Style Personality Match or Mismatch

We've been talking about about how different fabric textures or styles can be a match or mismatch for our style personality. LisaP made some interesting comments on my tulle skirt thread. 

Not to send anyone down the Kibbe rabbit hole again, because honestly, the man is impossible to understand -- he may as well be writing in some other language -- but his emphasis on line and energy is important, I think, and gets at something that some of the other systems out there neglect. 

A personal example: I always used to wonder why or how I can wear high contrast stripes. I'm not a high contrast person, never have been. If you went by my colouring alone, I "should" avoid high contrast at all cost. I should stick to mid-tones or maybe even pastels. But in real life, pastels with few exception look horrible on me. Mid tones are indeed flattering, but also somehow lacking somehow, on their own. And stripes -- not in black and white but in blue and white -- are some of my best friends! 

Meanwhile, if I were dressing to disguise my shorter stature, I "should" wear monochrome outfits. Make myself look taller! But most monochrome outfits look rather dull and flat on me unless there is something else there to spice it up (e.g. a patterned scarf and footwear). I tend to look better in separates with shorter jackets and slightly shorter (ankle baring) pants. I can wear high contrast between top and bottom well. I can colour block well. I look great in high contrast piping or collar/ cuffs — that sort of thing. 

And I look good in vibrant colour. Not as saturated as what a true "winter" would wear, but much more saturated than you might expect. When I had my colours "done" the woman kept pulling the brights from a few neighbouring colour types and giving me those, while subtracting many of the softer tones from my original wallet. I do wear grey and heathered tones quite well, but I definitely need something else to lend emphasis if I am wearing those softer tones. 

If you recognize that my style essence or personality or body type (or whatever you want to call it) is some kind of gamine, all of that makes sense. I need a certain amount of dynamism in my outfits, irrespective of my colouring. And while I'm not tall, dressing to look taller does me no favours. 

There are certain styles that I adore, but that look really terrible on me. I love the look of a long jacket-- for example -- on other people -- but really don't look great in long jackets, unless they are more "coat" like and fitted. This makes only a minor amount of sense from a "body type" perspective; yes, my legs are maybe a tiny bit on the short side, but we're not talking a major disproportion here -- nothing a little heel wouldn't adjust for. Lots of people with my body shape look great in long jackets. So it's not about that. 

Also, I have to be really, really careful with oversized items -- if they collapse against my body, show the structure of my arms, and the shoulder fit is not too exaggeratedly large, they can work...like the Zella top or my new bat wing sweater. But if they just hang all over or drape too much, they look and feel completely "off" on me. Especially if they lack pattern or textural interest. Alas, I love drapey looks on others and repeatedly make mistakes about this in my shopping. Almost all my shopping errors this past year involve such mistakes. I will have more to say about that in my year end review. 

How about you? Whether or not you follow Kibbe, have you ever noticed that some of the more traditional style rules don't seem to apply to you, and do you wonder why? Have you found an explanation that connects to your style personality? 

This post is also published in the youlookfab forum. You can read and reply to it in either place. All replies will appear in both places.

61 Comments

  • Cardiff girl replied 1 year ago

    I really do think that’s it’s all about proportions and that everyone’s are different hence not necessarily fitting rigidly into one category.The same with skin,hair and eye colour.Whilst there are obviously some commonalities again l think everyone is unique and this is why we all differ in what suits us even if we can be put into the same category.And then there’s personal preference.You always look well in your outfits so you have a good sense of what suits you and what doesn’t.ln the end we have all looked at ourselves every day for the whole of our lives so we are probably an expert in our own proportions and colouring even if it doesn’t feel like it sometimes.we just need to trust our gut instinct l think.

  • LJP replied 1 year ago

    I don’t know much , if anything , about Kibbe , and any reading I’ve done on it made it seem far too complicated for my interest level . So - my assessments of others ( and myself ) are less analytical and more intuitive . I see you ( although I’ve never seen you in person ) as being thin , narrow hipped and small breasted with well - defined features and very clean-lined “ sharply “ cut hair . Nothing rounded or soft about your appearance to me . Therefore , the opposite in clothing works : the new portrait neckline sweater for example . The tulle skirt . What also works is similarly “ sharply” defined items like plaid pants , striped tops , turtlenecks .

    If I apply this same analysis to me , I’m not thin , rather rounded in the midsection now with large breasts , softer features , voluminous / puffy fine hair ( it just does that ) . There is nothing gamine about me , and no sharp lines anywhere . So if I wear a portrait open neckline , it looks too matronly or too sexy - neither of which I want . Feminine tulle lacks the contrast to my softness , and things like bold stripes or plaids clash awkwardly with my fuller body . I think it’s why I can wear black well ( it’s dramatic ) , and am successful in sharply cut blazers and graphic/avant garde/ assymetric / leather / weird things that give me some definition . Your turtlenecks , stripes and plaids play up your gamine side , whereas they lack context on someone like me .

  • chewyspaghetti replied 1 year ago

    When I first started reading Kibbe (which I do agree is impossible to understand), I had some “Aha!” Moments. I figured out that I am some sort of Natural because I am always attracted to and look good in accessories which are antique, handmade, or made from natural materials. I always have liked those things, and I probably always will. I think that’s also why I prefer my hair curly and a little wild, rather than the natural sleek and smooth texture.

