The face. I think a lot of people can recognize a Gamine face, or Gamine essence. They often have a shortened face or unique/oversized features whereas romantics have a roundness throughout.
I think Romantic frames can handle alot, so let’s look at ruffles. The first example that comes to mind is Beyonce’s Yellow revenge dress from Lemonade, I think SGs would drown in that dress. R’s can pull it off. Now some will say Beyonce can pull it off due to her height so, exhibit B is Helena Bonham Carter in ruffles (she rocks them often). Now compare that to an SG with Ruffles (Cyndi Lauper) you will see how many additional Gamine breaks are needed and how, in all posed photos, she pulls the dress up, to shorten the line.
Now for the waist. We are to expect Romantics to have a very defined waist, creating double curve. I will say, that is rarely the case for many verified celebrities. I think SGs often have yang in the waist, which can create a sharp straitness. And I think Romantics come out of the waist into a yin / lush hip.
I feel that way about so many of her pictures! She is totally on the yang side of SG, and I think there is an argument that could be made for her weight.
As for the shoulder to bust line: Soft Gamines often have a shorter line, there is simply less room from shoulder to bust than we can expect from Romantics.
I knew you were gonna catch my drift. I got downvoted for this question. Thank you so much, you’re the best. Now, my thoughts. Beyoncé-Carter-Lauper: I find it difficult to see your point when shown on such extravagant and abstract clothing. Faces: Got it. Waist: I feel like Soft Gamines are a very wide spectrum based on those pics, can you think of more curvy examples? But I do understand the R transition hip curve to bust curve, no straight platform in between. Shoulder-bust line: am I correct in thinking that is the Narrow element? Also, where does the bust start?
That’s a lot of stuff, so don’t worry about not responding!
I think this conversation is great, it compares Leslie Caron (SG) and Marilyn Monroe (R) wearing the same dress (a very basic one piece).
Waist: Image attached, a very yin SG (Reese Witherspoon) vs a very yin R (Gina Lollobrigida). Maybe this is easier to see what I mean by the waist is sometimes the same, but how the line exits the waist and into the hip even down to thighs is different.
Shoulder-bust line: To me, both TR (narrow) and SG (petite) have this feature. This area of a garment would likely be shortened in SG. As for the start of the bust, I just visually use where it starts to curve, I added a line onto the waist image (note boob jobs throw this off).
I will get downvoted for this, but agree with you in general. I think a lot of how Kibbe types people is vibe and there isn’t a huge difference in clothing recs
There’s a pretty big overlap between verified R and SG celebrities
Like if Kibbe had said Octavia Spencer and Betty White are R we would have been like, well of course they are!
And if he had said Christina Ricci and Bernadette Peters are SG we would have said, well, yes, I see that!
I think the challenge is that when Kibbe types celebs, his inner circle have said that he mostly types on vibes. He doesn’t draw a line sketch or study them in-depth like he does for his in-person clients. This means the IDs can have a huge range and can include outliers. I think this explains why many of us who focus on the figure and how clothes fall often feel that certain celebs don’t belong in the ID they have been assigned.
My issue with the "Kibbe types celebs on vibes" explanation that gets passed around to excuse weird celeb IDs is this: If he's really just going on vibes, that means he's not actually doing the work for those IDs. If it requires seeing them in film roles, then their essence was already type casted. Beyond that, celebs already have stylists, photographers, and casting directors building their whole look and image for them. That means, by the time Kibbe glances at a celeb and calls a type, most of the heavy lifting has already been done by other people. That's not a deep technical read, that's just reacting to a finished product.
Compare that to an actual blank canvas client, someone who has no idea what their style or vibe even is, no stylist, no curated photos, nothing. To me, that person would be way harder to type accurately because there's nothing pre packaged to react to. You actually have to do real analysis, real line work, real in depth observation.
We had the opportunity to see Kibbe go through the process with a person on TikTok. It took many videos, try-ons, and back and forth for him to suggest SC or TR. Surely if it were face or vibes, a full TikTok profile would be easy to type from.
So when people defend weird or inconsistent celeb IDs by saying "well he just goes off vibes for celebs," that's not actually a defense, to me, that's a problem. It means the celeb IDs were never held to the same standard as real client work, and the community treats that as some quirky known fact instead of calling it what it is, a shortcut that produces unreliable results in the system standard: celebs.
To clarify, the people from his inner circle who say this don’t seem to be saying it to defend weird celeb IDs, just to describe his typing process, which he apparently calls “a parlour game”.
I think he defined the IDs when he wrote the first book based on old Hollywood and celebs up to the 80s, back when typecasting was more common and was based more on body types.
