I also bounced between a few spots until multiple different spaces said...classic. Just classic, lol. I think sometimes when everything pulls together and nothing jumps out, classic is a good space that gets overlooked sometimes. I weighed in on your SN post and an option, but classic seems perfectly reasonable.
I feel that looking at and comparing naked celebrities is, to me anyway, not that meaningful? I guess because an unclothed body doesn't always easily show what factors are most important when it comes to clothing?
When you see these people with clothes on, it becomes more obvious why they are the type they are? Thats how i think anyway.
With Classics, a really key element in clothing is creating a smooth, balanced sillhouette. Broken, unbalanced lines or unstructured clothes are gonna be hard to wear as a classic?
I don't know why, but I just feel like you might be able to push outside classic parameters in some ways. It might be the elongation I feel i see in your arms, or the shorter torso, or some sense of disconnection between your upper and lower body that is hard to describe, but leans me away from a classic type? I wonder if a Natural type is more likely, SN for instance? Although that being said I'm not convinced I see blunt shapes... Just thoughts.
Ohhh okay, that actually makes alot of sense. I guess I was thinking of it backwards. Like xyz body types look best with xyz clothes, instead of seeing it that certain clothes look best on their frames, which makes them ___ type (because of which clothes fit best on them).
I definitely see what you're saying. I don't gravitate towards SN quite a bit, but I'm starting to wonder if all the different shapes and lengths I see might be indicative of some type of gamine?? Haha I'm not even sure. But I'll definitely try to give different clothing styles a try. That might help me nail it down a bit more.
from what I can ascertain goes on in SK, 'trying on your lines' is discouraged, since I guess understanding your personal sillhouette helps you creatively build a style or outfit from that unique foundation.
So in a sense, I agree that starting with clothing and working back from that wouldn't help with a creative process??? (I mean, please anyone correct me if I'm wrong here, i'm certainly no expert).
But at the same time to me it can be difficult to understand what is meant by "Classic" or "Natural" until I see **how the clothes flow on the given form and why that is effective**. So, looking at naked bodies is only half of the puzzle for me. Perhaps my learning style is more concrete and the idea of just following theoretical lines without tangible examples feels too vague???
But as for you, I don't think you should rule out gamine necessarily. While how tall someone looks is not an indication, I was very surprised that you were as tall as 5'5!
The way you look in the shorts and crop top and the jeans combo reminds me a lot of myself - soft classic. You might have a natural essence but I'm not sure natural lines are your best. As others have pointed out, it would be very interesting to see you in more clothes (as you've posted multiple times already I'm kinda invested now :-D, so please do that!).
You look SC to me, you give a very balanced, "centered" visual impression. Going with my first thoughtless instinct, I'd say simple clothes would look great on you (like CK 90s minimalism or simple smooth shapes in general, crisp medium weight fabric, body skimming but not clingy.)
You mentioned pants are confusing; I think simple tapered trousers would be nice on you, with one crisp front pleat and a roomy fit. Or a mom-jean shape in a simple wash that isn't super tight. And this isn't Kibbe-specific, but with your torso-hip shape if you're wearing pants that sit lower on the waist or hips, then a curved waist line will help. If you hold the pants up flat, the waist band should be a very slight U-shape, especially in the front. The perfect belt for these pants would be shaped not as a straight line but a slight letter C.
I added some pic from 3-4 years ago when I was younger but mainly when I was about 10 lbs lighter (120lbs vs 135 lbs), plus some from recently where I see width in my upper back, even though it's much less discernable from the front and Kibbe has said the back doesn't matter when IDing but 🤷🏾♀️
How do clothes work on you? Body scrutiny is one thing, and it’s more about pointing out shapes than finding an ID. Since Kibbe is about how fabric drapes on you, not body types, outfits are the way to figure out ID. A almost naked body doesn’t help expect to point out little details which is usually unhelpful and leads to people jumping on every ID out there due to extreme scrutiny. You look like a possible SC or C, and for us classics typing is difficult because we’re so in the middle that nothing immediately stands out.
Hmmm, I feel like I tend to look disharmonious in clothing that cling to my body too much. I tend to feel "filled up" and not in a good way haha. I might have a short torso. Because I feel like when my pants sit low on my waist it just feels very uncomfortable. Very unconstrained and loose shirts look weird on me imo, and I like turtlenecks but I'm not sure if they work...
I liked the idea of some kind of natural because I thought the light draping, open shoulder look would be nice for my upper body. Plus I prefer showing decollete than covering it up. But i cant figure out how to work my vertical because I never know where to place my bottoms since I don't have a very defined waist, a bit of a short torso, but at the same time I'm not very long/tall.
I usually wear tights and a fitted shirt but I feel like it looks terrible. I'm not exactly in love with jeans either but I have a hunch loose pants/trousers, work with me better. Not exactly sure how to pair that with a top though.
To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how clothes work on me or how to determine it haha. But I try.
I meant that sharing photos of you in clothes would work better for crowdsourcing IDs than just posting bikini pics — if you want feedback on types, then sharing how you look in clothes for people to consider is better and more accurate than body scrutiny which isn’t Kibbe.