  • Irina replied 1 year ago

    I gave up on Kibbe and on trying to analyze. I think that what I wear is what I like at the moment. It often goes against “the rules”, especially the ones intended for petite, small boned women. Not everyone (anyone) might share my opinion of what works for me and what doesn’t. And it’s OK. I don’t strive to look conventionally pretty. 

  • Angie replied 1 year ago

    Suz, everything and item that you said you rock up top I'm in a billion percent agreement with! YES!!! You look KILLER in high contrast stripes and short cheeky blazers, especially. 

    I love the way you wear scarves and pattern mix with them! Arty and sensual. Energetic and dynamic too! 

    I've never gone down the Kibbe rabbit hole! So I can't answer your questions ;)

    Like LJP (and Irina), I am much, much more intuitive about it. I trust my instincts, trust my husband when I am unsure, and that does the trick!

     I see a lot of similarity in what you wrote for my own style, Suz

    • I wear high contrast, high necklines, and vibrant colours well
    • Stripes and plaids FTW
    • I'm 5ft 6 and do not dress to look taller
    • LOVE shorter jackets! 
    • I wear straight boxy items well. My best looks!
    • A stiff and crisp shirt is a slam dunk
    • Shirt dresses are the most flattering
    • Give me a pants suit, please! 
    • Polo shirts are my friend
    • I need to watch draped items, architectural volume, and oversized fits because they swallow up my frame. Make me feel the opposite of neat and tidy. I have narrow shoulders! Most of the time these silhouettes do not work on me.
    • Wrap dresses and low necklines look awful
    • I don't wear sheath dresses or pencil skirts either

    Soooooo, maybe I'm gamine too?

    That said, I wear romantic and "pretty" too, and feel great in it! Tiered dresses, PEARLS!, puffy sleeves, billowing blouses, bows, BIG TULLE SKIRTS!, pleats, lace, smocking........

    Not sure what that means, but I'm running with it ! :) 

  • Ellemnop replied 1 year ago

    I don't know Suz, I think you have a dramatic/spunky vibe which matches that of a higher-contrast, bright, or color blocked ensemble energetically! Perhaps if you think about it as adding your interest/drama in fewer items to avoid cluttering up a smaller frame - to me it makes sense that would look right! 

    As a fellow petite person, proportions are so tricky. It feels like less margin for error before things look wrong? I find proportion trends an area that require a LOT of adaptation, and am finally having luck by looking for more subtle interpretations of the trends I'm interested in and/or selecting a different size to play with the proportion. I often try sizing down several sizes in items that are intended as oversized to contain the volume. I also sometimes have luck choosing an item offered in Juniors sizing and sizing up instead. Hit or miss!

  • SarahD8 replied 1 year ago

    Most of the rulebreaking examples I can think of have to do with particularities of my coloring. Breton stripes fit the bill here, they suit me when most other graphic/geometric patterns do not and I think it's because they echo the blue/white pattern of my eyes so well. (In line with that, my Breton stripes must be the right blue -- a clear navy that reads as definitely blue. The same stripes in dark navy that's almost black look awful on me.)

    I have not spent much time down the kibbe rabbit hole but when I do poke my nose in I always seem to come up some sort of gamine. Which makes sense as I am petite but then a lot of the recommendations like those high contrast, mod patterns and crisp shirts that suit you and Angie so well are dead wrong on me. I think I'm some kind of fey gamine but I don't think that's a thing lol!

    I'm intrigued by the question implicit in your original post of the relationship between style essence and personality. Is one's style essence the same as one's personality, does it encompass one's personality, or is it separate (that is, only encompasses physicality)? I'm not sure what I think.

    I think LJP is on to something with the idea that either harmony or contrast works. But still there is individual variation in the precise type of harmony or contrast that suits.

  • slim cat replied 1 year ago

    Gamine - may be Soft Gamine, may be more Dramatic Gamine. Broken lines, color blocking, contrast and energy ( and pixie cut as trademark of Gamine ). The actual styles, combos, clothes - whatever you like and feel comfortable. 
    I consider myself more tomboy-ish Gamine ( jeans, graphic tees, sporty shoes and pixie cut all the time ;) ). Strong contrast is too much for my coloring but some absolutely necessary. Monochrome outfits don't work for me as well.

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Sarah, that is so interesting. I don't think all shorter people are gamine. I mean, maybe according to Kibbe's theory they are, but that seems like nonsense. Also, some taller people are gamine, too -- take Audrey Hepburn, and, arguably, Angie.

    But fey gamine could be a thing, it seems to me...would it be a variant of soft gamine? or just a gamine sub sub type...

    I think you are completely right that LJP is onto something with the harmony OR contrast idea...but yes, the type of harmony or contrast that works will vary depending on the individual. 

    Ellemnop, I think a lot of petite women struggle with proportions. I imagine very tall women face the same problems in reverse. But when you are very small, an inch can make a bigger difference than one might imagine, and clothes rarely come in the right proportions off the rack. I don't really struggle too much with that myself except pants lengths and sometimes jacket stances (since I'm slightly short waisted). But I know that if it's even a bit off, it can feel and look wrong. I love your idea of playing with sizing -- that's in line with Angie's mantra not to let our clothes boss us around! I recently ordered an oversized sweater in a smaller size than I would typically wear. We'll see how it works out when it arrives. 

