Olen, most of my responses are dramatic, with very few outliers if my interpretation is correct. I definitely think I look best in a mostly minimal outfit, and I think the same may be true for the other people here identified as dramatic. Too much embellishment or pattern looks unnatural on me. It overwhelms. Maximal looks gaudy and strange, as you can see if you look at my recent J Crew post. However, a futuristic angular look feels so foreign to me. I'm not sure I could pull that off either. I don't think I'm a soft dramatic type, but there is some sort of soft quality that I need.

In terms of dramatics not being able to wear romantic, I think it's like anything else. I find the chart Sally posted a bit confusing. I'm not sure I get the same conclusion? In any case, rules are really guidelines and meant to be bent and broken. I have blouses with ruffles that IMO look awesome. It's the placement and size of the ruffle that seems to matter. It's minimal romantic, kind of like Angie's minimal maximal. I think of the ruffles as calm waves on water. They can go very well with my Serene theme as long as they are not overdone. I also think a single well placed ruffle can look dramatic as well as romantic.

I see there are a lot of us who wish we had some of that cute gamine type reflecting back at us from the mirror and out into the world. I have never even been close to small and cute, but I'm right there with you. I remember feeling jealous as a young child of the small ones who were getting attention for that at summer camp. I quickly realized I had other assets which have served me well, but that feeling can still be called back. Let's all be proud and celebrate the beautiful bodies we have and people we are. One of the best things about Kibbe is how positively he phrases everything! He's all about finding the beauty in everyone and helping it shine. (I read it somewhere on his Facebook page.).

I took the quiz a while ago, and still couldn't figure it out. I even have the book, which to me is about as clear as mud.

Brooklyn, yep! My mom was more Vivien Leigh -- I relate more with Ava Gardner, I think. Of course, it's challenging to relate much with stars from such a long time ago!

Interesting idea about going back to yourself at 7 years old. I'm not sure I agree wholly with that. I was a sweet, bookish, obedient kid who didn't have a rebellious streak (I squashed all that down for years because I watched how much turmoil my older sister's rebellion caused!). I very much value the bit of "toughness" I have learned to balance the yin in my young personality. Who we are *now* is more relevant, IMHO, because the world *has* touched us, and as grown women, we've made a mark in the world of some sort or another. I want my style to celebrate the woman I am now.

Staysfit, to define your type, you need to look at the whole (there is a good Kibbe quote on the previous page about it). As an example, I got most As, a couple of Bs and several Ds on my test. Sure, it's hard to look at yourself objectively, but suppose I didn't do many mistakes. How do I interpret these results? If I take them literally, the closest type would be Soft Dramatic. After playing with it a bit, I'm sure it doesn't fit, both physically and psychologically. But I can look at the results differently: I'm predominantly a Yang type, but with some soft features. It's a softened, not sharp Yang (I'm not straight or angular enough to be a Dramatic). I cannot be a Gamine either because nothing about me is smallish. I'm not a Theatrical Romantic because my bone structure is rather Yang. That only leaves me either Natural or Classic (or some variation of those). It's interesting because Kibbe says that the Natural is "between the symmetrical balance of the Classic and the sharp-edged Yang of the Dramatic. As I see it, in a Classic, softness (Yin features) has been incorporated uniformly, but in a Natural, the proportions may be slightly off (I'm slightly too tall, my shoulders are a bit too broad -not much really, etc)
That's why the line has to be slightly relaxed for a Natural (again, nothing really oversized - "your outline should be fairly narrow and slim, in a loose and easy way". If I may say it, you don't look Dramatic to me - too much softness (it's only my opinion, in no way do I want to imply I'm any better in determining your Kibbe type than any other person here. Actually, only You can do it correctly). You might (I'm not sure!) be a Natural, like myself (one closer to the middle of the Natural spectrum , than to either end). Your "Serene" descriptor would fit too. One important thing about being a Natural is to remember that "Detail should be kept minimal. Plain and simple is best for you " (Kibbe)

Thanks Olen, I need to go back and think about this some more. I suspect you're correct.

