of varying quality.

I'm the middle one in first photo.

You can see the crooked nose and the eye difference quite noticeably in photo 4.

This post has 5 photos. 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.

I was hit in the nose twice when I was a child--once by a basketball and once by a kid who hit me with his backpack when I wouldn't let him cut in line to wait for the bus. So my nose is definitely not symmetrical, which is one of the reasons I don't part my hair in the center.

I'm not sure about the rest of my face, but it seems rather symmetrical to me.