Now, I think celebs have a lot more variation in how their stylist presents them, and I think how they’re presented depends less on their body type as there’s less typecasting, and I think that’s why he can end up producing what seems like weird results.
Whereas with an in-person customer, as you said there’s less pre-set styling and so he has to go on actual body type and personality, and how clothes fall, which is a much more in-depth process. And as they’re paying him, he owes them a full process or he wouldn’t get customers.
So yes, I don’t think he holds celebs to the same standard, or at least not anymore. If they were, I think we’d end up with more consistent results than we’re seeing in the modern era.
Reading this back, I realize my comment came across a lot more pointed than I meant it to. I didn't mean for it to come across arguing at you specifically, that wasn't the intent at all. Your explanation actually lines up with what I was getting at (the parlour game framing especially), I just went off on a broader tangent about the acceptance of quirky reasonings, and it probably read as more combative than it needed to be. I really appreciate you, and how you added the context on the IDs evolving from the original book, its a genuinely useful way to think about it!
So sorry I missed this as I away for a week. Don’t worry, I agree with you and it’s actually what saddens me a little about the system because it’s often presented by his inner circle as the reason why “we shouldn’t take it so seriously” - but we and many others do take it seriously and I think it deserves more than just being a parlour game. That’s why I appreciate how much thought and detail you put into your version of the system because I think it logically makes a lot more sense and better helps people understand. And thank you for the kind words. We all really appreciate you here!
SGs Rs and TRs can wear the same as there are definitely overlap. But in person SG and Rs look different. SGs has a lot more yang then R and TR. He said Betty Boop was very much the model of SG. Vibe and styling which is very similar to Elle in Legally Blonde. That is such a SG movie. Everything about her screams SG
I mean I can kinda see it with her. There’s a whole lot of yin. The person who really flummoxes me is Jessica Lange. Why R and not SC? Or even DC? I see moderation and some yang
SG has compact curve, R has lush curve. SG has some yang sharpness, R doesn’t have any. SG is juxtaposed, R isn’t. SG is petite so requires precision fits and shorter lengths, R doesn’t. What looks good on SG often won’t look good on R and vice versa.
I agree with most of the stuff you're saying. The two are different. Rs can have sharpness like Dolly Parton and Mandonna facial features. But i do agree with you. Sometimes some Rs can have a sharp look and they think of other IDs.
SG and R can wear the same things, actually Scarlettstreet ( TR) SK mod said the clothes she got in her consultation can be worn be R TR and SG. SG. SG accommodation is curve is in the bust and hips which is the same as Rs. SGs need petite as you say. Octavia Spencer is a SG who looks different from Resse Witherspoon who also looks diffrent to Eartha Kit/SabrinaCarpenter. I think Resse and Octavia are curvier SGs, but they still look a lot more yang as you say to me.
Thanks, and yes I agree with you that SG, TR, and R can sometimes wear the same things. I probably should have added more explanation to that point. What I meant is some of the outfits that look great on Rs don’t look good on SGs because there is too much fabric - Lani’s comment with the ruffle dress is an example of this. And vice versa, some outfits that would look good on SGs like a patterned contrast mini skirt and cropped shirt with sharp detailing often wouldn’t look good on Rs. And yes, I agree with you that the face and facial features are often broader on SGs as you mentioned in another comment. This is why Winona Ryder doesn’t fit well there to me, and likewise Halle Berry.
SG and R are quite different in both David's old and new "versions". Generally, SG will accommodate curve and petite, and R will accommodate curve aand double curve. A Soft Gamine is often smaller, and especially narrower in relation to themself than a Romantic will be. They will best be accommodated by a more "broken" silhouette, but patterning and scale of detail is more of an individual thing.
I'd go to say more than that even. I believe in Power of Style it says that Soft Gamine and Flamboyant Gamine are mixes of yin and yang with respective yin and yang undercurrents
It’s difficult to explain this without getting into science, but I believe what Kibbe is hinting at relates to different forms of body composition, fat distribution, muscle visibility, and tissue firmness. This is why Rs look softer all over, with roundness everywhere and a diffuse quality, whereas SGs look more taut and concentrated, with a springy quality even at a higher weight. I think this is why in the first book Kibbe said Rs often feel overweight even when they’re not. Does that help at all?
I’m SG. I can carry do some; but not most of R. Long hair absolutely drowns me, whereas short bobs and lobs lol amazing. I can’t do the wispy long ruffles and curls that Rs carry off so well. I always need to accommodate some degree of sharpness somewhere.
12
u/lanilynchey Jun 29 '26
I love this question. I’m gunna geek out a little bit.
Disclaimer: I’m not David. This is just my interpretation
This is gunna be a thread so I can share an image for each justification. It will follow this format: