I think it makes sense. Most people lean a little more yin or a little more yang, some are more obvious. The descriptions for those types still apply, they are just a little more general.
I agree that it is unlikely one is pure…. But i think some people are closer to the middle then other people. And recommendations for the pure type can work for those people.
For Gamines, I think the default subtype should be redefined rather than omitted; I imagine standard Gamines as naturally leaner versions of "soft Gamines".
@@daniellevinson6975exactly. I for example am pure gamine - in my own opinion at least 😅 Soft gamine is too yin and soft and flamboyant gamine too yang and straight - but I’m still definitely gamine 🤷🏻♀️
I'm a pure natural. I am very broad and 5'11" so I thought I was a flamboyant natural. Except I can't pull off the hugely oversized looks recommended for flamboyant. But I also cannot pull off the waist definition and smaller details for soft natural. But I can pull off all the older recommendations for pure naturals, draped and relaxed, but not hugging any curves and not huge and oversized.
I do the same, for the same reasons. Waist is no go and oversized is too much. Open neckline and fairly narrow, but not constricting or slinky clothes are just the ticket for me.
Very true , I think what confuses people much more is TH-cam videos of emulating the lines in clothing especially with Gamines. Gamines are already on the yin side so they need a mix of yin and Yang but in the videos they emphasize so much on the Yang and many flamboyant Gamines can take on a bit more yin than that .
But thinking of a line in terms of 2D is wrong A line can be thicker and thinner and composed of different shapes. How fat needs to be draped is not the same as a muscle needs to be draped or a lack of muscle for that matter
On any spectrum, there’s never going to be enough markers to adequately ID anyone unless you fit 8 billion of them on there. I think some people want to feel like they fit perfectly into a box or label, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If you feel like you’ve been put into DC, but are the most “yin” DC possible, then just go for it and accommodate that way. Depending on how you define something, there’s just too much variation to not fall just slightly to the left or right of said marker, and that’s okay.
2:23 I agree with this change. Not only was Leslie *extremely* dollish, but she was definitely softer than Reese Witherspoon -- just like Shari Lewis was softer.
Once I understood that these are not styles as in essences, rather they are how your clothes would be tailored if all your clothes were made for you by a professional. For example, a dramatic no matter her style cannot break the vertical line; it looks off. While a romantic needs to accommodate her hourglass waist or she will look frumpy.
I think you said it perfectly. I'm a seamstress and when I make a pattern the things I adjust on people are either the length ie vertical, the set of the shoulder ie the width and the allowances for the bust and/or hip ie the curve. Any pattern can be adjusted to fit any person, but the fabric choice really makes a difference to how the garment will lay.
Also the scale of the detail can and should be adjusted to retain the look and the feel of the pattern. As the overall scale of the pattern is increased or decreased the embellishments need to be adjusted to keep within that scale
I think that eliminating pure types makes you less precise and eliminates certain people. For example, I think I'm a true natural. I'm not soft but I'm not dramatic neither. I can't wear flamboyant natural clothes and soft natural are too round for me. I'm disapointed that everybody seems to follow this path and so excluding some people.
Thanks for your explanation ,still I think it goes more in the neutral direction with some people,I am typed as FG but I feel like I can wear the natural /classic lines very well ,and is for me the missing factor in clothing lines (the moderate lines ,the length and width of the clothes) because I am a bright spring I have a lot of gamine essence/vibe , but this conclusion took me 2.5 years and I think it's fine now ,SN is not an option ) so i wear ,moderate lines ,moderate with ,somethimes monochomatic ,but a lot of colourfull balanced outfits (every pattern suits me)but i think i am balanced 5,4 with bigger breast ,and larger eyes fuller lips ,thats it gr sigrid
@@bashtheZ Strangely enough I immediately see a lot of style ideas in front of me, maybe moderate clothing , pants , with simple t schirt and then striking accessories , scarves , beautiful shoes , jewelry , and also a moderate skirt with sweater with striking accessories , with not the classic tighter blouse (bosom) but mischien a nice fitted white sweater , and crazy big pearl earrings
I know this is his system but I just don't agree. Jennifer Aniston is used a lot in reference to a Natural type and I just don't see her as anything but pure Natural. I don't see Flamboyant Natural. Grace Kelly too. I just don't see her as Soft Classic.