    Angie, I suspect you would be typed as a gamine, despite your height, which is just on the outer edge of what Kibbe's theory would include. As you say, your bone structure is narrow and fine, and that is really the key.  It's perfectly possible to look fab in feminine details as a gamine, too. As long as they have lots of energy and movement. And you might wear them in slightly different shapes or colours than a romantic would.

    I'm probably less "at home" in certain feminine details than you because I have a squarer, more masculine jawline, so too much softness near my face contrasts in the wrong way and makes me look more masculine rather than more feminine. Some ruffles (like on the bottom of a midi skirt, or on a shirt cuff) I could do very happily, though. Pleats, lace, etc -- those can work well on me, too, depending on the cut of the garment and the colour.  I think, as you say, the devil is always in the details and we should try the things that appeal to us, to see if they work. 

    Irina, you look amazing in your clothes! They work SO WELL on you. So I wouldn't worry about typing yourself at all -- just carry on! In fact, though, you do present a certain kind of gamine style as well, I suspect, despite Kibbe's instructions to avoid boxy or oversized. I think boxy looks great on you because you almost always include some "crisp" element; the lines come across as sharp. 

    Chewy, yes, you look wonderful in the kind of jewellery you describe! And those bronzey coppery shades. And your hair is perfect in its wavy state. 

    LJP -- your analysis is so smart. What you said about a person being able to play with or against "type" seems to make sense. You look fantastic in a sharply tailored jacket and yes, you can wear black well. I think you do have some yang elements -- your expressive eyebrows, for instance, create sharp angles on your face -- but I get what you are saying, and I can also imagine that dressing for "retirement" is a new challenge -- as I have found it a challenge to dress for WFH during the pandemic. I just can't reach for a jacket to make my outfit feel right any more. Sigh. 

    Cardiff Girl, thank you, and. yes, we are the real experts on ourselves, no matter what others say!  Because it has to feel good on , or we won't wear it, no matter how good others might think it looks. 

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Slim cat, that is interesting to know that monochrome does not work for you, either. So my theory holds some water! Yes, I would have typed you as a gamine, too. 

  • Sal replied 1 year ago

    I think it is a mix of colouring, silhouette/shape, facial features, personality and style preferences - is figure flattery, edginess or trend more important?  When they all come together - as in Suz in a trouser suit with a striped shirt - you achieve that style magic. 

    We can all think of outfits that "suit" us but feel wrong (recently Sally in her sheath dress or Jessikams in her velvet blazer).

    Sometimes it can be very intuitive - for example I am not drawn to ballet flats and have never really been, and sometimes it is more analytical (I have learnt that soft outfits - do not feel right on me).

    There's also the cultural norms to consider - I am more comfortable with lower necklines or bare shoulders than many people on the forum.  I suspect with our climate and lifestyle in NZ it is more common than in some other places, so it feels more natural to me.

    I find it all interesting, and I like the Kibbe approach although I haven't read the book.  But when a number of people said I was an obvious Natural a few things clicked.  I don't understand it fully nor am I dogmatic about it, but it helps me feel good about myself and not envious of people who can dress in wonderful things that I like but that don't suit me.  

  • replied 1 year ago

    I'm short and curvy, but my arms and legs are long, so I think I'm a TR. People with Romantic *should* be able to wear ruffles, but on me, just No. Simpler is definitely better.

    I also saw very open necklines associated with TR. Again-No. I feel very uncomfortable being that exposed, and it gives kind of a "choppy" vibe, which I dislike.

    They also suggest tapered pants, but I've been enjoying long flowy ones, which is Dramatic. They just have the level of dressiness that I need.
    TBH I'm still trying to figure it all out :)

    Kibbe or not, your style definitely works for you Suz!

  • Janet replied 1 year ago

    I have no flipping idea what Kibbe type I am — the quizzes seem to put me all over the place, and I suspect I won’t much like the recommendations anyway, LOL. After all, aren’t women with very hourglassy figures supposed to wear very romantic styles in that universe? Maybe that works for some, but it’s not my preference for my personality or the way I want to present myself.

    I find it a balancing act. There is nothing gamine about me in the least. I’m not cute, petite, or slight, although my actual frame is not large (narrow hands and feet, small head). But I’m also not very tall (only a little slightly taller than average), and have very little yang in my appearance. So one would think I’d do well to stay away from tomboyish looks. But I *like* a bit of toughness, androgyny, or sportiness in my outfits. I usually prefer to downplay my curves rather than emphasize them. Does this mean my style fights with my appearance? I don’t think so. I just try to find the balance or even the edge of where I can go with these looks before it starts to look wrong on me.

  • Jaime replied 1 year ago

    I was nodding right along with you Suz. I also don't end up liking most of my monochromatic attempts, unless they have some sort of contrast planted in there. I consider myself a gamine also, and definitely go for high contrast, bright colors and juxtapositions. Not to synthesize every little thing (heh, heh) but I do think the thing that is missing from certain stylists we have discussed on the forum recently is the recognition that different types (however you want to define them) suit different things. I will leave it there for now but will be returning to this thread :) .

