Another thought I had: acknowledging that we probably each have two sides (opposing , or contrasting) to our style preferences is how we maintain our originality and style integrity (ugh, I'm starting to sound academic) in a sea of chain and department store dressing options.

That's really interesting, Lisa. I think it makes sense, too. It's the way we mix up what's available out there -- wearing J. Crew with Allsaints or LL Bean with Celine (well, okay, that might be a stretch but not impossible) or Ralph Lauren with Free People. Hmmm.

Texstyle, thank you. And yes I can see how rugged comes out to play more in colder weather. For me, too. Definitely. It's needed.

Suz, your analytical posts are always a great read. It is so hard, at least for me, to put a moniker on the internal side of our dressing. The conversation here between you and Angie demonstrates this so well. Angie is able to articulate how the world sees you and you can only understand it from your innermost thoughts. Is it really possible for us to see or truly understand how others view us? I think this is why the style monikers I have tried never stuck. I need to go back and re-read this thread. Thanks again for such a great discussion.

Suz, thank you. Guardian is a good one, and I think it fits. IRL, I'm rather guarded around new people. Here online it's so much easier to put myself out there (which is weird). Thank you for the suggestion!

Edit: fixed something autocorrect messed up

OK. How's this for juxtaposition: Karl Lagerfeld and Mark's Work Wearhouse!

Very interesting post, Suz! My first thought, on reading your closing questions, was that "urban pretty" isn't a contradiction at all. Before YLF, I felt the word "urban" implied, more than anything else, a certain level of sophistication -- the opposite of country-bumpkin innocence. "Urban" goes easily in hand with prettiness (especially a polished prettiness). However, I have come to associate "urban" with a certain gritty quality too, because of Una's invention of the term "urban warrior princess" all those years ago. I suspect I'm not the only one.

Similarly, I think one could be both genuine and composed. Genuine isn't artless; it's simply being who you are and coming across that way. "What you see is what you get". One could be naturally composed -- you know, collected and unflappable -- and also come off as very genuine. (On reflection, I wish that were my style descriptor! Mine is more like instinctive, chaotic and more than a little contrary...as you see my first impulse was to contradict you!).

It's been a while since I tried to formulate some style descriptors or a style statement. Maybe still grounded simplicity, if I had to pick one, but I don't want to pigeonhole myself like this, to be honest. Right now that doesn't seem helpful to me.

I think that style and personality are related to a degree, but it's usually not all that straightforward and I would hesitate to break it down into a simple formula like this.

So much insight, Suz.

Such a wonderfully thoughtful post! I think I would say, "Welcoming Radiance," because you have a way of drawing people in with your appearance -- looking beautiful, but inviting others to join in on the fun.

For me, my style rubrics (which have always worked better for me than monikers) were a part of my larger self identity. . I find that these no longer fit, perhaps because I'm facing some difficult circumstances (no worries, nothing tragic, although the obstacles are real). I feel a need to Restore and Recharge. As a matter of fact, that is my new rubric! I'm not setting the fashion world on fire, but I am wearing bits of shine, because it pleases me, color that makes me happy, and dressing in softly structured and flattering layers. I think I might be hiding a bit in my dressing, which is not really, "me", but I sense the need to feel nurtured and protected, and perhaps that's OK for now.

So thought provoking and interesting to discuss! I do not have a style moniker for myself. I tried to come up with one a few years ago but nothing seemed to fit. I feel my style can be quite contrasting. One day I might feel like a J Crew preppy girl, the next I'm wearing a feminine fit & flare dress, and the day after that I'll put on my Free People ultra-wide flared jeans. In life I can be much the same way. I like my work day to be very routine - no changes and no surprises, I'll stick to my everyday schedule, thank you - but outside of work, let's have some fun! Let's laugh it up and go ride some roller coasters, or better yet, who wants to try sky diving with me?!

So in my case I think style and personality are related. Serious when necessary, but a little bit quirky and a little bit fun, all mixed together!

Aziraphale, I like Chaotic Contrarian! That was me in my teens and twenties, for sure.

Astrid -- I know the fear of pigeonholing! No wonder your Grounded Simplicity sounds so much like my Structured Simplicity. It's a good open framework. I think you're right as well, that there's always a lot more to people than they project via style. I'm thinking if I had to choose a persona today, it might be Secret Bad*ss. I don't need to announce my grit or daring to the whole world, just hint at it.