It's like neutral skin tones. It would be extremely rare to find a pure neutral but many neutrals can take in both warm and cool but will look better in one or the other and it can take the right eye to notice that. We are all so nuanced not everyone is going to be an obvious body type sometimes it's splitting hairs.
@@Carrie-sgda Jennifer doesn’t fit as a Flamboyant natural because she’s. Soft Natural. Angelina Jolie used to be pure but she’s clearly a flamboyant natural. I think most people lean one way or the other.
@@orangeblossom5362 maybe in your opinion. You could say that about Jennifer Lawrence but she's kibbie verified FN . It's not about having weight gain and shape in comparison to being straight ,it's about the overall look and what really stands out. In my opinion ,on some images she looks FN and some images she looks SN. You have to consider angles, lighting , shadows , clothing, weight gain and loss and age. Jenifer Aniston hasn't yet been kibbie verified as to my knowledge and so until that day, my mind will be open .x
I didn’t think that pure meant neither here nor there. It is just an area that is distinct from the more yin or yang leaning counterparts. A pure gamine for example is more straight than the soft gamine, and more delicate (but not necessarily more rounded) than the flamboyant gamine. Yes, people within the gamine category might lean more soft or more flamboyant, but there is still that middle area that is different from being actually soft or flamboyant. To me, a gamine is dry in terms of flesh, musculature, and bone. They are pretty straight and have both strength and delicacy in them, and their lines are perky. A soft gamine is more softly wide in bones and has soft flesh. A flamboyant gamine has more musculature and broader bones since they are part natural, and sometimes has some longer bones since they are also part dramatic. Compare the following types to see the distinction: SG: Octavia Spencer Janelle Monae G: Jada Pinkett (DK has typed as TR but I think he is basing that on recent pics. Sometimes when G make their faces look rounded/ more voluptuous, they can look TR bc both types are narrow, but TR is narrow plus curve. Adding curve to the G base can give the illusion of being TR. I think Jada’s face appears rounder now which can change the way the whole person is read by others. Older pics show less rounded facial features which in turn make the body appear less rounded. And her vibe in movies to me indicates that she is pure gamine. The nutty professor low down dirty shame, a different world, or any prior films Nia Long Tamala Jones Malinda Williams FG: Paula Jai Parker Melissa Fredericks Tina Turner I think the naturals and classics are also distinct; I’m just using the gamines as an example
FG aren't part natural or part dramatic, they're gamines, which means being yin in size, and yang in frame. Gamines are their own distinct group. FGs can sometimes be 'broadly angular', which means having a boxy or stocky look, despite being literally small. The pure g you described would just be a FG since they don't accommodate curve. Kibbe stopped using pure types decades ago, because people bodies are either straight(yang-leaning) or curved(yin-leaning). Nobody's neither.
@@Jay.B.2046 While David Kibbe stopped using the pure types, it doesn’t mean they do not exist. If he were still using the pure types according to his original thought, would you still say they didn’t exist? Although Kibbe devised a useful way to articulate different body types and essences he saw between people, it doesn’t mean he created the bodies themselves or owns the rights to their descriptions. That means that he is not all-knowing, and we can all engage in or critique the theory. Because after all, we are supposed to be endeavoring to gain higher knowledge, and more than one person has to have an opinion for us to do that. And if pure types don’t exist, how did Kibbe develop a style guide for the pure types that looks best on the them, and not on their yin or yang counterparts, and also type people into the pure categories for years? Removing the pure types might seem helpful but it actually prevents people who are pure from having the best recommendations, and it also prevents us from understanding all the types, because it just muddies our understanding of the body types altogether when you remove that greater detailedness which provided more accuracy. Some of the Gs I listed might be moved to SG and other FG according to Kibbe’s new logic. But I believe they all congregate around the pure G type. Imagine three side-by-side circles. The one on the left is SG, the one in the middle is G, and the one on the right is FG. People who fall into G might be placed to the far left of their circle, toward the SG circle, but still be G and look best in G lines just like the Gs on the right side of their circle. It’s still the same circle. And putting them all together in their own circle even if there is spectrum within the circle isn’t a compromise, it’s their reality. They are still just pure G. Just like some D look almost like SD but are still D for a reason. While curve / not curve might be a useful dichotomy to some, I don’t believe it captures all the types. Bc if it did, I wouldn’t see people who weren’t captured by that dichotomy. And just from a biological standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to me that people have to be decidedly yin or yang automatically. For instance, SN and FN are very different in terms of their yin and yang amounts. So either you’re a 5’10 FN or 5’2 SN, and no one is in-between in terms of their frame and height? (Of course FN and SN can be different heights, but aside from literal height, think of this in terms of perceived size and frame and curve - are there only FN - you know amazons, basketball players and models; and SN - who are sometimes small & fleshy? [I know these are stereotypes, just an illustration]). Do you really not see anyone who is in-between? And even from a theoretical standpoint, to me it does not make sense to say that pure types are illogical due to people either leaning this or that way. How can variations exist without the pure? The pure is the reference from which the others come. The pure is what the romantic or the dramatic mixes into to produce a yin or yang undercurrent. Having a yin or yang undercurrent is different than just having some yin or yang in you, as all types have some of both except pure R and D, so having an undercurrent is a significant jump. A jump from where? From one extreme to the other? Or from the pure reference? I think it’s the latter. Furthermore, I don’t think of G or N as being perfectly in the middle like C, so that argument doesn’t even hold to them. The G and N are more yang than yin. The FG and FN are even more yang than them. The G, C, and N each occupy a space just like the types on either side of them. It is a space - not a point that is too small to stand on without tilting to one side or the other. It is actually a firm place. So to me the true types are very important. By saying that FG are part dramatic or part natural, I wasn’t suggesting that they are dramatic or natural. They are Gamines. However, they have dramatic and natural influences, and in some of them more of the natural influence surfaces in their appearance, and in others more of the dramatic surfaces. That’s why some FG are described as longer and sharper while others more broadly angular.
Please do some more videos on natural vs classic. I am 5ft tall, but I have curve on my upper body. I have broad shoulders but they are soft. I think I may have a little bit of vertical even though I am short (my arms are a bit long and my straight waist to hip). So even though I look “sporty” I feel like a have a bit sexy/softness from my bust and arms. I can’t figure which one I am!! I feel like my short height makes me feel balanced because there is so little differentiation that can happen on such a short frame… my width of chest to hip is equal and my waist has little to no definition. This is associated with very boyish frame .. but I am soft and rounded 🤣
I've been learning about kibbe for over 3 years now. The more I know, the less I believe in this typology. Kibbe himself keeps reassigning celebrities and sometimes makes obvious mistakes like putting Lady gaga in the flamboyant gamine category (like Audrey hepburn).
Lady Gaga has never been typed by Kibbe, unfortunately there are many myths around his system floating around the internet and things he has never said that are being attributed to him, which makes him sound a lot more controversial than he really is.
Do you think a woman of 1.71 cm is tall or moderate? I am not particularly curvy and I have wide shoulders. I identify more with flamboyant naturals but sometimes I think I might not be tall enough for them. Are you Greek by the way? Your accent sounds Greek to me. Gongratulations on your channel.
But what if I have curve the way you describe but I’m 5’7”? Natural body type. I see what you said about Ingrid…but what if she had more defined curve but is tall? It’s not a curve just because it’s long? It could be a long curve 😂 I can’t be soft dramatic because of my width. I feel like I don’t fit anywhere
If you are tall (automatic vertical), with shoulders as the widest part of your skeleton (width), and your breasts stretch a fitted top obviously outwards/sideways on your torso, then you are a Soft Natural.
I think in the case of Ingrid, her breasts might naturally sit more close together, making her a Flamboyant Natural. Also she's wearing underwear. It's kinda hard to tell from an internet photo anyway
I think since curve isn't about breast size, it's a lot more about whether breasts are close together naturally or further apart. I have small boobs but they do not 'spill out' on the side of my torso (when I'm not wearing underwear), therefore I'm Dramatic/Flamboyant.
I feel like Naturals need their own explanatory video for this! Some FNs are curvy (Tracee Ellis Ross, Jennifer Lawrence, Solange, Linda Carter), but their long vertical line is dominant, and so they don't necessarily need to accomodate curve. So if you are on the tall side and look good with or without waist definition, I would still go with FN ... That being said, I would be interested to know how to categorize someone with Natural bone structure who is short with a short vertical line (not someone who is short but looks elongated like Sarah Jessica Parker) who also lacks Kibbe curve. It's hard to see how they could be FN if they look better in shorter lines.
You could still be FN, curve would just be a sorta third accommodation. Dressing for width will typically take care of upper curve, so there shouldn't be any major differences between accommodating Width + Vertical + Curve, than just being a conventionally curvy FN.
How come Grace Kelly is a soft classic though, when she's quite tall to be that type? Again, for certain women height matters, and for others it doesnt🤷♀. Go figure!
It's because we can't really type people from photos, and shouldn't be comparing our bodies to theirs. The celebrities are meant to be style inspiration, or examples of essences and their breadth. Unless Kibbe happened to see them in person, their literal bodies don't matter. edit: They do technically, we just have to be skeptical of what we see on screen. People often look different irl.
@@Jay.B.2046 But the very fact that celebrities can be an inspiration for any essence and type, regardless of their own, sort of disproves the whole Kibbe theory then
@@alakane2183The average person using this system doesn't have a literal team behind them to ensure that they appear a certain way though. It doesn't really disprove anything since it's like comparing apples to oranges.
@@Jay.B.2046 Whether one has a team or not is another question altogether. In case somebody looks good in certain lines, that are not of their actual type, that disproves a lot then. Which seems to be exactly the case, when we ignore the bodies of the actual people we are typing, whether they are celebrities or not Btw I'm not against the system itself. It's just that with how incosistent it is, it certainly iether has loopholes or is simply incomplete.
What helps me is to think, would Grace Kelly look best in a suit, or a well fitted flowery soft dress? I think softer outfits look better on her than the tomboy look the dramatic classic can pull off.
I think it makes sense. Most people lean a little more yin or a little more yang, some are more obvious. The descriptions for those types still apply, they are just a little more general.
I agree that it is unlikely one is pure…. But i think some people are closer to the middle then other people. And recommendations for the pure type can work for those people.
I'm fine with eliminating the default subtype for Classics, but eliminating it for Naturals seems like a big mistake.
For Gamines, I think the default subtype should be redefined rather than omitted; I imagine standard Gamines as naturally leaner versions of "soft Gamines".
@@daniellevinson6975exactly. I for example am pure gamine - in my own opinion at least 😅 Soft gamine is too yin and soft and flamboyant gamine too yang and straight - but I’m still definitely gamine 🤷🏻♀️
Thank you for explaining further and not just mentioning that these types were excluded
Informative as always. I love the direct and simple explanations. Keep it up ❤👍.
I would like to see the lines drawn this way for all the types 😀👍
I'm a pure natural. I am very broad and 5'11" so I thought I was a flamboyant natural. Except I can't pull off the hugely oversized looks recommended for flamboyant. But I also cannot pull off the waist definition and smaller details for soft natural. But I can pull off all the older recommendations for pure naturals, draped and relaxed, but not hugging any curves and not huge and oversized.
I do the same, for the same reasons. Waist is no go and oversized is too much. Open neckline and fairly narrow, but not constricting or slinky clothes are just the ticket for me.
Kibbe's system ought to have 11 archetypes, *not* 10.
Maybe it should even have 12 archetypes...
Would love to see you discuss what Double Curve is!
Really interesting! Kibbe had a very keen expert eye and was able to see slight differences that are explained so well here.
He’s working on a new book? I think that could help. I know the test isn’t something he recommends now.
Very true , I think what confuses people much more is TH-cam videos of emulating the lines in clothing especially with Gamines. Gamines are already on the yin side so they need a mix of yin and Yang but in the videos they emphasize so much on the Yang and many flamboyant Gamines can take on a bit more yin than that .
You're brilliant, girl!
But thinking of a line in terms of 2D is wrong
A line can be thicker and thinner and composed of different shapes.
How fat needs to be draped is not the same as a muscle needs to be draped or a lack of muscle for that matter
On any spectrum, there’s never going to be enough markers to adequately ID anyone unless you fit 8 billion of them on there. I think some people want to feel like they fit perfectly into a box or label, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If you feel like you’ve been put into DC, but are the most “yin” DC possible, then just go for it and accommodate that way. Depending on how you define something, there’s just too much variation to not fall just slightly to the left or right of said marker, and that’s okay.
3:36 Ingrid Bergman was shaped more like a "soft Natural" than a "flamboyant Natural"!!
2:23 I agree with this change. Not only was Leslie *extremely* dollish, but she was definitely softer than Reese Witherspoon -- just like Shari Lewis was softer.
Once I understood that these are not styles as in essences, rather they are how your clothes would be tailored if all your clothes were made for you by a professional.
For example, a dramatic no matter her style cannot break the vertical line; it looks off. While a romantic needs to accommodate her hourglass waist or she will look frumpy.
I think you said it perfectly. I'm a seamstress and when I make a pattern the things I adjust on people are either the length ie vertical, the set of the shoulder ie the width and the allowances for the bust and/or hip ie the curve. Any pattern can be adjusted to fit any person, but the fabric choice really makes a difference to how the garment will lay.
Also the scale of the detail can and should be adjusted to retain the look and the feel of the pattern. As the overall scale of the pattern is increased or decreased the embellishments need to be adjusted to keep within that scale
@@eskaikennel Thank you for that, you explained it beautifully! You should have your own youtube channel.
I think that eliminating pure types makes you less precise and eliminates certain people. For example, I think I'm a true natural. I'm not soft but I'm not dramatic neither. I can't wear flamboyant natural clothes and soft natural are too round for me. I'm disapointed that everybody seems to follow this path and so excluding some people.
Natural differs MUCH more from "flamboyant Natural" than Gamine does from "flamboyant Gamine"!
Excellent explanations! Thank you! You are very smart!
Thanks for your explanation ,still I think it goes more in the neutral direction with some people,I am typed as FG but I feel like I can wear the natural /classic lines very well ,and is for me the missing factor in clothing lines (the moderate lines ,the length and width of the clothes) because I am a bright spring I have a lot of gamine essence/vibe , but this conclusion took me 2.5 years and I think it's fine now ,SN is not an option ) so i wear ,moderate lines ,moderate with ,somethimes monochomatic ,but a lot of colourfull balanced outfits (every pattern suits me)but i think i am balanced 5,4 with bigger breast ,and larger eyes fuller lips ,thats it gr sigrid
Me too. As an FG with a very classic essence and a big bust, I really do not know how to style myself😂
@@bashtheZ Strangely enough I immediately see a lot of style ideas in front of me, maybe moderate clothing , pants , with simple t schirt and then striking accessories , scarves , beautiful shoes , jewelry , and also a moderate skirt with sweater with striking accessories , with not the classic tighter blouse (bosom) but mischien a nice fitted white sweater , and crazy big pearl earrings
I know this is his system but I just don't agree. Jennifer Aniston is used a lot in reference to a Natural type and I just don't see her as anything but pure Natural. I don't see Flamboyant Natural. Grace Kelly too. I just don't see her as Soft Classic.
It's like neutral skin tones. It would be extremely rare to find a pure neutral but many neutrals can take in both warm and cool but will look better in one or the other and it can take the right eye to notice that. We are all so nuanced not everyone is going to be an obvious body type sometimes it's splitting hairs.
@@Carrie-sgdaWell said 👏🏾
@@Carrie-sgda Jennifer doesn’t fit as a Flamboyant natural because she’s. Soft Natural. Angelina Jolie used to be pure but she’s clearly a flamboyant natural. I think most people lean one way or the other.
@@orangeblossom5362 maybe in your opinion. You could say that about Jennifer Lawrence but she's kibbie verified FN . It's not about having weight gain and shape in comparison to being straight ,it's about the overall look and what really stands out. In my opinion ,on some images she looks FN and some images she looks SN. You have to consider angles, lighting , shadows , clothing, weight gain and loss and age. Jenifer Aniston hasn't yet been kibbie verified as to my knowledge and so until that day, my mind will be open .x
DK eliminated the pure types from the ones that had three types, so it makes more sense now that each of the five core types have only two options.
You are doing so great! Love your point of view, how you understand the whole system. Please, do more videos.
2:57 OK, I guess I agree with this reassignment.
I didn’t think that pure meant neither here nor there. It is just an area that is distinct from the more yin or yang leaning counterparts. A pure gamine for example is more straight than the soft gamine, and more delicate (but not necessarily more rounded) than the flamboyant gamine. Yes, people within the gamine category might lean more soft or more flamboyant, but there is still that middle area that is different from being actually soft or flamboyant. To me, a gamine is dry in terms of flesh, musculature, and bone. They are pretty straight and have both strength and delicacy in them, and their lines are perky. A soft gamine is more softly wide in bones and has soft flesh. A flamboyant gamine has more musculature and broader bones since they are part natural, and sometimes has some longer bones since they are also part dramatic. Compare the following types to see the distinction:
SG:
Octavia Spencer
Janelle Monae
G:
Jada Pinkett (DK has typed as TR but I think he is basing that on recent pics. Sometimes when G make their faces look rounded/ more voluptuous, they can look TR bc both types are narrow, but TR is narrow plus curve. Adding curve to the G base can give the illusion of being TR. I think Jada’s face appears rounder now which can change the way the whole person is read by others. Older pics show less rounded facial features which in turn make the body appear less rounded. And her vibe in movies to me indicates that she is pure gamine. The nutty professor low down dirty shame, a different world, or any prior films
Nia Long
Tamala Jones
Malinda Williams
FG:
Paula Jai Parker
Melissa Fredericks
Tina Turner
I think the naturals and classics are also distinct; I’m just using the gamines as an example
I agree.
FG aren't part natural or part dramatic, they're gamines, which means being yin in size, and yang in frame. Gamines are their own distinct group. FGs can sometimes be 'broadly angular', which means having a boxy or stocky look, despite being literally small. The pure g you described would just be a FG since they don't accommodate curve.
Kibbe stopped using pure types decades ago, because people bodies are either straight(yang-leaning) or curved(yin-leaning). Nobody's neither.
@@Jay.B.2046 While David Kibbe stopped using the pure types, it doesn’t mean they do not exist. If he were still using the pure types according to his original thought, would you still say they didn’t exist? Although Kibbe devised a useful way to articulate different body types and essences he saw between people, it doesn’t mean he created the bodies themselves or owns the rights to their descriptions. That means that he is not all-knowing, and we can all engage in or critique the theory. Because after all, we are supposed to be endeavoring to gain higher knowledge, and more than one person has to have an opinion for us to do that. And if pure types don’t exist, how did Kibbe develop a style guide for the pure types that looks best on the them, and not on their yin or yang counterparts, and also type people into the pure categories for years? Removing the pure types might seem helpful but it actually prevents people who are pure from having the best recommendations, and it also prevents us from understanding all the types, because it just muddies our understanding of the body types altogether when you remove that greater detailedness which provided more accuracy.
Some of the Gs I listed might be moved to SG and other FG according to Kibbe’s new logic. But I believe they all congregate around the pure G type. Imagine three side-by-side circles. The one on the left is SG, the one in the middle is G, and the one on the right is FG. People who fall into G might be placed to the far left of their circle, toward the SG circle, but still be G and look best in G lines just like the Gs on the right side of their circle. It’s still the same circle. And putting them all together in their own circle even if there is spectrum within the circle isn’t a compromise, it’s their reality. They are still just pure G. Just like some D look almost like SD but are still D for a reason. While curve / not curve might be a useful dichotomy to some, I don’t believe it captures all the types. Bc if it did, I wouldn’t see people who weren’t captured by that dichotomy.
And just from a biological standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to me that people have to be decidedly yin or yang automatically. For instance, SN and FN are very different in terms of their yin and yang amounts. So either you’re a 5’10 FN or 5’2 SN, and no one is in-between in terms of their frame and height? (Of course FN and SN can be different heights, but aside from literal height, think of this in terms of perceived size and frame and curve - are there only FN - you know amazons, basketball players and models; and SN - who are sometimes small & fleshy? [I know these are stereotypes, just an illustration]). Do you really not see anyone who is in-between? And even from a theoretical standpoint, to me it does not make sense to say that pure types are illogical due to people either leaning this or that way. How can variations exist without the pure? The pure is the reference from which the others come. The pure is what the romantic or the dramatic mixes into to produce a yin or yang undercurrent. Having a yin or yang undercurrent is different than just having some yin or yang in you, as all types have some of both except pure R and D, so having an undercurrent is a significant jump. A jump from where? From one extreme to the other? Or from the pure reference? I think it’s the latter. Furthermore, I don’t think of G or N as being perfectly in the middle like C, so that argument doesn’t even hold to them. The G and N are more yang than yin. The FG and FN are even more yang than them. The G, C, and N each occupy a space just like the types on either side of them. It is a space - not a point that is too small to stand on without tilting to one side or the other. It is actually a firm place. So to me the true types are very important.
By saying that FG are part dramatic or part natural, I wasn’t suggesting that they are dramatic or natural. They are Gamines. However, they have dramatic and natural influences, and in some of them more of the natural influence surfaces in their appearance, and in others more of the dramatic surfaces. That’s why some FG are described as longer and sharper while others more broadly angular.
this was very helpful!