  • jussie replied 1 year ago

    It’s verrrryyy tricky. To be honest I’m not sure whether I believe kibbe is especially helpful overall. I think a better way is to take into account one’s personal shape/colouring/contrast level/proportions/hair texture and go accordingly. I just think so many people don’t fit neatly into the categories that kibbe causes more confusion unless you are a real obvious type. Most people aren’t in my experience!
    Particularly for people like myself who are very “medium”- and not especially tall/small/warm/cool/rounded/angular. I would have said I’m classic but apparently that doesn’t exist anymore!
    With colours some days I think I’m a summer, some days I think I’m an autumn… and once or twice I thought I might be a winter!! Well let’s face it I hoped I was a winter because they are my fave colours :).
    Interesting topic. I wish you well in your wonderings Suz.

  • Olive Green replied 1 year ago

    I love your clothes, Suz,, as you know! and they should suit another short gamine with pixie, but they would look completely wrong on me. 
    Stripes and most patterns are about the worst thing I can wear, although simple colour blocking is great. Colour is key for me. High, low, and no contrast all work. 
    I play against type, I think. I only recently started wearing smaller scale ‘good’ jewelry, bold and wild stuff was my jam. And hats. Character stuff.
    Trying to look taller is a crazy idea to me, frankly. It will not work, lol. 
    I guess we decide if it is a bug or a feature. 

  • gryffin replied 1 year ago

    I'm a classic dramatic in kibbe.  I'm slender with more lines and angles and very yang. As we've discussed, I carry my height in my legs and am borderline short in the rise and torso so I'm always trying to elongate that. I'm also a deep winter coloring wise although with my natural hair silvering I can skew into slightly less deep coloring but I need high contrast otherwise I get lost.  No pastels for sure and no muddy yellow based colors.  I do think you need to filter everything through the authenticity meter.  I generally don't like asymmetry (unless it's a high/low front to back), I don't like fussy, I prefer monochromatic or neutral plaids/patterns black, white, gray, navy/blue, denim), graphic.  I do like pieces that are unique and often a bit striking but they must be grounded with neutrals.  I either prefer oversized over lean or fitted and slender.  I have a thing for high quality fabrics with a gorgeous hand, jackets that fit plumb, iow the physical experience of rightness when you slip something on.  My jackets, belts, boots/booties do all the heavy lifting in an outfit.  I must have 40 jackets versus about 10 tops, some leggings and a few pair of pants - why because I'll historically select the same base pieces and swap up the jackets/boots.  We are who we are!!  Suz, I've always admired your wardrobe.  You know what suits you and what makes you comfortable.  Your outfits are always elegant, flattering, interesting and look comfortable and authentic.  That's a real art and I know you've worked hard to achieve that effortless, I guess the new word is "chill" aesthetic!!  Kudos!!  Know thyself!!  You the goat!

  • Dee replied 1 year ago

    Interesting observations Suz and a lot of great thoughts from everyone.
    I’m not so certain about those Kibbe categories myself either. It’s not that easy to simply fall into just one category with so many variables at play. 

    My style personality feels most at home in updated classics. I don’t enjoy anything too stiff, fussy or precious. I like to wear pieces that have a bit of structure, because I don’t like to be swallowed up by my clothes. I also try to adhere to the “no more than 3 colours” in my outfit rule, so the look doesn’t go all over the place. 

    But, oddly enough, I can wear the bohemian style quite well, and have received compliments when I’ve tried it but it just doesn’t feel authentic to who I really am. 

    I think I have both soft and some angular features, but for me, clothes are intuitive and its mostly about how I feel in them in the end. 

  • Ginger replied 1 year ago

    I've tried to understand Kibbe but I honestly run into a wall with the firm rule that anyone over the-not-that-tall height of 5'7" absolutely must be some kind of Dramatic. Maybe I am dramatic, somewhat, but surely not everyone!

    And my proportions are truly whack, which makes it even more challenging to work through methodically. My height is entirely from the waist down, both legs and rise. Torso length is long, but my waist is very high; my upper body is petite in length and proportion, including narrow shoulders. Add being an exaggerated pear shape with a high hip on a long rise and my body has outright rejected 80% of clothing available in stores through most of my adult life!

    I'm pretty happy with my style now but it is a very personal, intuitive blend with a huge retro component. I've reached back to decades that embraced a shape more like mine. It makes me feel happy, and not just making do in my clothes.

    All that said - One of the rules for high-waisted and pear shapes is not to wear wide belts. It raises the waistline even higher. However, I love wearing wide belts with skirts. Because my waist is short and bustline is a little low (always has been), even with a narrow belt sometimes the bust seems to run right into the waist. Suz, I get what you mean about petite proportions in this aspect! It takes very little to make a huge difference. Ironically a wide belt, while it does come much nearer to the bust, sets off and defines the waist. As for lowering my high waist - eh, that's a battle I will never win! Nothing will make my shape look "ideally" proportioned.