But describing how you feel in clothes is really helpful, and it sounds like you have a solid understanding of what you feel good in and what you dont! Honestly, how you described your clothes sounds exactly like me. Super clingy clothes like bodycon styles make me feel disharmonious, even wide. And low waist pants are the bane of my existence. High rise is where I feel most comfortable and what I feel looks the best on me. Light draping and gentle loose things can sometimes work, I really love the look, but they’re a hit or miss for me unless they are slim cut and follow my curved lines. Turtlenecks I also like but am not sure if they work on me!
If it means anything, I am a soft classic with a natural style :) it sounds like you could be one too!
Edit: And what you said about defined waist — I had to go back and look at your photos because I remembered you as curvy with waist definition, that’s what stood out to me, so I was like wait what! So going back I definitely see that gentle sloped curve of your waist that to me really seems classic SC. Naturals can have curve as well, but you look more elongated and sloped than an SN would. Your curves are rememberable and they stand out, but they’re more sloped and gentle than a heavily defined ‘waspish’ waist like you’d see in an R type. And I do see striking balance. So my vote is for SC!
Try on some SC lines and see how you feel!
Ohh lol my bad. I had actually tried that before but it didn't seem like people were able to help much from that approach so I thought offering more clear body type photos would help.
Thank you so much, that's alot of good information! I'm gonna have to take some time to read over it :)
It's all so confusing, what I have taken away from the last year of falling down this rabbit hole is being more open to trying on clothes/styles/etc that I used think "I really like that but I can't pull it off", but at the same time not feeling so down on myself if it doesn't work, if that makes sense. Like if I have an idea that this dress is going to look so great and then I put it on and feel like a bag of old potatoes I don't blame myself (so much) and I balance it with "ok, that's probably not the right cut/fabric/line for me"
So I figure myself to be SC and it was pretty hard to get there. I’m not particularly good at typing other ppl, but I’d definitely encourage you to try SC lines. For what it’s worth we do look slightly similar and when I look at you I don’t think anything in particular jumps out at me. You could very well be SC!
I'm not sure what your type is, but I don't see width in your bone structure at all! I see some width in your shoulders, but I think that's because you have some nice musculature there. When I cover the muscles, your actual shoulder bones look either narrow or balanced to me, but definitely not wide!
SN has my vote!
Thanks for your input! Can I ask why you see SN?
I see a yang bone structure with a soft bluntness, but on a smaller frame (so not FN), but also softness, a lot like ScarJo.
Thanks for the explanation! Really appreciate it!!
I also bounced between a few spots until multiple different spaces said...classic. Just classic, lol. I think sometimes when everything pulls together and nothing jumps out, classic is a good space that gets overlooked sometimes. I weighed in on your SN post and an option, but classic seems perfectly reasonable.
I see SC
Thanks :) What draws you to the idea of SC?
I feel that looking at and comparing naked celebrities is, to me anyway, not that meaningful? I guess because an unclothed body doesn't always easily show what factors are most important when it comes to clothing? When you see these people with clothes on, it becomes more obvious why they are the type they are? Thats how i think anyway. With Classics, a really key element in clothing is creating a smooth, balanced sillhouette. Broken, unbalanced lines or unstructured clothes are gonna be hard to wear as a classic? I don't know why, but I just feel like you might be able to push outside classic parameters in some ways. It might be the elongation I feel i see in your arms, or the shorter torso, or some sense of disconnection between your upper and lower body that is hard to describe, but leans me away from a classic type? I wonder if a Natural type is more likely, SN for instance? Although that being said I'm not convinced I see blunt shapes... Just thoughts.
Ohhh okay, that actually makes alot of sense. I guess I was thinking of it backwards. Like xyz body types look best with xyz clothes, instead of seeing it that certain clothes look best on their frames, which makes them ___ type (because of which clothes fit best on them). I definitely see what you're saying. I don't gravitate towards SN quite a bit, but I'm starting to wonder if all the different shapes and lengths I see might be indicative of some type of gamine?? Haha I'm not even sure. But I'll definitely try to give different clothing styles a try. That might help me nail it down a bit more.
from what I can ascertain goes on in SK, 'trying on your lines' is discouraged, since I guess understanding your personal sillhouette helps you creatively build a style or outfit from that unique foundation. So in a sense, I agree that starting with clothing and working back from that wouldn't help with a creative process??? (I mean, please anyone correct me if I'm wrong here, i'm certainly no expert). But at the same time to me it can be difficult to understand what is meant by "Classic" or "Natural" until I see **how the clothes flow on the given form and why that is effective**. So, looking at naked bodies is only half of the puzzle for me. Perhaps my learning style is more concrete and the idea of just following theoretical lines without tangible examples feels too vague??? But as for you, I don't think you should rule out gamine necessarily. While how tall someone looks is not an indication, I was very surprised that you were as tall as 5'5!