Please do some more videos on natural vs classic. I am 5ft tall, but I have curve on my upper body. I have broad shoulders but they are soft. I think I may have a little bit of vertical even though I am short (my arms are a bit long and my straight waist to hip). So even though I look “sporty” I feel like a have a bit sexy/softness from my bust and arms. I can’t figure which one I am!! I feel like my short height makes me feel balanced because there is so little differentiation that can happen on such a short frame… my width of chest to hip is equal and my waist has little to no definition. This is associated with very boyish frame .. but I am soft and rounded 🤣
I've been learning about kibbe for over 3 years now. The more I know, the less I believe in this typology. Kibbe himself keeps reassigning celebrities and sometimes makes obvious mistakes like putting Lady gaga in the flamboyant gamine category (like Audrey hepburn).
Lady Gaga has never been typed by Kibbe, unfortunately there are many myths around his system floating around the internet and things he has never said that are being attributed to him, which makes him sound a lot more controversial than he really is.
*One* problem with Kibbe's system is that is assumes women have small frames unless overweight.
Do you think a woman of 1.71 cm is tall or moderate? I am not particularly curvy and I have wide shoulders. I identify more with flamboyant naturals but sometimes I think I might not be tall enough for them. Are you Greek by the way? Your accent sounds Greek to me. Gongratulations on your channel.
Kibbe has said that Amy Adams is a quintessential FN, and she's only about 5'4"! You don't need to be tall to be FN 😺
I could not figure out what I am, and all my friends and family have different ideas lol.
Your Kibbe videos are the best!
But what if I have curve the way you describe but I’m 5’7”? Natural body type. I see what you said about Ingrid…but what if she had more defined curve but is tall? It’s not a curve just because it’s long? It could be a long curve 😂 I can’t be soft dramatic because of my width. I feel like I don’t fit anywhere
If you are tall (automatic vertical), with shoulders as the widest part of your skeleton (width), and your breasts stretch a fitted top obviously outwards/sideways on your torso, then you are a Soft Natural.
I think in the case of Ingrid, her breasts might naturally sit more close together, making her a Flamboyant Natural. Also she's wearing underwear. It's kinda hard to tell from an internet photo anyway
I think since curve isn't about breast size, it's a lot more about whether breasts are close together naturally or further apart. I have small boobs but they do not 'spill out' on the side of my torso (when I'm not wearing underwear), therefore I'm Dramatic/Flamboyant.
I feel like Naturals need their own explanatory video for this! Some FNs are curvy (Tracee Ellis Ross, Jennifer Lawrence, Solange, Linda Carter), but their long vertical line is dominant, and so they don't necessarily need to accomodate curve. So if you are on the tall side and look good with or without waist definition, I would still go with FN ...
That being said, I would be interested to know how to categorize someone with Natural bone structure who is short with a short vertical line (not someone who is short but looks elongated like Sarah Jessica Parker) who also lacks Kibbe curve. It's hard to see how they could be FN if they look better in shorter lines.
You could still be FN, curve would just be a sorta third accommodation. Dressing for width will typically take care of upper curve, so there shouldn't be any major differences between accommodating Width + Vertical + Curve, than just being a conventionally curvy FN.
How come Grace Kelly is a soft classic though, when she's quite tall to be that type? Again, for certain women height matters, and for others it doesnt🤷♀. Go figure!
It's because we can't really type people from photos, and shouldn't be comparing our bodies to theirs. The celebrities are meant to be style inspiration, or examples of essences and their breadth. Unless Kibbe happened to see them in person, their literal bodies don't matter.
edit: They do technically, we just have to be skeptical of what we see on screen. People often look different irl.
@@Jay.B.2046 But the very fact that celebrities can be an inspiration for any essence and type, regardless of their own, sort of disproves the whole Kibbe theory then
@@alakane2183The average person using this system doesn't have a literal team behind them to ensure that they appear a certain way though. It doesn't really disprove anything since it's like comparing apples to oranges.
@@Jay.B.2046 Whether one has a team or not is another question altogether. In case somebody looks good in certain lines, that are not of their actual type, that disproves a lot then. Which seems to be exactly the case, when we ignore the bodies of the actual people we are typing, whether they are celebrities or not
Btw I'm not against the system itself. It's just that with how incosistent it is, it certainly iether has loopholes or is simply incomplete.
What helps me is to think, would Grace Kelly look best in a suit, or a well fitted flowery soft dress? I think softer outfits look better on her than the tomboy look the dramatic classic can pull off.