  • UmmLila (Lisa) replied 1 year ago

    I have never gone through the Kibbe analysis for myself though I have glanced through some articles on it. I have found that the seasonal color analysis has some, but not full relevance for me. I find that attending to body shape (IT) is useful for me, as are some of the tips one hears for petites (I am just above 5'4").

    But I find it dull, to go by the rules around these analyses -- the goal of them seems to be to "regularize" yourself in some way,  to downplay certain physical aspects and emphasize others in order to fit more closely into a certain ideal.

    I would rather use clothing and fashion in a more expressive way. I'm not going to wear giant jackets that emphasize width over length, but I may wear things I find beautiful that don't necessarily make my boobs look bigger or my waist narrow.

    I think it would be interesting to compare photos in an outfit that would be considered conventionally flattering on you, given common "rules" and then another one in an outfit that you love. What are the elements that make it actually work for you (the patterns, colors, textures.)

  • RobinF replied 1 year ago

    This has been a fascinating read! I don't know anything about Kibbe and honestly, don't really know much about my own style. I've been around here at least five years and am still struggling to figure that out. I know I don't like to look too precious, I much prefer RATE. But too sharp and angular doesn't work for me either.

    Being short and round-ish with wavy hair seems like it would have enough feminine vibes but for some reason I still need some softness (but not too much - haha). Maybe because my personality has some toughness I don't like to look too nice. It is interesting that many of you also have these contrasting elements to your style.
    Anyway, all of this is fun to contemplate and if it leads to feeling more satisfied about how I look then it is all for the better.

  • Joy replied 1 year ago

    I gave up on Kibbe and seasons. But now identify as short.   When I was 5'4" it was so much easier, but now at 5'3", I feel short and am getting shorter.  I am turning into my mother or my grandmother.  That is scary.

    Suz, you always look fabulous and appropriate for the occasion. You have a wonderful wardrobe that looks carefully thought out.  

  • Bijou replied 1 year ago

    I have always been an intuitive dresser, but Kibbe resonates with me as I sit in the Theatrical Romantic Kibbe type and those style recommendations work for me. I don’t follow them to the letter and think fashion is more open to contrasting elements, such as pretty dresses worn with combat boots.

    In terms of wearing items that should not work, I am attracted to fun and dramatic items such as my platform sneakers and not delicate and feminine shoes as recommended by Kibbe.

  • Angie replied 1 year ago

    Thanks, Suz! Appreciate the time and care you took in your explanation :)

    Am I understanding it correctly: According to Kibbe, shorter people are gamine and taller people are less likely to be gamine? That does not sound right!!! 

  • chewyspaghetti replied 1 year ago

    Angie- Kibbe suggests a frame size/height range for each body type. It’s not 100%, but gamines are supposed to have a smaller frame, and shorter people do generally have a smaller frame (and vice versa- taller people tend to have larger frames). Anyway, that’s part of how he breaks it down from what I read.

  • Vildy replied 1 year ago

    Angie, gamines are supposed to be a combination or juxtaposition of both yin and yang elements, as opposed to classic types that are blended and very neutral. 

  • Jenni NZ replied 1 year ago

    I love going down the Kibbe rabbit hole and first did it here when Style Fan mentioned it in my first year here on the forum. She saw one of my slightly older pics from 2015 (below) and wondered if I may be some sort of gamine also.
    I did the quizzes and at first thought I might be Theatrical Romantic like Bijou but more recently have thought I could be Soft Gamine. It was Synne’s thread about chiffon that sent me down the rabbit hole again this time. In fact TR and Soft Gamine are almost adjacent and both need the woman to be under 5 foot 5 ( I was originally 5 foot 2 now nearer 5 foot 1 ).
    Somehow this does resonate better with me than just the body shapes or colours. It explains more of what I like. Not liking wide pants on me and liking to sometimes show a bit of ankle is not just because I stubbornly resist the latest styles- slim pants actually suit a soft gamine better! But I don’t think about it a great deal, most days what I put on is more intuitive.
    It is easier to see my possible gamine features at the lower weight I am currently at. Also there seem no “Kibbe verified” celebrities on the internet who are over about 40, so it is difficult to relate my current age of over 60 to them. Which is why I hold it all fairly lightly.
    I think it’s all just part of the endless search for identity. You’d think by this age I would have figured out who I am, but the enormous change I went through at about age 46/47 when losing the religion that had been hugely important my whole life before that, made me really flounder, although I never want to go back to that religion. And somehow “looking” like myself also makes me “feel” like myself? Kind of crazy, but may explain the endless hours I spend on this forum!
    I don’t have much to share on what fits with the SG that suits me, but am sure there is plenty, and think you have the right idea in this thread.

  • Star replied 1 year ago

    Angie I agree.  I understand Audrey Hepburn is always referenced as gamine.  I only found out recently she was tall.  People can be tall and have small frames.   I am 1.72 meters and have very small wrists and ankles which denotes a small frame.

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Re heights -- what Chewy says is true about the theory. He gives a range. In his original formulations he said a gamine would not be above 5' 5" (or his interpreters said that, LOL) -- but at the same time he classified Audrey Hepburn as a gamine and she was 5'6".  What is true is that a gamine would not have a large, broad bone structure and would not be toweringly tall. But it is not the case that all short people are gamine or that all tall people are dramatic. Au contraire. 

