Kibbe Types: Separating the Revolutionary from the Nonsense
When we compare teenage photos of iconic celebrities to recent photos, they’ve usually changed quite a bit, and they’ve fine tuned a specific look that makes their uniqueness even more beautiful. Once they’ve found their signature look, they don’t tend to stray from it. Because it works!
Look at Cher. Jennifer Anniston, Marilyn Monroe, Naomi Campbell, Dakota Johnson…. When you think of them, you think of a perfected signature look that is distinctly them. We know they have stylists. They have professional help. Us normal folk, have the internet. And that’s how we found Kibbe.
Kibbe’s system promises that the 7 billion people on the planet all fit into 5 main types and many more sub types. When you see examples of the celebrities who have been typed, it starts to make sense quickly… until you want to type yourself and that’s when it feels like self determining your star sign by reading each of the 12 horoscopes. It gets messy, stressy and depressy quite quickly.
Most people get incredibly frustrated while trying to type themselves to find their perfect style… but can’t decide what ‘type’ is most likely. So they remain “style stuck” and nothing changes because they don’t want to invest in themselves until they are 1000000% sure they are taking a bet on the right look.
Here’s what I think is helpful about kibbes system and what isn’t.
Helpful to most people:
Perceived Width
Perceived length
Ying
Yang
(That’s it)
Not helpful and very confusing to most people:
Dramatic
Natural
Classic
Romantic
Gamine
Small hands?!
Large ears?!
Specific height guides that Kibbe himself disregards often aka SJP as a flamboyant natural
(I could go on)
Many people offer to tell you your type, but technically they can’t tell you, they can only give their opinion because Kibbe doesn’t teach his system as of yet, so no one is trained in his system. We are all self taught (including Kibbe).
Where someone like me and other stylists can help is looking at you and telling you what we see and where you are likely to fall in his system, but his recommendations are based on 80s style, and they look very outdated.
If you see some of the make overs he’s done in recent years, they look good, but a bit exaggerated and unsustainable for your average woman.If we take the helpful parts of his system, we can use these data points to make decisions.
Do you want to look more feminine? Do you need to accommodate width? Do ruffles and puff sleeves make you look like a flower girl or absolutely fabulous? Are there any insecurities that you want to minimise? How much skin are you comfortable with showing if a v neck is your best neckline? Do you want to create balance or do you want to lean into creating more of an extreme look?
Here’s what balance looks like:
Example: Princess Catherine of Wales (Kate Middleton)
Very tall
Very lean
Shoulder dominant Yang frame (inverted triangle)
Strong jaw and facial structure
Bouncy blowdries
Soft feminine make up
Feminine draped fabrics
Midi skirts and dresses
Heels
Florals and polka dots
Feminine fabrics (chiffon, crepes, satin, pleats)
Noticeable jewellery
Dainty handbags
Here’s what leaning in looks like:
Example: Lady gaga
Strong jaw, nose and facial features
Angular frame
Rectangle
Petite
Dark hair and eyes
Bleach blonde hair
Strong make up (sometimes drag like)
Sharp masculine or futuristic tailoring
Atypical or eye catching fabrics
Exaggerated accessories
Sharp and well styled hair that does not move
Both women have Yang features, they have different goals for their looks. One is to soften, one is to exaggerate.
There are also a few few people who like to swing both ways. Not like that! Like Taylor Swift. Look at her eras and you will see how she uses her hair, curly or straight, and her outfits, ruffles or sleek, to decide what ‘essence’ or ‘type cast’ she wants to give off. E.g. Princess, girl next door, siren, villain.
Depending on your goal, I can show you how.
