JG, I just take a measuring tape and wrap it around the very top of my shoulders. I don't know if this is right, but it seemed the most logical to me.

I am not sure I agree with the idea that a short-waisted person can never have a tiny waist. I certainly did in high school and college, and I have the pics to prove it. I was just as short-waisted as I am now. I didn't look like Tanya or anything, but you could definitely see where the waist was, and the fact that it was fairly flat gave the illusion of being longer.

Overall, I prefer Imogen's system to the standard "apple, pear" etc. It's much more specific and takes a lot more into account. I think I am halfway between an 8 and an H. If my tum flattened out, I'd probably be an 8. This registers much more clearly to me than the usual, very general body types.

Nice body type tool Imogen!

My body type analysis is similar though Maya, and it’s interesting that you and others have not picked that up. Or perhaps you have and no one has mentioned it. I place a strong emphasis on “body modifiers” AFTER the five main body type categories. Imogen has instead opted to use some of the modifiers as separate body type categories. Other stylists have done the same resulting in more body types categories than I have. (I think Trinny and Susanna identify 10 different body types). Kendall Farr on the other hand has 3 – only three body type categories and she’s absolutely brilliant in my book. Her only modifiers are curvy or slim. That’s it! It works really well actually. Simple and to the point. It's uncomplicated and she offers excellent guidelines as a starting point.

So in the end, we’re all talking about the same thing, just assigning it a different name. Hopefully all guidelines lead to the same positive outcome - that you know how to best dress your lovely body :0)

Hi Angie,
I agree that you have a strong emphasis on body modifiers, and you make this clear when you give advice to a specific person. I do think though, - please correct me if I 'm wrong, is the Imogen's differentiation about high and low hip is something different from the usual modifiers?
Also, my guess is that part of the reason people can suddenly pick up on another body type category system is that is seems to be a good fit for them.
For example,Trinny and Susannah's BSB only received lukewarm approval on the forum, but liked it becaude I only had to look at the first picture and it was like looking at the mirror. Their "skittle" happened to fit me to a "T"

Angie, I didn't mean any backhanded criticism of your method! But for me there are so many modifiers to the "traditional" hourglass that what I end up with really is just a totally different body type. I think different categorizations will work better for different people. Your hourglass rules are obviously perfect for so many people and there must be a reason for that! But as you said there are so many different variations among stylists. I just have to choose what is most accurate for me, and for me it's much more simple to work with a body type that's already perfect at describing me, than choosing one that isn't so perfect and then having to modify it to death.

I'm going to go through a quick rundown of your hourglass rules and post what I mean. My comments are in brackets:

Make your waist a focal point [already off to a shaky start!]

* Choose garments in soft fabrics that accentuate and skim over your perfect curves. Avoid straight tunic styles and shapeless dresses and that hide your contours. [Actually, I look much better in straight tunic styles and shapeless dresses, and there are some contours that I think are best left hidden!]
* Your tops should be simple, smooth and low scooped. [true]
* Choose soft fitted blouses and shirts with open necklines. Avoid tops with breast pockets, ruffles and pleating. You’ll also look great in simple baby tees, wrap tops, halters and blousons. [true, other than the halter and baby tee part. Wraps are hard but far from impossible. Blousons I'm not sure of but I see lots of potential in them.]
* You’ll look best in a top and fine knit cardigan as opposed to a sweater. In that way you’ll be creating a “deep V” that will draw attention to your tiny waist. Keep them at hipbone length and pop them over full trousers or pencil skirts. [well, I do wear deep v's, but not to accentuate my non-existent tiny waist--I wear them to keep my chest from being suffocated. I also like sweaters.]
* High waisted belts (that sit on your natural waist) which are all the rage at the moment, are a must. [This could not possibly be further from the truth]
* Belted trenches (at any length) and classic coats with narrow tailored lapels at knee length will look best. Choose short nipped waist jackets at hipbone length with fairly low buttoning detail. [hit or miss on the belted trench thing, but the jacket part is true...though I suspect it's true for most women]
* Avoid bulky knits, jackets and tops – keep your fabrics soft and with stretch if possible. [true]
* Avoid the 1950’s boxy cropped jacket that is the height of fashion at the moment. [no way, I love this look!]