    I think Kibbe's catchphrase for gamine is "piquant chic" or something like that, which captures what Vildy is saying. 

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Sal, cultural norms are an important element I didn’t factor in here — what works in your region. I see you as a Kibbe natural, too, and as you have refined your style adjectives, you have become more & more comfortable and authentic seeming. If that’s not an oxymoron!

    Suntiger, your examples prove how Kibbe’s theory (if we can make sense of it) alone is not enough! It’s important to consider line, but that can’t be the only consideration. You know what works for you and you always look elegant even in your sporty ensembles!

    Janet, you always look amazing in your clothes and you know what works for you. I guess in terms of body shape you do have some “romantic” characteristic according to Kibbe, or at least some yin tendencies — but maybe you are one of those, as LJP said, who looks best when playing against type, to some degree. Or maybe your facial bone structure gives you that yang and so you actually need a degree of it in your clothing.

    Jaime, yes, I’d have pegged you as a kind of gamine, too. Maybe soft gamine? In any case, you are so right, some of the stylists we’ve discussed of late don’t seem to recognize that the same tricks won’t work for all…

    Jussie, I think the classic category still exists? I agree, though — most people are not obvious Kibbe types, and his writing is so darn confusing it does not help matters!

    Olive Green, so interesting that pattern does not work for you! But colour blocking does. Maybe you are a dramatic classic vs. a gamine! Regardless, it sounds as if you have worked out a strategy for dressing yourself to your best advantage. High five to my short and not pretending to be tall sister!

    Gryffin, you do indeed sound like a classic dramatic. Absolutely! That’s one reason your beloved black works so well for you! And simple, clean lines. You need some drama but are not a drama queen, LOL.

    Dee, you seem to be doing very well, intuitively, in the fashion department. Interesting what you say about bohemian looks. I like them but can’t wear them. They feel and (unless in very light touches) look off on me, as well. I wonder if you might be a dramatic classic. I have not seen enough of your style to guess, but that’s my suspicion.

    Ginger, I understand about the belt and can visualize and even feel it. I, too, have a slightly short waist, and the advice would be to leave a wide belt alone, but back in the 80s when my waist was more defined, I wore one and loved it! Sometimes we have to ignore the “rules.” Also the “types.” I think Kibbe’s height advice must be terribly outdated. All his recommendations and examples tend to focus on thin, white celebrities. It isn’t helpful. I do like that he included some stars from previous eras — that could potentially help someone like you who hearkens back to an earlier time for some fashion inspiration.

    Ummlila — I agree with you. Figure flattery and colour flattery alone are actually a dull way to dress. JFE is a great concept! Kibbe would actually agree with that — he’s all about dressing authentically. He just emphasizes “line” as the ticket to authenticity, which is reductive in its own way.

    Robin, that is interesting. I am not sure how I might “type” you if I were guessing. But your idea that your personality influences your best style, helping to offer some kind of balance, is intriguing.

    Oh, Joy. I hear you on the height issue! I am so sorry — you’ve had enough dressing challenges over the past few years and always look amazing in spite of them! My mother also lost a lot of height as she aged. It does change proportions, for sure.

    Bijou, that is fascinating. I think you have a fabulous sense of what works on you. Your more quirky and dramatic choices in shoes and bags are a great update of Kibbe, whose advice seemed very limited to the 80s. I think you have learned how to modernize the recommendations and display a sense of humour in your accessories, in particular!

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Jenni, I remember those earlier conversations. I always pegged you as some kind of gamine. (A snazzy shoemaker's elf has to be gamine, right?) Your love of elaborate footwear actually fits right in! As does your preference for slim, ankle baring pants. I share that preference, by the way...I will wear wider pants but only if they are cropped now, unless -- perhaps, they are tapered. Thank goodness footwear has caught up to my needs in my climate and there are boots with higher shafts that keep me warm! 

    Thanks, Star and Chewy, and Vildy for helping to explain....

  • Jenni NZ replied 1 year ago

    Thanks Suz! Actually Kibbe’s term for a soft gamine is (who knows what it really means) “spitfire chic”?!
    I quite like the sound of that, ha ha!

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    It suits you, Jenni! 

  • Sal replied 1 year ago

    I wonder if the height thing needs updating. My Mum was considered tallish at 5 ft 5 as am I at 5 ft 8 1/2. But younger people are even taller.

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Yes, Sal, I think a lot could use updating. Including the examples -- they should include women of different ages, races, etc.  Heights should be adjusted for changes in worldwide nutrition and associated growth patterns. And for different regions, too. Asian women tend (or tended in the past, until nutritional changes) to be smaller framed and shorter -- surely they are not all gamine? Couldn't be. Dutch women tended in the past to be taller than average....they are not all dramatic. 

  • Runcarla replied 1 year ago

    I’m of a similar mind to Janet - haven’t really figured out Kibbe, and suspect the slot I’d be in (probably Natural) would be a mismatch.  In my mind I’m a Classic, and in my heart I’m a Gamine!  (I chose ‘Elegant Tomboy’ for my descriptor.)  