I'm going to do some more studying and thinking too, Olen. I'm not so sure about TR, not least because it's supposed to be a dainty 5'5" and under. I'm 5'9" - even being generous, that's not a small person. But the description mostly sounds closer to me than the SD. (Ignoring the very dated styling advice is tricky.) I've found some really good excerpts on the Yuku forum, so I've been processing that.

I found this link helpful too..

http://colorconnection.yuku.co.....8ZEb5h94dU

I am sure I am a natural now - and not too worried as to which one as I can take aspects of all of them. I am not sure if this one was linked to earlier.

That's an interesting link Sally...
Reading that I think I might be a dramatic classic......I'll need to relook at the style

Okay, I had plenty of time to look very closely at all things Kibbe over the past few days while I have been home recovering from surgery. I found some great clarifying posts written on the same blog with the illustrated quiz links. In sorting out my Kibbe category, I knew I could not be romantic (too straight a figure), or gamine because I am 5'9". Classics tend to be shorter. In fact that pretty much rules out everything except two main categories, Dramatic, and Flamboyant Natural. (There is no doubt I have strong Yang tendencies).

Some of my quiz answers that weren't dramatic were classic, however, I am not a classic. People who are classic are people with very symmetric features. I read somewhere in the blog that when looking at a classic face, it is hard to do a caricature. This point was illustrated with two photos. People who are dramatic have sharp features whereas, flamboyant naturals still have angular features but the sharpness is blunted. When you look at the face of someone who is dramatic, think of a dangerous feline about to attack. They can look aloof, whereas, the face of a FN looks friendly. There were two pics to illustrate this point also. (I am summarizing what I recall). I don't think my face looks sharp and chiseled enough to be a pure dramatic face. I hope I look friendly even though I am rarely smiling in my WIW pics. (That's because I'm a lousy photographer). So there it is, I come up with Kibbe Flamboyant Natural. I hope my thinking can help someone else get themself sorted.

Reading the descriptions in the Kibbe book (borrowed from the library) I think the FN Kibbe subtype fits me perfectly. Without basing it on Kibbe, but my own trial and error, I mostly dress in the way he suggests. It's funny, but he uses the term "Free Spirit Chic" to describe the dramatic element added to the more refined polished elements. He also suggests that the drama should be in the form of accessories, such as shoes, handbags, earrings, necklaces, etc. So, now that I have sorted this, and it all really makes sense to me, I kind of like it, and it's even helpful.

Thanks to Olen for pushing me to look further!

Staysfit, I definitely would've put money of YangN for you! Isn't it nice when the description and guidelines feel intuitive? I think there are some body types that are not well-represented in Kibbe, but when it works, it works pretty darn well.

Staysfit, I found the description of your research fascinating... It made me think about the Kibbe system again. It's really hard to determine the type of some people, myself included. I remember so many times I just wanted to give it all up and say that it doesn't make much sense. What actually stopped me, is that when I was able to tell the type of some people I know in real life, I was amazed at how precise and correct Kibbe's guidelines are for them!
However, I "added" one thing to this system (just for my personal use:): I see each type as a continuum and not a clear-cut category. If a Flamboyant Natural is a Natural with the Dramatic influence, then this influence can have degrees, right? It can be lesser or greater. The same with each type. To me personally, this type of thinking helps to account for greater variety and make individual adjustments.
Have fun playing with the FN style! Actually, most models are FNs because this is the type that can successfully wear almost anything.

Olen, thanks! I was having some similar thoughts regarding the degree of influence and when I was reading the Kibbe book he suggests reading the Dramatic section and Natural section because everyone has variations. I am excited to finally understand this. I clearly see that I have these variations as well. Good observation that many FN types are models. I noticed this on Pinterest. I think it may go with the body type he is describing. Mine is primary rectangle/straight with IT tendencies.

I plan to finish my wardrobe assessment with Kibbe in mind. I find all the information about pattern particularly helpful.

Olen, you make more sense than Kibbe. I definitely think your "take" adds a lot.

I got stuck on the Kibbe stuff because nothing about me fits. My face is broad and friendly (natural ) but also I have very big nose, hooded eyes and eyebrows (dramatic). My body is very muscular (natural), narrow (classic/gamine), but I have sloped shoulders, short legs, and am curvy (yin) with no chest (yang).
Plus I'm 5'5" which could put me in any category!

Perhaps I'm a classic. Are classics the hardest to categorize?