Choose the bottom to look taller and slimmer:

* You’ll be able to wear those short shorts and skirts – by all means show off those super legs! Walk shorts are also a good choice, especially if you wear them with a heel. [no way to short shorts, and I can wear short skirts but only because I'm petite]
* Choose flat-front, low-waist, boot-cut or flared pants and jeans. [no low waists!]
* Stretch will always be most comfortable around your fullish bottom. [true]
* Avoid straight, tight and tapered leg fits as they will make you look bottom heavy. You’ll be able to wear most denim and corduroy cuts well. [I'm surprised to see this bit about cords Angie! And I think I look best in straight legs, though I agree about tapered legs)
* Choose a pencil skirt with a narrow waistband and slightly tapered hemline just below the knee. Tuck in your top and accessorize with just about anything. You can also wear full-circle, tiered, bias and a-line skirts. You’ll also look fabulous in a sarong. [I look silly in tapered pencil skirts. Straight is my best skirt silhouette. Circle skirts can be too poofy on my petite self. A line skirts work too but the "A" has to be structured and on the narrower side. And I used to think tucking looked good until I saw a picture of myself. It was a bad idea.]
* Wear heels whenever you can in order to create a taller, slimmer line. [I'm sure this would look great if it were possible!

So you see, almost every rule is either flat-out wrong or needs a lot of modification. Imogen's breakdown seems to work without needing so many modifiers. I can relate very much to the "H", and to some extent the "8", without having to do much of my own thinking Believe me Angie, if I didn't find your advice helpful, I wouldn't have stuck around for so long. I feel like I'm being unfaithful or something!

Maybe it's also that Imogen's classifications don't hurt my ego as much. When you told me I was an apple, I have to admit feeling a degree of devastation. When you think of what an apple looks like, you must admit that's not very encouraging. I felt like I had a big round manly beer belly. But Imogen's "H" doesn't scar me nearly as much, even though it makes no difference as to how I look. Gosh this post has gotten long. I'll shut up now.

Angie, I didn't mean that I don't find your body types useful, and I agree that you and Imogen have the same basic ideas - you just break down body types/modifiers differently. I've been using your tips ever since I stumbled across this site two years ago, and they were a great starting point for me to figure out why I had been buying the wrong clothes for my body type for years.

That being said, Maya took the words right out of my mouth about the difficulty of having so many modifiers for my specific body. This isn't a flaw with your system, but it means that my body doesn't cleanly fit into any one body type, and having multiple modifiers can make it tricky for me to figure out which rules to follow. (I'm an hourglass with a large bust AND bum, I have a short waist and legs, tall rise, and "square shelf" on top of my hips that Imogen described.) Like Maya, I evaluate each individual style tip and figure out what actually works on my body, but I'm not always sure if I'm picking and choosing the right things to accentuate or hide.

To reply to Anne's comment, I do fit pretty well into Trinny & Susannah's "hourglass" body type, but I haven't found their tips to be as accurate or useful as Angie's or Imogen's. Many of T&S's assumptions (for example, people with large busts will have flabby arms and should keep them covered up, smaller-busted girls will have slim arms that they can show off) seem very generic and at odds with body types I actually see.

A few more things I meant to say

Imogen - how interesting that a chiropracter helps with scoliosis. I didn't know it could be helped. I am a bit wary of chiros because some people seem to get addicted to them. What do you think about that?

Difference between Imogen's 8 shape and X shape - I clearly have X shape hips and have had to take in the hems of fitted skirts and dresses at the high hip or else I have flaps of empty fabric.

Mind you I am not sure if I really am completely an X - I think, in Angie's terms I am a straightish hourglass/pear with a long waist!

Kari- Nice to see a comment on T & S. As I said, I felt I fitted well into one of their categories and thought their advice pretty good (for me) too, but I did get a bit baffled by some of their advice and assumptions. Your point about arms is an interesting one - in fact I think it is often the opposite to their assumption)
They were quite prescriptive about style too - for instance the skittle was supposed to like structured tailored clothing ( which in fact, I do) but I don't see why other styles wouldn't look good as well. It is a while since I read it, so my memory is a bit dim (I just borrowed it from the library) but I do remember being very impressed with what they did with the "brick" body type.

Angie - I keep meaning to read Farr's book. I have just put in an ILL request at my library for it

I wonder how much of the difficulty in body typing is related to our own eye's exaggeration of perceived flaws.

I mean ... when I see Maya's photos, I see her as long-legs, curvy ... and with a small waist. When I see Anne's photos, I see a slim, athletic and with a small waist. When I see Kari's photos, I see curvy, beautifully proportioned ... with a small waist.

Notice that I always notice the small waist, which is what I don't see in my own shape, which is probably exaggerated in my own eyes. So I don't know how (yet!) to look first to the positives (my nice behind, slim arms and legs, smallish bust), but always look right at my thicker middle and rib cage.

I guess what I'm saying is its easy to see how beautiful other people are, and harder to notice good things about one's self.

Cricket, if my memory serves me correctly (which it might not), I vaguely remember that you were deemed a long-waisted rectangle? If this is totally wrong, tell me. I was kind of surprised when you said you were short-waisted because I seem to remember everyone saying the opposite. But like I said already, I might be thinking of someone else.

If I'm right though, I find that to be a very enviable shape. I *wish* it were just a matter of having an undefined waist for me! Instead I'm struggling with an "inverted" waist, and I don't even have any good reason for it (i.e. childbirth, medical problems, menopause).

I think you're absolutely right and we tend to focus on the things we envy or feel we lack. I noticed that a lot of ladies on the forum seem to notice positive things about me that I never paid any attention to at all, and they are often things that those same ladies are self-conscious about. I mostly find myself focusing on other peoples' tiny waists and small/average chests, which are the two things I am most insecure about.

Wow - this has become really interesting! To give you an insight behind my types.

I read every image book going, and am always looking for things that might improve what I do. If I can find an improvement that I've not though about, then I'll consider it.

I see lots of clients, and am always testing my theories on them (not in some weird scientist way!). If someone doesn't fit in, I work out what is different and why.

My H shape body shape has come about because that is what I am. When I first started out in this industry I was told I was an hourglass or an inverted triangle, because I have a large bust, yet none of the rules worked for my body. My waist is not defined, and my hips and shoulders are proportionate. This is how I came up with my H shape body shape that is different from the I shape, as I'm not the super slim Cameron Diaz (or Angie) type!

I don't fit into any of T&S shapes, I'm bits and pieces of about 4 of them. I think that the problem with them is they try and put body proportions into body shapes, and they are two different things. Plus they add in the flabby arms, and thick thighs, which are also not standard on any body shape and can be on any shape.

I discovered the 8 shape when I did some training with Carla Mathis, who wrote The Triumph of Individual Style - a brilliant book, who discovered it herself after wondering why she didn't fit into the hourglass/X shape she had been told she was. She worked out that her high hip was the reason why, and created this as a new body shape, as it alters the way bottoms sit and fit and flow.

Anne - I love my chiro - yes I have to go about once a month, but I no longer have migraines and headaches nor lower back pain.

Maya, you are correct. I am the long-waisted rectangle. But my waistline definitely fits the H-shape, as well as the reason for it ... my hip bone and rib cage are very close together. I could be confused on it though, since I have read that rectangle and short-waisted go together.

I once did measurements based on the length of my head, and then measuring each section to see where its long or short. For example, if my head was 8 inches (crown to chin), next I measured chin-to-midbust to check if that measurement was around 8 inches. Next was midbust-to-natural waist. And so on. The theory also is that where you are short in measurement, you will carry extra weight.

I found that I was not long anywhere (none of my measurements were longer than my head), but I was short in the thigh and from midshin-to-heel (hence my shorter than average legs) AND in the area between my natural waist and where my top of leg bends. That belly area is exactly that area where my hips and rib cage are extremely close together. Exactly where my extra weight is. And though I really like my rounded behind (my only good curves), this is also the exact area where that is located.

I kind of wonder if my long-waisted look is actually because of short legs?

Cricket - brilliant - yes we tend to put on weight where we are proportionally short.

There is also the measurement from head to leg break, then that to the ground - which gives you the longer or shorter body, long or short leg.

I've met long waisted and short waisted rectangles, but more commonly my H shape (not Angie's rectangle) are short between rib cage and hip bone, which is why they lack a waist.

I've been following this thread with interest and really like the experiment the ladies at academichic are carrying out.

I think all the comments prove that it's very helpful to have some general guidelines, and that we should all pick the 'system' that makes the most sense to us.
But for me, that's just the starting point. It's all about dressing your own unique body, not a 'generic' body type. No two bodies are exactly the same, and yes, then all sorts of variables come into play. That's were the fun (and admittedly, sometimes frustrating) part starts: experimenting with different styles and cuts, and discovering through trial and error what works for you and what doesn't.

I for one relate more to Angie's body type 'categorization' - and I hesitate to use the word here, because I don't like putting people into boxes, and I know Angie doesn't either - because I feel it offers exactly enough specific info. I tend to get confused when all sorts of body ratio measurements come into play;-)

And yes, of course it's handy when you happen to be a 'perfect fit' for one of the body types, but most of us probably have a few features from a different body shape than our predominant body type. I don't mind 'mixing and matching', and actually love the idea that there is probably something to be found for all of us in every category. Crossover style here we come;-)

Maya, that's also why I believe it's not quite fair to say that Angie's guidelines for hourglasses are 'wrong'. You've mentioned that you are an hourglass with some apple tendencies, and I noticed that wherever you point out that the hourglass rules don't seem to work for you, these can almost always be substituted with the corresponding apple alternative. So ideally you personally would have to blend the hourglass and apple guidelines, but other hourglasses could find everything works for them as described. Does that make sense?

Inge, I don't believe I said that Angie's guidelines are wrong at all. If I did then I misspoke. No categorization method is ever going to be "wrong". But given that there is so much variation among body types, it only makes sense that some methods are more helpful and tailored to individuals than others. As I said in my previous post, Angie's set is obviously very helpful to a lot of women and serves the purpose well.

As far as blending the hourglass and apple--well, that's the problem. There is no "blending" as far as I'm concerned. Hourglass rules almost NEVER work for me, yet I do not feel it's entirely fair to peg me as an apple. My waist is still a good 9" smaller than my hips and bust. Even so, how do I know which apple rules and which hourglass rules to follow? It's not easy or intuitive for me. It might be obvious to everyone else here, but I'm the one that has to dress my own body so whatever rules I use as a starting point must make sense to me.

That is why I like Imogen's "H" more for myself. It describes me very well without having to do any guesswork or blending, and confirms a lot of things I already suspected about my body type.

Like I said, it's also less unfortunate than the "apple" descriptor to me. There are some psychological issues I have with that. This is also a personal issue.

I feel like I have really started up a storm here and I did not intend to. I am not making a broad statement about Angie's methodology, or pitting hers against anyone else's. I am simply stating what I find makes the most sense and works best for me. Some people prefer fewer body types to choose from--I prefer more.

Maya, I don't see you as a troublemaker, just someone who is thoughtfully trying to figure it out personally.

For me, its also not "easy or intuitive" to dress for my body shape, so I understand where you are coming from. I didn't fit into ANY of Trinny and Susannah's types, and they had many!

This is a really interesting discussion. I have yet to find a category that fits me really well. None of Trinny & Susannah's categories even come close! I've found I need to consider the rules of 2 types when choosing styles to flatter me. WHen I first delved into this whole fashion/style world I found this really depressing - that I didn't fit. Then I realized that there are so many different sizes & shapes of women that there would need to be dozens of categories to fit everyone.

I really need to do the head measurement thing because I suspect I may be long waisted, but I'm not sure, and I'd like to check it out.

Maya, I do think you may have a skewed vision of your real body shape. You look FANTASTIC in that yellow dress - and by far, it is more flattering than any shapeless A-line. You have a lovely, beautiful figure. You do not look at all to me like an apple. And! I even bet that dress would work with a ... yes... say it... a BELT.

Maya, I think you should do this proportion exercise! Did you know that the vast majority of women view themselves as 10-20 lbs heavier than they really are? And that this tracing exercise is what they use with women who have anorexia or other body dysmorphic issues? I think it would be healthy for you to do this exercise.

And, perhaps you should get rid of your full-length mirrors for awhile? (Angie may have a bird with that one, LOL). In my mid-20s I gave up full-length mirrors, t.v., and fashion magazines for several years, because I realized they were playing tricks with my head. Wow, it made a huge difference. But I still struggle now and then with the brain playing mental tricks on me.

Anyway...

Personally, I *loved* hearing I was an hourglass when I first came to YLF. It was different than being a pear... which to me has always been the most desirable female shape (my mom and sister are pears). But it was cool to think I was curvy, because within me is still that gangly scrawny 13 year old who had no curves. So, Angie's guidlelines set my mind in a more loving direction, and it showed in how I began to dress myself. I think there's huge value in that.

But, I have to hand it to Imogen - her recommendations for an H shape are spot on, and are the hourglass modifications I've come to use for my "hourglass with thickish waist/wobbly tummy, veering on inverted triangle" figure. So I like both methods - Angie's and Imogen's. I get something from both.

Wow, this thread exploded today while I was at work!

My take on the various body classification systems - our bodies are so different that *any* body type system (whether there are 3 or 12 or 20+ types) is still a generalization that requires modifiers and adjustments. I find both Angie and Imogen's systems useful despite the fact that I'm not a perfect fit into any category. I'm still trying to figure out how to dress this body of mine *and* how I can push the boundaries so I'm not just wearing safe basics all day. I'm trying to develop a more holistic view of how to dress my body (like Inge mentioned in her comment above) rather than trying to accentuate/hide one part at a time. However, when I'm stumped it's wonderful to have access to multiple well-informed, descriptive suggestions about how to address certain features.

Maya, you might be interested to check out S's post today on academichic. She identifies herself as an apple and has posted pictures and rationales for how she uses skinny belts to define and slim her waist. I actually had no idea she had apple tendencies and was convinced she was just naturally slim-waisted - it goes to show how well she dresses her body. I know you're anti-belt and this isn't meant to convince you to wear something you don't like, but it might be some good food-for-thought.

(And by the way, you DO look very small-waisted when I see pictures of you, whether it's short or no! Cricket has a great point that we are much harder on ourselves than we are towards others. Cricket, thank you for so sweetly pointing that out!)

That post is interesting Kari. She would NEVER strike me as an apple in a million years. I am anti-belt mostly for comfort reasons. There are some outfits that I love with belts (like my bf cardigan), but by the end of the day, the belt always ends up in my purse.

Shiny, it seems like so many people want to be something other than what we are. I'd love to be scrawny and gangly.

I didn't think I was an apple myself, but I did borrow some apple dressing tips anyway because it just seemed to work. No one on the forum believed me until Angie confirmed it a few weeks ago. If Angie says it, it must be true! Perhaps I am just masterful at disguising it.

Maya - just found a pic of you in what you wore to the opera and you look H shaped to me - not a clearly defined waist, but otherwise balanced.

I read on another blog the other day a question asking why in the world do some people post pictures of what they wear. Well I think it is just a part of this evolution into making style easier on ourselves.
I was born in 1954 so in the 60's I began to notice style and how uncomfortable June Cleaver looked in her tight waisted dress, high heel shoes, and pearl necklace for everyday wear. Almost all bras on the market then were shaped like bullits. We were wearing those monstrosities in jr high school because that's what was found at the store. As far as I know spandex was not common and clothing did not stretch.
Ofcourse we all know if we look back 100 years how unfortunate those women were to have to wear corsets to skinny down the waist.
All of this discussion is a healthy part of the evolution to knowing our own bodies and being able to dress ourselves in this retail fashion world that treats us like we are all built exactly the same.

Imogen, that is was I thought. Thanks for confirming!

San, I can't even wrap my head around non-stretch bras. That sounds like a violation of my human rights.

I’ve missed this thread initially but finally caught up and find it very interesting but also a bit puzzling.

It seems like there is a really strong desire for some women to have a more rigid, scientific and prescriptive process for determining body type and optimally dressing for that body type. I certainly understand the desire; one of the cornerstones of YLF and of good stylists and style communities in general is the emphasis on knowing yourself (your body, your personality, your preferences etc.) and then dressing to your type – both physically and personality and temperament-wise.

However, I don’t think any style professional would claim that there is one quick and easy formula for solving all your style issues. Angie, Imogen, Academichic and other style professionals or affinadas offer great tools that gals like us can apply to improve our “style quotient”. None of these tools are 100% predictive and applicable to every individual, and all are just part of a tool set. E.g., Angie uses a small set of body types to make the style journey simple especially for novices, plus modifiers that together with the body types give you an approximation of what your body is like and what you should watch out for when dressing yourself. She doesn’t claim that every hourglass is the same and thus fits into an “uniform for hourglasses” (just look at the difference between Tanya and me – both hourglasses, but with such different bodies.)