    I have long limbs, a modest bosom, and near rectangular torso, but broad shoulders and muscle development from exercise with narrow insertion points (knees, ankles, wrists) makes me appear curvier.  Also, my hair fights with my ‘feelings’ about my style personality.  It’s curly and wild - if left alone.  I prefer it in it’s natural state from May through October, but when the temps are cold and hats are a daily thing, I prefer to quickly dry it with a blow dryer - and it comes out straight!  At a short, chin length - it read as more gamine, but at it’s current shoulder length it reads as natural when curly, and classic when straight!  



  • Angie replied 1 year ago

    Suz, I couldn't agree more with your last comment! 

    Thanks Suz, Star and Vildy for explaining. Appreciate it! For the record, I am 5ft 6 and very small boned. 

    My conclusion:

    I think we will find accuracies in Kibbe analyses and descriptions when they suit us - and vice versa! Wow to the "aha moments", and bristle at what sounds off. I'm sure there are elements of truth in the generalizations because we are bound to find them with countless variables at play. It's all in good fun, so take from Kibbe what works well for you :) 

  • Dee replied 1 year ago

    Suz  haha, now you’ve sent me down the Kibbe rabbit hole looking up dramatic classic and I certainly do see my personal style reflected there but as Angie suggests maybe its just what I want to see, but I will take what works well for me. However, it does in some ways explain why certain cuts, fabrics, and styles never worked that great on me. 

    I agree that there needs to be a more updated version as people are generally taller now that when this was first developed. Oh well its all in good fun.

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Carla, could you be a dramatic or dramatic classic? I wonder. 

    Angie -- you are so right. Take what resonates and leave the rest! But I find it interesting to compare different systems and theories and note that each seems to leave something out. If we go exclusively by one or another, we won't feel authentic in our clothes. 

  • rachylou replied 1 year ago

    It’s really interesting that you mention ‘gamine.’ I believe I am also a Kibbe gamine. The things he says about clothing construction are dead on imo… But when I think of gamine style or personality, if you will, I think Zoey Deschanel - and that’s neither of us.

    On another note, several in my family call me tall and they seem to think I can wear leggy willowy looks… but the height is relative. I’m a round average little thing in reality, lol ;)

  • Sally replied 1 year ago

    I think there are mixes. We are all so different. I just did the kibble test again. I got all Bs and Cs. For the first part body line etc I got mainly Bs so leaning towards natural, the 2nd part (body features? ) more Cs so more classic and the last part (face?) was largely Bs so natural. There is no type for this so you just have to look for overall ideas. My mother and others used to encourage me to wear classic structured lines but I’ve always veered towards jeans and a more natural style so there could be a discord between types.
    @Sal, I think you are right about the change in height and as Rachylou points out it’s also relative to groups of people. I’m 5ft 6 and people have always (and still do to some extent) describe me as tall. It’s average not tall. I work in a school with a lot of Pasifika people and I’m always being told I’m skinny.

  • UmmLila (Lisa) replied 1 year ago

    Next round, your star sign and fashion personality

  • Janet replied 1 year ago

    LOL Lisa, I like that!

    Leo. Does it fit me or not? Heheh.

  • Irina replied 1 year ago

    LOL! Libra. Can never make up my mind :)

  • Jaime replied 1 year ago

    :) UmmLila. Enjoying this thread! I tend to agree with Angie that these systems are not the whole story. Maybe they are best seen as Rorschach tests - giving some aha moments in terms of what resonates but not to be followed blindly. We are not one dimensional. 

  • LJP replied 1 year ago

    Gemini here . I’m the poster child for this sign .

  • Runcarla replied 1 year ago

     Scorpio - sexy   :-D

  • Sally replied 1 year ago

    I’m a Virgo with Aries rising.

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Ok, time to start the astrology thread! ;)  (I'm a Capricorn, by the way...hard-working and hyper-organized.) 

    I think when I began this, my whole point was really that no one system out there has all the answers. Traditional (fruit-type) body typing and traditional colour analysis could not account for certain elements that I just know work well on me. I was curious if others also experience that. In my case, Kibbe's emphasis on line and energy helped to answer why the colour and contrast suggestions that "should" work on me, do not (or do not work on their own). So I was curious about how many of you have experienced something similar. I don't think I expressed the question well -- sorry about that! :) 

    Thanks everyone, for indulging my question! 

  • Zaeobi replied 1 year ago

    Fellow Cappie here :) So in the name of efficiency, I'm just going to link directly to a previous comment of mine regarding my suspected Kibbe type, & how I accommodate that with makeup:
    https://youlookfab.com/welookf.....st-2295606

    TL;DR I suspect Romantic or Soft Classic, which means I would need gently draping in pastels. But I type seasonally as a Deep Autumn (another classification system). These 2 are diametrically opposed, lol! All 5ft3.5 of me is overwhelmed by ruffles too :P

    I find that not many systems focus on the nuances between non-white folk, to be honest (not all of us with darker skin & hair are Autumn & Winters, for example) :( But, on the plus side, social media is really helping me with workable inspo instead! :D

  • Zaeobi replied 1 year ago

    @Sally I think 'presence' has something to do with it too - in a teaching & learning context, people are always pegging me as 5ft6-5ft9(!)