Beth Ann -- can you talk more about your rubric approach? I'm intrigued.

I, like (other) Lisa, am a bit of a failure in defining my style. I suspect it's either because I love to analyze others but not myself, or because I don't want to pigeon-hole myself. Or maybe because I really want to be a superhero but that's not my environment.

I was asked to join the board of a mental health nonprofit recently, and while having some discussions with the head of the organization, went a little bit down the Myers-Briggs road. I see through googling that this is a topic that came up on YLF many years ago. <http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....your-style> I haven't otherwise found much interesting comment otherwise on how this would reflect on one's style. But I do wonder, given my own weaselly predilections, if we (at YLF) dress to our authentic personalities, dress to our fantasies, or dress to our real life audience.

Interesting discussion Suz. I think my fashion sense is somewhat related to my personality. Some years ago, Rachy gave me the moniker of Asphalt Angel. My style often combines hard edge with soft drape. My personality also has its soft and hard sides.

Lisa, that's really interesting.

I'm an INFJ (with a not-too-distant T and I'm also an E-appearing I, if that makes sense; i.e. a "social I.") People tend to think I'm an extravert when they meet me, but I need enormous amounts of alone time to recharge or I am miserable, which is why I could not continue too long as a secondary school teacher -- I adored the kids and their energy and relate well to them, but ugh...I need my space!!

I think I dress in all the ways you mention at different times. Mostly I dress to my authentic personality and (occasionally) specifically to please a real-life audience (like wearing a gift item with the giver, or wearing an outfit DH loves for date night). Sometimes, selectively, I dress to a kind of fantasy -- an aspirational style. I'll do this especially if I have to attend a big scary event and want to create a specific impression. It will be authentic but more tightly curated.

Karie, I think your style is selectively eclectic -- it's eclectic within a range.

Beth Ann, I'm so sorry you're facing difficulties now; please let us know if we can help at all. I do think dressing to protect ourselves is natural at such a time. I still think of you as a down-to-earth diva. Your beauty and grounded wisdom shine so obviously to all of us who know you here.

Sterling, thank you!

Astrid -- I go on and off about this stuff also -- I sometimes feel no need for the statement and other time I do. Perhaps it is a function of transition -- when we transition from one stage to another we may want or need it more.

Aziriphale, you are an urban something...or maybe guerrilla pixie? Actually, I agree absolutely that one can be urban and pretty and genuine and composed (etc.) -- it's just that it's easy on first glance to see a contradiction and in the contradiction (the crack) -- the light (or personal in personal style) gets in .

Suz, I am almost rendered speechless by your post! There was a process I followed to find my Style Statement. I struggled to understand the concept of Style Statements when I first started browsing on the forum. It was your recommendation that I read the Style Statement book and that finally helped me nail it down. My understanding is that Style Statement's as designed and defined in the book are two words that when correct act a bit like a personal mission statement that can be used as a compass for the style one uses to interact with the world as well as what one displays outwardly. My read of the book is that the authors think of them as useful for multiple purposes including for business. Taken directly from my notes, which I probably copied. Verbatim from the book, so the following is credited to the authors of The Style Statement, the first word of a Style Statement is the "Foundation word" which is applied to the "spirit, look, feel of something.....they work for both the material and the immaterial". The foundation word represents your core, your essential self and feels like first nature even if you resist it. It is the part of you that is most obvious and steady. The second word is the "Creative Edge Word". "This is the impression that you make. It's a powerful force word, a little goes a long way."

I might say you are a Harmonious Storyteller. Or maybe Harmonious Radiance? I like the word Radiance for you also! I believe you bring people together in a Harmonious way. You build bridges with your warm words and I think this word could possibly work with your wardrobe as well. The difficulty with a Style Statement is it's not something someone can easily give to you. It has to feel right to you not to us.

Such fun!
I do like radiance.
Or consider flipping, as Radiant _____ or more.
I think of you as Sporty but in a dressier way. Not sure what to do with that. I think that speaks the the relaxed thing but relaxed sounds too.... relaxed whereas you would be, "not afraid to
get movin'!
Radiant Elegance in Motion.