Tools are helpful and provide great guidance, but in the end, finding your style is also about experimenting, embracing something new, taking risks. E.g., no matter how many style schools would tell Maya that she’d look great with a waist cinching belt, she’ll probably still not wear one because it’s not her preference. Or look at Shiny – she already looked so fab when she first posted pictures, and she had such a scientific approach to dressing (I always read in amazement about her analysis of cuts and details, and how she measured every part of her body and pieces of clothing), so you’d think she was “done” in terms of finding her style. But alas, Shiny has recently expressed multiple times how much her own style has evolved through YLF, and I have a hunch that it’s not because of one specific tool set like body shapes, but because of all the different tools Angie and we as a community provide, from feedback on pictures to encouragement and nudging to try new styles. We’ve seen Shiny in colors, styles (skinnies, short sleeved jackets over long sleeve tops, etc.) and outfits she wouldn’t have tried on her own and she is looking and feeling even more fab now!
And to give an example outside YLF, the Academichic gals (whom I’m a fan of myself) aren’t just looking so fab because they measured their body part proportions, but also because they have a great eye for color, put together interesting combinations of clothing, have stellar shoes, and are obviously very happy with the bodies they have and the appearances they portray. The best style still comes from within.

Sorry for the long post. I guess my main point is that I think it’s reductionary to look at one individual tool and pick it apart; rather, it’s the overall depth and breadth of tools and insights that provide the best “style school”. And for that I thank Angie and all of you at YLF

Great post, Antje!!

I think one of the real "ah-ha" moments for me with YLF was learning to accentuate my waist, rather than cover it up. Hearing I was an hourglass definetly went a long way (emotionally) to that end.

I had spent a lifetime hating my midsection and lack of a waist. It's easy to do when jeans are too tight in the waist and too loose in the hips. You wind up with this situation where you stand there in the dressing room, hyperfocusing on just one part of your body, ignoring the rest (anyone relate?)

So my waist-to-hip difference really isn't all that much. Who cares? There is a difference, and my waist isn't larger than my hips. And when I remember that and try certain tricks like a cropped cardi hitting right at the waist, or the X buttoning style, or even a belt (and I'm not all that keen on them either), miracles happen and my waist looks smaller.

As for the squishy parts below the waist - the part that looks a lot like Angie's Apple illustration - Angie's tips like layering a cami with stretch and choosing blouses that skim over these areas instead of clinging, or a top with strategic ruching, tops with patterns to fool the eye - all these make a huge difference. I don't really notice my squishy mid-section anymore. It's definetly still there! I just don't dwell on it because I don't think anyone notices. I've got it successfully hidden.

As for the tendency I have toward inverted triangle shape, I simply learned not to wear epaulets or puff sleeves. Actually, I already knew that before YLF. What I realized here - by measuring myself - is that my invertedness may be mostly in my head. So I have taken some risks and purchased some items with just these things.

At the end of the day, it really is about trying on a lot of clothes and experimenting. Maya, I know this is difficult for you to do, since you need to stick to a fairly strict budget and I imagine that trying on clothes but not buying any would be tough to do. But, you really don't know what works, until you try it. Even then, you may have to try on several of the same item because for example not all banded tops are going to be created equal. (Yes, banded tops are one of the items on my "I look HORRIBLE in those" lists. Just you wait, I'll probably try some on and find one that I don't look so horrible in.... )

I'm not on a strict budget anymore: I have no budget. Any money that I would have spent on clothes is all directed to my loans, which have oh so fortuitously entered repayment at the precise moment I lost my job.

If I can be perfectly blunt, I don't think it matters one bit if I don't know what works right now, because I do not have the money to make it work. To some extent, I don't even have the desire, which sounds sad and negative but is actually a good thing. Nothing is worse than wanting stuff you can't have, right? Being on this shopping ban has made me realize that there is nothing out there that I "need" (other than shoes) to look and feel good. I have more than enough clothes for my lifestyle, and it might just be a matter of refreshing them and finding new ways to wear them. Anything I would plan on getting now would fall under the category of "want," and that is not something I can justify.

As curious as I am about banded tops, it occurred to me recently that they are hardly an enduring fashion. I would not be surprised if they are gone by next season. Volume is not a popular silhouette to begin with amongst a waist-crazed public, and the fact that it's a recession means this style will fare even more poorly than usual. I hope I'm wrong because I would like to have it in my wardrobe eventually, but that's the impression I'm getting from peoples' reactions. Shiny, I think you were made for this style. I love how a wide banded hem looks around slim hips and the blousey effect would hide anything you might be uncomfortable about in your midsection. That's the part I haven't quite figured out myself. I know the blousing would be good around my midsection, but I can't figure out how these tops should fit around my hips.

