Agree, I would love a comparison video so we can see what it looks like to have narrow or petite vs width. Like how does Florence Pugh differ from Reese Witherspoon? Why is Anne Hathaway different from Kate Blanchet? Why is Emma Stone different from Kristin Dunst?
I still don't understand without comparisons to narrow shoulders. Don't bodies naturally flare out to shoulders on everyone? Even on a confirmed types like Romantics I still see the line going out so the more videos I watch the more confused I get.
Some women are similar in width throughout the upper body. If you compare a picture of a dramatic a classic and a someone close to the old pure Natural (Like Jennifer Aniston- and make sure the pictures are all full forward facing- and use officially verified celebs)- you should be able to see the difference between D narrow, C Moderate and N width. To finish answering your question, some women are wider at hips, than shoulders.
Your videos are hands down the best about the Kibbe system! I completely agree about "width" not being a neutral word, a lot of us don't want to have width when thinness is the beauty standard, that can definitely mess with how we understand the system.
I think what just did it for me was you using the words âflare outâ. something about that helped me tap into the intuitive. Because I feel like I naturally feel that âflaring outâ in my body when I move and walk and wear certain clothes. As long as Iâm not overthinking and just focusing on what feels accurate. The thing you said about modern/fast fashion clothing is brilliant because it naturally has more stretch from the sides. And if remember correctly when I actually wore non-stretch fabrics like blazers or blouses I always needed movement in my arms/shoulders and would have to size up even though everything else fit perfectly. But if itâs âlooseâ (1-2cm away from my body) than it fit just fine and I wouldnât need to size up even with no stretch. Something I have also not seen mentioned before all in one video are the different TYPES of width one may have. Mine in less in my ribcage/chest and more in my shoulder socket itself and armpits. But if I were just looking pictures of myself itâs harder to see because Iâm over analyzing and looking for obvious width âpokingâ or sticking out of my body like the wide shoulders etc
I thought your previous video on width was so easy to understand ðĪ I am surprised people don't see it yet...then again I am very familiar with clothes I am so grateful for your videos Thank you
Agree wholeheartedly with your typing of Zendaya, Emilia and Florence. When you see it, you see it. Now if I could only do that with myself lol Thank you so much for your videos. It's hard to get a grasp on the system with just words on forums.
@@greeksalad6111 How is Zendaya too narrow to be FN? Width is in the upper body as this video explained, you mention stuff like limbs that has zero to do with width. Her upper body stands out so much compared to the rest of her, which is exactly what âwidth in your own proportionsâ means.
@@greeksalad6111 Are you in Strictly Kibbe? I guess not, because most of what you said here is incorrect and against things *HE* has said there himself. He is the one who says width is only in the upper body/ shoulders/ upper back. Also Cate Blanchett is a verified dramatic. This channel is the only one I have found that stays true to what he has said, a lot of stuff you are mentioning sounds like it came from more questionable youtube sources.
@@greeksalad6111 Oh you went full clown mode. If you are reacting like that because someone on youtube said you are wrong, I am not the one who needs to get a life. The call is coming from inside the house.
With this I confirm my ID, I am currently losing weight and in reality the size of the tops has not changed (I sewed adjustments only in the lower part, I adjusted curve and width without realizing it ð ), I was confused because I have never been angular but yes I am wide boned and very short, thank you very much
Zendaya is a really contentious one! I can see the argument for FN, but I don't know - I feel like her essence aligns much more with "regal lady". Could be a fun video topic!
Well done again! I âflare outâ in many places on my body. I thought I was a soft gamine or theatrical romantic for a long time or even a soft classic. But my nose, my shoulders, my breasts feet and hips all FLARE. Iâm a curvy trapezoid. It was confusing for so long because Iâm short but it makes sense because Iâm athletic with extra padding aka romance
Awesome video! I didnât think you could make it any easier, but you did! I think a lot of people in these groups really just want to make their own idea about the kibbe system because they donât understand it. Causes loads of confusion. Also as a FN myself I can assure you that fast fashion does not seem to be making clothing much wider, lol ð
Itâs conversations about having âcurrentsâ or essences that also cause confusion and frankly create clear contradictions (lies). e.g. Jackie Kennedy dresses posh so sheâs verified a dramatic classic even though not a shred of her initial features from her hair texture to her very distinct and square body shape are classic? We have eyes and when the prevailing status quo contradicts what the eyes see itâs super confusing
It would be helpful to also compare and contrast with those who donât have width, as it just seems that most people have a thinner waist and therefore some width to their upper body? Or is it just more to the upper than lower body?