@Suz -- Lol "guerrilla pixie"! You are funny. Actually, you may be onto something. It does sort of describe how I usually dress. Today it was a grey woolen knee-length hoody under a black leather Buffy longcoat, with fingerless gloves, cropped flares (with ragged hems, of course!) and classic black Doc Martens...I suppose it did look like I might pull an automatic rifle out from under my coat and open fire in the name of freedom. Too bad I'm so aggressively opposed to firearms!

I like how you describe the contradiction as a crack, through which shines the light of personal style. It's very poetic.

I'm following this discussion with avid interest! Suz, as always, you so excellently analyze and and present ideas. You really helped clarify how the style statement is more an description of personality, and how it is expresses itself. It's not merely a summation of style.

Staysfit, I had no idea that the two-word style statement was actually such A Thing! I'm really interested now, but also a bit daunted. I haven't had success coming up with one at all. That said, I've tentatively worked with "the Duchess next door." To me it expresses the DoC's elegant, refined, and conservative style, but grounded in real life instead of fantasy, with a nod to the vintage epithet "girl next door." I have no idea how to get that concept into two words.

The Style Statement book sounds like an interesting read. When I think of my own style I probably mean "woman with multiple personalities" rather than "eclectic!" Sometimes I feel that my outfits / outfit posts are lacking a common thread, although even though I don't see what that common thread is, others might, I don't know.

Perhaps it would be easier to define our style character / come up with a style moniker if we chose 5 or 6 outfits that made us happiest, that we felt told the story of who we are style-wise. Then it wouldn't be like we were trying to define or name something based on everything in our closets.

I think that taking outfit photos and looking at a collection of favorites can really help. The collection of visuals can help uncover patterns and themes.

I took another look at the pics I posted on Angie's recent "favorites of 2016" thread, and found it very helpful.

Janet, I agree. It's helpful to look for the commonalities. Karie, I'm going back to look at yours again, but I would say that one thing you and I share (besides our J. Crew heavy wardrobes, ha!) is a penchant for current trouser silhouettes/ denim. What you make of that is anyone's guess but your style is current and modern, even though I know you also adore retro touches and "modern" wouldn't be part of your style descriptor, necessarily.

aziraphale -- poetic indeed: "There is a crack in everything / That's how the light gets in."

two thumbs up to this thread!

Suz, thanks for the compliments. I feel most undeserving of them.

I like hearing the fun that you're having here coming up with your style monikers. That's almost the point - as well as it being quite helpful.

"Guerilla pixie" ! ROFL . I love it. And I love this little corner of the web called YLF.

I'm really enjoying reading this thread on style monikers. The discussions that examine what are they for and how they are formed have been enlightening. I think they are important to those of us who are enthusiastic shoppers drawn to wild cards. Unless we have room for a gigantic wardrobe, we need guidelines. I chose two styles, arty and tomboy, to help guide my purchases. They describe two of the many styles that appeal to me. When I remember them, they help narrow choices. For the same reason, I chose a color palette. I love all color, but owning them all would complicate dressing.

Anyone who likes the Guerrilla Pixie idea should read Night of Cake and Puppets by Laini Taylor.

Lovely discussion for a new year

Just a couple of thoughts that may or may not be appropriate:
1. I wonder if it is worth refocusing on the "aspirational" side of style statements/monikers/rubics etc? In other words, using a moniker as a guide for where/who you aspire to be rather than feeling that it necessary to "live up to" a moniker? It might be more helpful and fun to ask "would I like to be radiant" and not worry to much about answering the loaded question "am I radiant"?

2. While a couple of words or concepts works well for some of us (btw, I really like the idea), I wonder if others may find an image/poem/character etc more useful?

Well I am late to this party but it certainly has been a great read. I don't think we can separate our style persona, either descriptive of now, or aspirational, from our character. Our taste, our sense of our place in the world, the degree of our conformity or rebellion, our self perception and so on are all reflected in our public persona - labelled or not. Isn't our way of speaking, walking and interacting part of our character? Dressing is the human form of moving through the world. The spoken language of our body (so to speak ).

Suz, having had the pleasure of meeting you, I would change relaxed to open. What struck me is how open you are both to people and ideas. No one could miss the strong intelligence processing everything but your insatiable curiosity and your openness to learning struck me as an essential part of your character. I think this openness is also a key part to your ability to express yourself so beautifully both poetically and sartorially! Radiant openness?

(As for me, I am in a bit of a state of flux. A story for another time.)