Smittie, I don't think classics are the hardest to categorize... As I see it, the main thing about classics is the fact that they have good proportions; that is, there shouldn't be much irregularity in either body or face.
It's really hard to tell without seeing the person... Even pictures are not always helpful. I think the way someone moves, talks, and the overall "vibe" you get from the person are all very much a part of it.
That being said, the first thing that came to mind reading your description was Flamboyant Gamine... A Gamine influenced by both Natural and Dramatic. Have you looked into it?..

Flamboyant Gamine. C'est moi. (At least I think so....)

Suz, I agree

Smittie, have you considered Romantic? Sloping/rounded shoulders is an R trait -- Gamines are usually have a very square angular frame. Soft Natural might be a possibility too, based on facial features.

FWIW, since I haven't posted a photo is aeons, I'm a yang-y Gamine too, but can cheat pretty easily into Dramatic Classic (I've heard FG described as "mini Dramatic"). I definitely prefer the continuum-based interpretation of Kibbe -- I dislike fitting individuals into absolute categories.

Your body seems gamine laP, from what I remember of your WIWs. Although I don't know how tall you are so yes, if you're tall, you might be dramatic.

Yes, Olen, I looked at all the descriptions and did the test multiple times. According to my results, I could be a Theatrical romantic, or a flamboyant gamine, it's true. But I could also be a few other things. That's why I think this system doesn't work for me.

If anyone cares to indulge me, my results are:
A.5 (yang)
B.5 (natural)
D.5 (knd of yin?)
C.1 (classic, balanced)
E.1 (yin, romantic)

Bone structure: strongly yin (all d's)
Body type: strongly yang (all a's and 1b)
Facial bones: natural (2b's 1 d)
Facial features: yin/natural (2e's, a d and a b)

I could be in any one of 4 or 5 categories and so I think it's not a useful theory for someone like me (because the number of things I can wear is too broad and therefore not useful).

Smittie, I know what you mean. I don't have the numbers with me, but I think I had 5 Ds and 4 A's, with smatterings of the others. I thought maybe Theatrical Romantic applied to me, but a lot of what I read about that seems wrong -- including height. I'm 5'7" so too tall for that designation. Eh, I think some of us just are not so easily categorized, and at some point I just shrug it off and take it as license to dress as I please without feeling like I'm going against some inherent nature I might have!

Janet, I'm with you. I'm 5'9" and way too tall for TR! Soft Dramatic really doesn't feel right, either. I've been reading a lot of the articles and there are things here and there that stick out, but I need to go back and coalesce some of those points.

What happens when your degrees go in different directions? I feel like I'm a mixture of styles.

I agree that some people can be really hard to classify... I just wanted to share a few more thoughts though. I found that usually the easiest to identify are Dramatics, Romantics and (more or less) "pure" Classics, because the first two are extremes - extreme Yang and extreme Yin, and the third one is the perfect balance between the two. All the others can be tricky (but not necessarily are). I also think that people who are hard to categorize often turn out to be either some kind of Naturals or Flamboyant Gamines. These types are by definition an admixture of different features, so sometimes it's hard to "see the forest behind the trees", so to speak. That's why these types can look good in a variety of styles and have more freedom than pure Dramatics or Romantics.
Sure, Kibbe's system might nor work for everybody. I personally find it very good (and even inspired ) because it looks at the whole of the person. I have read a book based on a different system (Kitchener? not sure). It tells you that you're an individual combination of types, say 20% Classic, 30% Natural, 10% Dramatic and so on. While it may seem flexible and individualized, I think it's not helpful at all because how do I make a whole out of these fragments?.. How do I translate this in specific guidelines?.. I knew already which things looked good on me and which didn't, but I had a trouble finding a cohesive image identity. I'm not sure why I felt like I needed one, but that's another question. I know some people here are adopting some style descriptors for themselves to find cohesion; I think it's a similar concept but I find these descriptors a bit too vague.
I can also repeat what I have already said before, that at some point it might prove useful to detach from the details (like the test answers) and look at the whole.
BC, this idea of "degrees" and "continuum" is only helpful if you're able to find your category. It only helps to make individual tweaks within your type. If you don't know your type, I don't think it's useful.