Hi, I have a question about the Scarlett Johansson image at 2:15. To me, of all the images in the video, this one stands out as showing the least width. However, I know she is a SN and I see her chest/shoulder bluntness in most other pictures of her. Does that suggest I'm misunderstanding width/horizontal? Is there something about her horizontal that is a little different or more subtle in the 2:15 image? I'm trying to be intuitive, but it feels like my intuition is failing here.
Your intuition isn't failing. There are major difficulties with talking about someone's essence /type from a single photo. Most photos are distorted in some way. This photo you mention is taken from below, so Scarlett's calves appear thicker and her shoulders are receding and appear smaller than they are in person. Therefore you are looking at a distortion. To type someone from photos requires looking at between 50 to 100 full body shots of that person with their shoulders and arms bare; sometimes you can never find a shot that is square on, and not angled in some way. It's also 100 times easier to see the subject's type when she is standing next to another woman, as body typing is all about comparison and relativity. The other problem is that celebrities have stylists who know how to use visual illusion to make their client look like any body type they wish. Gala event photos are the worst for this. I have seen 5'1" Lady Gaga typed as a Dramatic based solely on her costumes and her 7" platform shoes. The most authentic representation of a person to be found online is in non-modelling or non-styled situations, such as off-duty in shorts and singlet, or barefoot on the beach.
In my opinion she is SN through and through. Daenerys as a role was capturing the SN essence perfectly in the way Kibbe describes it, fresh and warm but also powerful.
@@stylebysophianicole Thank you for your reply! And yeah she was amazing in that role, and the costumes definitely emphasized that. I hope to see her get verified soon!
I swore i was sg or a curvy fg like Jennifer love Hewitt because of my short height. But i couldn't ignore my width it was obvious standing next to true gamines that i was not one. I was an obvious sn
I knew I didnât have width when I tried on a drop shoulder top and it looked off, it fit me perfectly but it just didnât look right. I looked rectangular rather than my shoulders carrying the garment.
Most people who do Kibbe content and type others are wrong though. Aly Art had typed Lana Wood as flamboyant gamine and she is a verified soft natural AND the prime soft natural example. She just wasnât in Metamorphosis because of a typo, they had put her sister Natalie in her place (and Natalie is a verified soft gamine).
But Naturals have so many wonderfully beautiful features within their body's structure and built. And they can really look effortlessly beautiful easily. You can also easily translate any aesthetic into any ID if you accomodate your body's features correctly. It's not that hard, if you really learn about lines, silhouettes and garment construction.
3:20 I don't have obvious width and I appear small to some people but David agreed that my line sketch shows Kibbe width + curve .... I also definitely feel the width when I put on tighter outfits or outfits that are simply closer to my body where my shoulders are caught in the fabric and it just feels uncomfortable .......
@@stylebysophianicole Yeah , when I first heard about Kibbe I took the test and I constantly got TR then someone on reddit said recommended SN then I kept posting on reddit and I got a mix of SG , FG, a little of TR but mostly SN and one FN because I have a longer vertical line so I look way taller than I am in pics .... So I slowly started to notice my body shape and how clothes felt and laid on me and was happy when kibbe finally confirmed my believe .......
I've almost fully understood soft naturals. But I still don't understand how Scarlett Jo could be a sn. Like, her being a verified sn ruins the whole thing for me. I think I still don't understand this
You say we need to find the dressmaking shoulder but that people aren't familiar with this, and then you skip right on to the next point. Why do you not explain how to find this seam properly?
Do you think that someone like Barbara Palvin has width? My upper body and general proportions are very similar to hers, I just have slightly larger hips and I'm 2 cm shorter than her, so I have a hard time determining my type... ;(
![The Wall Song āļĢāđāļāļāļāđāļēāļĄāļāļģāđāļāļ | EP.213 | āļāļĢāļĩāļ āļāļąāļĐāļāļēāļāļĢ | 3 āļ.āļ. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3KrlLbCsadI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT]"āļāļļāļĨāļēāļĄāļĢāļāļ°"āļĒāđāļāļāļāļąāļāļāļģāļāļģāļāļēāļĒ āļŦāļĄāļāļāļđāļāļļāļāļŠāļēāļĒ āļāļ§āļāđāļĄāļ·āļāļāļĢāđāļāļ (āļŦāļĄāļāļāļĨāļēāļĒ āļāļāļāļŠāļāļēāļ āļ.āđāļāđāļĨāđ)I āļāļāļāļąāļāļāļąāđāļāđāļāļĨāļĩāļĒāļĢāđ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
I think a video with people with vs without width would be helpful
Agreed! That would be great!
AgreedÂē! I think 80% of people will be considered some sort of N if this rule is applied, I still think I'm missing something ð
Agree, I would love a comparison video so we can see what it looks like to have narrow or petite vs width. Like how does Florence Pugh differ from Reese Witherspoon? Why is Anne Hathaway different from Kate Blanchet? Why is Emma Stone different from Kristin Dunst?
I still don't understand without comparisons to narrow shoulders. Don't bodies naturally flare out to shoulders on everyone? Even on a confirmed types like Romantics I still see the line going out so the more videos I watch the more confused I get.
Same ðĩâðŦ
Some women are similar in width throughout the upper body. If you compare a picture of a dramatic a classic and a someone close to the old pure Natural (Like Jennifer Aniston- and make sure the pictures are all full forward facing- and use officially verified celebs)- you should be able to see the difference between D narrow, C Moderate and N width.
To finish answering your question, some women are wider at hips, than shoulders.
Your videos are hands down the best about the Kibbe system! I completely agree about "width" not being a neutral word, a lot of us don't want to have width when thinness is the beauty standard, that can definitely mess with how we understand the system.
I think what just did it for me was you using the words âflare outâ. something about that helped me tap into the intuitive. Because I feel like I naturally feel that âflaring outâ in my body when I move and walk and wear certain clothes. As long as Iâm not overthinking and just focusing on what feels accurate.
The thing you said about modern/fast fashion clothing is brilliant because it naturally has more stretch from the sides. And if remember correctly when I actually wore non-stretch fabrics like blazers or blouses I always needed movement in my arms/shoulders and would have to size up even though everything else fit perfectly. But if itâs âlooseâ (1-2cm away from my body) than it fit just fine and I wouldnât need to size up even with no stretch.
Something I have also not seen mentioned before all in one video are the different TYPES of width one may have. Mine in less in my ribcage/chest and more in my shoulder socket itself and armpits. But if I were just looking pictures of myself itâs harder to see because Iâm over analyzing and looking for obvious width âpokingâ or sticking out of my body like the wide shoulders etc
I thought your previous video on width was so easy to understand ðĪ I am surprised people don't see it yet...then again I am very familiar with clothes
I am so grateful for your videos
Thank you
Agree wholeheartedly with your typing of Zendaya, Emilia and Florence. When you see it, you see it. Now if I could only do that with myself lol Thank you so much for your videos. It's hard to get a grasp on the system with just words on forums.
@@greeksalad6111 How is Zendaya too narrow to be FN? Width is in the upper body as this video explained, you mention stuff like limbs that has zero to do with width. Her upper body stands out so much compared to the rest of her, which is exactly what âwidth in your own proportionsâ means.
@@greeksalad6111 Are you in Strictly Kibbe? I guess not, because most of what you said here is incorrect and against things *HE* has said there himself. He is the one who says width is only in the upper body/ shoulders/ upper back. Also Cate Blanchett is a verified dramatic. This channel is the only one I have found that stays true to what he has said, a lot of stuff you are mentioning sounds like it came from more questionable youtube sources.
@@greeksalad6111 Oh you went full clown mode. If you are reacting like that because someone on youtube said you are wrong, I am not the one who needs to get a life. The call is coming from inside the house.
With this I confirm my ID, I am currently losing weight and in reality the size of the tops has not changed (I sewed adjustments only in the lower part, I adjusted curve and width without realizing it ð ), I was confused because I have never been angular but yes I am wide boned and very short, thank you very much
Zendaya is a really contentious one! I can see the argument for FN, but I don't know - I feel like her essence aligns much more with "regal lady". Could be a fun video topic!
She's very sharp tbh... D is perfect for her
Well done again!
I âflare outâ in many places on my body. I thought I was a soft gamine or theatrical romantic for a long time or even a soft classic. But my nose, my shoulders, my breasts feet and hips all FLARE. Iâm a curvy trapezoid. It was confusing for so long because Iâm short but it makes sense because Iâm athletic with extra padding aka romance
This really helped clarify things for me. Thank you!
Awesome video! I didnât think you could make it any easier, but you did! I think a lot of people in these groups really just want to make their own idea about the kibbe system because they donât understand it. Causes loads of confusion. Also as a FN myself I can assure you that fast fashion does not seem to be making clothing much wider, lol ð
Itâs conversations about having âcurrentsâ or essences that also cause confusion and frankly create clear contradictions (lies).
e.g. Jackie Kennedy dresses posh so sheâs verified a dramatic classic even though not a shred of her initial features from her hair texture to her very distinct and square body shape are classic?
We have eyes and when the prevailing status quo contradicts what the eyes see itâs super confusing
It would be helpful to also compare and contrast with those who donât have width, as it just seems that most people have a thinner waist and therefore some width to their upper body? Or is it just more to the upper than lower body?
Hi, I have a question about the Scarlett Johansson image at 2:15. To me, of all the images in the video, this one stands out as showing the least width. However, I know she is a SN and I see her chest/shoulder bluntness in most other pictures of her. Does that suggest I'm misunderstanding width/horizontal? Is there something about her horizontal that is a little different or more subtle in the 2:15 image? I'm trying to be intuitive, but it feels like my intuition is failing here.