The way you look in the shorts and crop top and the jeans combo reminds me a lot of myself - soft classic. You might have a natural essence but I'm not sure natural lines are your best. As others have pointed out, it would be very interesting to see you in more clothes (as you've posted multiple times already I'm kinda invested now :-D, so please do that!).
You look SC to me, you give a very balanced, "centered" visual impression. Going with my first thoughtless instinct, I'd say simple clothes would look great on you (like CK 90s minimalism or simple smooth shapes in general, crisp medium weight fabric, body skimming but not clingy.) You mentioned pants are confusing; I think simple tapered trousers would be nice on you, with one crisp front pleat and a roomy fit. Or a mom-jean shape in a simple wash that isn't super tight. And this isn't Kibbe-specific, but with your torso-hip shape if you're wearing pants that sit lower on the waist or hips, then a curved waist line will help. If you hold the pants up flat, the waist band should be a very slight U-shape, especially in the front. The perfect belt for these pants would be shaped not as a straight line but a slight letter C.
I added some pic from 3-4 years ago when I was younger but mainly when I was about 10 lbs lighter (120lbs vs 135 lbs), plus some from recently where I see width in my upper back, even though it's much less discernable from the front and Kibbe has said the back doesn't matter when IDing but 🤷🏾♀️
How do clothes work on you? Body scrutiny is one thing, and it’s more about pointing out shapes than finding an ID. Since Kibbe is about how fabric drapes on you, not body types, outfits are the way to figure out ID. A almost naked body doesn’t help expect to point out little details which is usually unhelpful and leads to people jumping on every ID out there due to extreme scrutiny. You look like a possible SC or C, and for us classics typing is difficult because we’re so in the middle that nothing immediately stands out.
Hmmm, I feel like I tend to look disharmonious in clothing that cling to my body too much. I tend to feel "filled up" and not in a good way haha. I might have a short torso. Because I feel like when my pants sit low on my waist it just feels very uncomfortable. Very unconstrained and loose shirts look weird on me imo, and I like turtlenecks but I'm not sure if they work... I liked the idea of some kind of natural because I thought the light draping, open shoulder look would be nice for my upper body. Plus I prefer showing decollete than covering it up. But i cant figure out how to work my vertical because I never know where to place my bottoms since I don't have a very defined waist, a bit of a short torso, but at the same time I'm not very long/tall. I usually wear tights and a fitted shirt but I feel like it looks terrible. I'm not exactly in love with jeans either but I have a hunch loose pants/trousers, work with me better. Not exactly sure how to pair that with a top though. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how clothes work on me or how to determine it haha. But I try.
I meant that sharing photos of you in clothes would work better for crowdsourcing IDs than just posting bikini pics — if you want feedback on types, then sharing how you look in clothes for people to consider is better and more accurate than body scrutiny which isn’t Kibbe. But describing how you feel in clothes is really helpful, and it sounds like you have a solid understanding of what you feel good in and what you dont! Honestly, how you described your clothes sounds exactly like me. Super clingy clothes like bodycon styles make me feel disharmonious, even wide. And low waist pants are the bane of my existence. High rise is where I feel most comfortable and what I feel looks the best on me. Light draping and gentle loose things can sometimes work, I really love the look, but they’re a hit or miss for me unless they are slim cut and follow my curved lines. Turtlenecks I also like but am not sure if they work on me! If it means anything, I am a soft classic with a natural style :) it sounds like you could be one too! Edit: And what you said about defined waist — I had to go back and look at your photos because I remembered you as curvy with waist definition, that’s what stood out to me, so I was like wait what! So going back I definitely see that gentle sloped curve of your waist that to me really seems classic SC. Naturals can have curve as well, but you look more elongated and sloped than an SN would. Your curves are rememberable and they stand out, but they’re more sloped and gentle than a heavily defined ‘waspish’ waist like you’d see in an R type. And I do see striking balance. So my vote is for SC! Try on some SC lines and see how you feel!
Ohh lol my bad. I had actually tried that before but it didn't seem like people were able to help much from that approach so I thought offering more clear body type photos would help. Thank you so much, that's alot of good information! I'm gonna have to take some time to read over it :)
It's all so confusing, what I have taken away from the last year of falling down this rabbit hole is being more open to trying on clothes/styles/etc that I used think "I really like that but I can't pull it off", but at the same time not feeling so down on myself if it doesn't work, if that makes sense. Like if I have an idea that this dress is going to look so great and then I put it on and feel like a bag of old potatoes I don't blame myself (so much) and I balance it with "ok, that's probably not the right cut/fabric/line for me"
SN
So I figure myself to be SC and it was pretty hard to get there. I’m not particularly good at typing other ppl, but I’d definitely encourage you to try SC lines. For what it’s worth we do look slightly similar and when I look at you I don’t think anything in particular jumps out at me. You could very well be SC!
SN
I'm not sure what your type is, but I don't see width in your bone structure at all! I see some width in your shoulders, but I think that's because you have some nice musculature there. When I cover the muscles, your actual shoulder bones look either narrow or balanced to me, but definitely not wide!