Maya, I look like a fudgsicle in banded tops that are blousey. It really does nothing for me. Those that aren't blousy, if I get one that fits well in the shoulders (an absolute must), then the band is too tight and pulls over my tummy making weird shapes. This is even worse if it's a wide band. I hate bands on tops AND sweaters. Especially ribbed bands.

I did try on ONE such top many months ago - I think it may have been INC brand. It had a funky pattern which appealed, so I tried it on. The band was not too tight, which was great! And not made out of ribbing - another plus! However, I just couldn't figure out where the band should land. If I pulled it all the way down, my legs looked short and squat - fudgsicle effect!. Okay if I added heels that might've been okay. But it wouldn't stay put! It kept wanting to riding up to my waist. Which just looked goofy. Too much fabric bunching all around. And, I couldn't see how I could tame such a top with a cardi or blazer. This part, I am open to being surprised. At the time, I wasn't sure it would work.

Honestly? I'd MUCH rather wear the right empire top, the kind everyone hates and couldn't wait to see go out of style. Yes, the one that everyone says makes them look maternity. I love that style, and I'm sad to see it becoming an endangered species. Because I am always wanting to elongate my bottom half, I like to draw the eye up to just under my rib cage/around my waist. Up high. Gives me better proportions.

The banded blouse does the exact opposite - but for *you* I think it could work, since you have long legs.

I understand Shiny. I wrote this in Angie's blog: It seems like finding the right banded top is something of a task. I'm sure you could find one that works on you though, but you have to be willing to try a great many on without any expectation of instant gratification. Not my style

I also can't figure out where they would end on me. If I pulled them around my hips, which would probably not be a very flattering look, they would definitely ride up (all my tops do this). For some reason the YLF gang seems to think I have very skinny hips and small bum but I do not. Maybe it's just because compared to my waist they don't seem that curvy? I'm not sure, but I definitely do NOT have a flat bum or straight hips. That's why I'm not so clear on how to wear this. I think it's just trial and error.

I think Antje's point is great. Maybe knowing your body type is kind of helpful in that it gives you a place to start. It can also give you reasons why a particular style doesn't work for you. But is it really so essential? Personally, I can't even remember all the rules for my body type (Maya's post reminded me that there were so many!). A few things, I knew before YLF (puffy sleeves are generally not a great look on me, etc). Does that mean I will never try on something with puffy sleeves ever again? Because it's a "rule"? No way. When I shop, I pick up what looks interesting to me, and sometimes I try on things that at first I think, "not in a million years". Does it end up looking ridiculous 99% of the time? Yeah. So I just laugh and put it back. That other one percent, I'm pleasantly surprised.

I guess my point is along that of Antje's. If you try to reduce style down to a rigid formula, or set of rules, not only does that seem to me to take all the fun and entertainment out of shopping, but you also close yourself off to things that might actually work for you.

Thank you Inge, Antje and Ana. Your words resonate greatly with the way I feel about the subject. It’s like I mentioned in Jewelry Girls thread when she asked me to help her identify her body type earlier this week:

“I’d like to take this opportunity to suggest to you, and to everyone else, that there is little good in obsessing with body type categories. Over analysis is not always a good thing. Finding a body type category that comes closest to your own body and following those guidelines is merely a starting point. I can’t stress that enough. Body type categories are always a problematic frame of reference because our bodies are an art and not a science. You can never fully categorize an art form! I have thought about body type classifications for years and years, and still do - after all this is my line of work and I have daily hands on experience. I have purposely kept my body type categories “loose and simple” and avoided rigid rules. That way it keeps you confident about your body type and encourages you to keep on trying new things ”.

I hope that makes sense.

Am I the only one here who doesn't really love labels? That's why I like Angie's body type identifiers, and the fact that they are loose and simple, and only a starting point.

Thanks to labels, I was stuck in so many preconceptions about my body, and who knows, they probably dated from the time I was 13! For example, I had labeled myself as a "petite." Since joining the forum, I've discovered that while I do wear petite sizing in tops (because I am short-waisted with shorter arms than most), I should not have been wearing petite pants, because at 5'4", most petite pants were not PPL. Why did I buy petite pants all those years? Because I had labeled myself.

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I have learned so much from it.

I still need to take a good head-on shot in close-fitting clothing and do actual measurements, but as I pay attention to my clothes and the way they fit I'm realizing my body shape is different than I've imagined it.

I think it's interesting how differently the members of the forum think of themselves than how others see them.