    They're completely shocked when I make a beeline for the short end on picture day :P

  • Staysfit replied 1 year ago

    Kibbe never resonated with me.  My answers seemed to fall into the Yang dramatic category yet the style advice provided did not work for me.  Seasonal color typing drove me nuts.  I ended up being typed as three of the seasons!  Spring, Autumn and Summer, and then Light Summer. However, I do like the Align system.  Finally, something that made perfect sense and worked and that I understood.  The woman who created it is genius.  I hope she publishes a book!   So, yes, I did find a system that helped me and made total sense.  It explains everything for me including except my color palette, however, it does cover texture and pattern, line and silhouette, etc.  

  • Gaylene replied 1 year ago

    Kibbe was an eye opener for me because of his emphasis on understanding the beauty of different archetypes. If you resemble Anjelica Huston, fashion advice geared towards turning you into a Marilyn Monroe archetype of feminine beauty doesn’t work. Understanding how to embrace the yangness of my Dramatic archetype, on the other hand was total revelation. Fashion became fun instead of a never ending process of trying to camouflage my “imperfections”. It was a relief to say NO to waistlines and YES to angularity and architectural shapes. 


    I frankly don’t see any system that categorizes people into “types” as providing THE answer to whatever area or issue we’d like to address. I’m not a “type”, I’m me—full of contradictions, impulses, and sensibilities. Jaime is spot on—we are not one dimensional—so, like any advice, I think about what is offered, decide if there is something useful in the observations or suggestions, and then figure out what I want to do going forward. 

    So, Suz, in answer to your question, I found many of Kibbe’s observations useful in my fashion journey, and the same could be said of other “systems” but, like you, I’d resist following any system of “do this, not that” if it didn’t fit in with my sense of what is right for me. Ignoring is as important as adopting in my books. 

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Thanks for weighing in, Gaylene. It's all grist for the mill, I guess -- we take from each system what makes sense and use it to devise our own unique personal style expressions! 

  • Sal replied 1 year ago

    I agree with you Suz - the fruit body analysis never quite resonated - I am such a mix of hourglass rectangle and pear!! Which shouldn’t be a thing but is. And whilst I am a spring - I find it too restrictive. Kibbe has helped me more- with similar reasons to Gaylene.

    Take what suits from these systems- I think there are a few aha moments - especially when facing change or upheaval or dissatisfaction with your current style.

  • LaPed replied 1 year ago

    It's all multifaceted, isn't it? There must be a hwole body of psychological research on the interplay between personality and physical presentation. A bit of a chicken/egg question, I suspect! And of course it's not just about the individual, but the environment and context in which you find yourself. As much as I love breton stripes and tartan (and they love me back), they can feel very pedestrian here in New England. I don't want to come off as having stepped out of the LLBean catalog. :) 

    As for horoscope, I'm a Pisces with Scorpio rising. Not sure anyone would ever guess that from the way I dress! I'll never be without a hefty dose of black, so maybe that's in keeping with the Scorpio. 

  • Chiara replied 1 year ago

    kibbe has been very helpful to me in appreciating that most people are a ‘mix’ of features and characteristics (yin and Yang in his terms). We often fixate on the things we don’t like about ourselves- and lose sight of the whole impression. It helped me come to grips with my scale and size and how that related to things like pattern and jewelry size.
    Also- it’s a guide, not a set of rules eg height. Tippi Hedren, Joan Crawford and Ava Gardner are all dramatic types, and all less than 5’4”. Bette Davis- 5’4”, a gamine. It’s about how you are perceived, not about what the measuring tape says! Another example- I’m a dramatic- and my hips are 10” bigger than waist. But my length/height, and small, sharp features are what people notice.
    As for star sign- aquarius with Aries rising and scorpio moon- prob v in synch with a light spring dramatic style! Modern, active and a bit witchy…

  • Olive Green replied 1 year ago

    Going off to investigate Dramatic classic, Suz. Thank you for the suggestion!

  • Roxanna replied 1 year ago

    What an interesting thread, Suz. I won't go down the Kibbe rabbit hole, but like Lisa P, I have noticed that I am much more of a 'curve' person. But, importantly, this shows up differently for me: I have circles all over me. Circles in my hair (curly), circles in my face (bulbous nose, shapely lips, round cheeks when i smile), Circles in my body (I have rounded hips and rear and round, high breasts, no matter what weight I am.) Because of this, strict lines like stripes usually don't work on me, while organic and floral patterns are great. Now, i need some contrast - which is why sharp eyebrows and a sharp asymmetrical haircut work for me - and, like Lisa, if I go too down this route, i can appear mumsy or dumpy, so I need some structure in my clothing too. But it has been an interesting learning for me and I mostly stay away from stripes and other strong lines in my dressing.

  • LJP replied 1 year ago

    I finally went down the Kibbe rabbit hole last night- trying 2 different "tests' which both presented the same result : I'm a Soft Classic. WHAT?? This is all so interesting !

  • Suz replied 1 year ago

    Lisa, that actually makes a lot of sense. Maybe? If you think it applies (or doesn't) start a thread! It would explain why blazers are so brilliant on you (in part). 

You need to be logged in to comment