Your intuition isn't failing. There are major difficulties with talking about someone's essence /type from a single photo. Most photos are distorted in some way. This photo you mention is taken from below, so Scarlett's calves appear thicker and her shoulders are receding and appear smaller than they are in person. Therefore you are looking at a distortion.
To type someone from photos requires looking at between 50 to 100 full body shots of that person with their shoulders and arms bare; sometimes you can never find a shot that is square on, and not angled in some way. It's also 100 times easier to see the subject's type when she is standing next to another woman, as body typing is all about comparison and relativity.
The other problem is that celebrities have stylists who know how to use visual illusion to make their client look like any body type they wish. Gala event photos are the worst for this. I have seen 5'1" Lady Gaga typed as a Dramatic based solely on her costumes and her 7" platform shoes. The most authentic representation of a person to be found online is in non-modelling or non-styled situations, such as off-duty in shorts and singlet, or barefoot on the beach.
I love your videosðš
Me too âĪ
Could we have a guide for soft natural like when you have to accommodate width and a short vertical line too.
Thank you for this video, this was helpful to me.
Do you see Emilia Clarke being a potential Romantic instead? I know people tend to mix them up since Soft Natural has a Romantic essence
In my opinion she is SN through and through. Daenerys as a role was capturing the SN essence perfectly in the way Kibbe describes it, fresh and warm but also powerful.
@@stylebysophianicole Thank you for your reply! And yeah she was amazing in that role, and the costumes definitely emphasized that. I hope to see her get verified soon!
This is all still confusing. Each person seems to have a different explanation
I swore i was sg or a curvy fg like Jennifer love Hewitt because of my short height. But i couldn't ignore my width it was obvious standing next to true gamines that i was not one. I was an obvious sn
It's hard to tell when you are overweight. Like Selena Gomez people use to think she 's soft naturel
Yes,but for me she never was that wide as the youtubers described her. I always thinking: I must be blind bcs I can't see width in her.
I knew I didnât have width when I tried on a drop shoulder top and it looked off, it fit me perfectly but it just didnât look right. I looked rectangular rather than my shoulders carrying the garment.
I have only ever seen Emlia Clarke described as a romantic.
In fact, in other places they typify her as romantic, perhaps because of the roundness of her arms and face.
Most people who do Kibbe content and type others are wrong though. Aly Art had typed Lana Wood as flamboyant gamine and she is a verified soft natural AND the prime soft natural example. She just wasnât in Metamorphosis because of a typo, they had put her sister Natalie in her place (and Natalie is a verified soft gamine).
Great video! Definitely proved to me that I am
My least favorite kibbe body type lol
Naturals are some of my favourites, I hope my future videos can change your mind ð
But Naturals have so many wonderfully beautiful features within their body's structure and built. And they can really look effortlessly beautiful easily. You can also easily translate any aesthetic into any ID if you accomodate your body's features correctly. It's not that hard, if you really learn about lines, silhouettes and garment construction.
3:20 I don't have obvious width and I appear small to some people but David agreed that my line sketch shows Kibbe width + curve ....
I also definitely feel the width when I put on tighter outfits or outfits that are simply closer to my body where my shoulders are caught in the fabric and it just feels uncomfortable .......
I think even the smallest people will know, if they trust their intuition and donât overthink it!
@@stylebysophianicole Yeah , when I first heard about Kibbe I took the test and I constantly got TR then someone on reddit said recommended SN then I kept posting on reddit and I got a mix of SG , FG, a little of TR but mostly SN and one FN because I have a longer vertical line so I look way taller than I am in pics ....
So I slowly started to notice my body shape and how clothes felt and laid on me and was happy when kibbe finally confirmed my believe .......
I guess Elizabeth Taylor typed officially as romantic is in fact soft natural. What do you think?
Agreed. Jackie Kennedy is another infuriating but âverifiedâ example.
I've almost fully understood soft naturals. But I still don't understand how Scarlett Jo could be a sn. Like, her being a verified sn ruins the whole thing for me. I think I still don't understand this
âĪ
I agree except Emilia. The flesh is what gives her width
Hello. You mentioned your Instagram page again, however it still has doesn't appear to have any posts.
Hi! Iâll start uploading there soon, I am working on it!
You say we need to find the dressmaking shoulder but that people aren't familiar with this, and then you skip right on to the next point. Why do you not explain how to find this seam properly?
Do you think that someone like Barbara Palvin has width?
My upper body and general proportions are very similar to hers, I just have slightly larger hips and I'm 2 cm shorter than her, so I have a hard time determining my type... ;(
âĪâĻ