Taylor Swift Kibbe Body Type, Lily Cole Kibbe Body Type. Why They AREN’T Gamine

Why Taylor Swift and Lily Cole don’t belong to any Gamine type. Explanation of height in Kibbe body type system

What is the first rule of any good research? Going to the source material. We could drown in a sea – no, ocean – of bad information and misintepretation if we’d believe everything that’s out there. And sadly, this is what’s happening now to the Kibbe body type system.

It so happens that David Kibbe published his book Metamorphosis back in 1987. It also just so happened that since then he didn’t publish any updated version of it (although you can learn from him on Facebook). Fast-forward 30 years and here we go, drowning in that bad ocean of misinterpretations. In my opinion, it’s okay if people just misinterpret his system and consider it as yet another system that puts people in boxes, then forget it and go on with their lives.

In my opinion, the shit hits the fan when a person calls themselves a ‘stylist’ and starts to offer consults on Kibbe for ACTUAL MONEY. While also coming up with a range of ‘drawbacks’ for the original Kibbe system without understanding the system. While twisting and turning it into a Frankenstein of some ‘new system’ of their own. To make money off of it. David Kibbe strives to keep only positive energy and probably isn’t the type of person to go to court with such case. As for me, this is my attempt to give legit information to people about Kibbe system, especially the role of height in it.

So, Kibbe is very clear about height in the Yin-Yang balance. If you’re tall like these two gorgeous ladies, you already have A LOT of Yang in you. I am not a Kibbe system expert (only David Kibbe is), but being this tall and narrow would probably already end up to a great deal of Yang. Add small eyes, sharp nose, sharp shoulders, long limbs, taut flesh, small lips (Lily) and we get a dominant Yang, which makes these ladies Dramatic (can’t tell about Lily, but Taylor is a verified Dramatic by David Kibbe himself).

If a person is around the height of Taylor and Lily, they will probably end up in one of these ‘tall’ categories: Dramatic, Soft Dramatic, or Flamboyant Natural. If a person is moderate to short height, they have more options because they can look taller than they are. Tall people look tall simply due to their height – they can’t have a short vertical line.

Now the question is: if you are tall, should you be squeezing yourself into Gamine category? By the way, David Kibbe removed pure Gamine as well as pure Natural and pure Classic to make the system more concise, so it’s either Flamboyant Gamine or Soft Gamine. Should you now be trying to break your gorgeous long vertical line with color blocking? Contrasting belts? Should you try to wear small swirly accessories (Soft Gamine recommended shape) that will NEVER accentuate your natural beauty? The answer is a resounding NO.

The problem with these ‘stylists’ and ‘Kibbe experts’ who ‘learned’ from Pinterest pictures is that they contort Kibbe system into the system of boxes, while Kibbe encourages to celebrate your beauty as it is and go along with it.

He asks, “are you an Amazon or a mouse?” Because freedom is for the Amazons, boxes are for mice.

Now, will you embrace your features or will you believe those who strive to put you in a box? 

I go with the first option, always.

Love,

Alex

P.S. If you’d like to get notified every time I post, subscribe to my blog below. Quality of my content is very important to me and the only way I’ll develop this blog is by contantly improving it. I sincerely appreciate every subscriber and will deliver the best posts.

My other posts on Kibbe’s Metamorphosis:

Soft Natural vs Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples

How I actually use Kibbe’s system w/examples

Waist Shape in Kibbe System. Waistline and Yin-Yang Balance

How I got to know & love Kibbe’s Metamorphosis: My story (feat. ‘Soft Gamine syndrome’)

10 Myths About Kibbe That Ruin It For You

Why Rihanna ISN’T a Theatrical Romantic 

Meaning of Yin and Yang in Kibbe System

5 Reasons why you struggle to find your image identity in Kibbe’s system

Height in Kibbe: why Taylor Swift, Lily Cole, and Zendaya AREN’T Gamine

What Kibbe gets right and the ‘fruit body types’ get wrong

The philosophy in Kibbe’s system

Author: Alexandra @YouAndMeAndCupOfCoffee.com

Passionate researcher and writer. Coffee maniac. Pilates enthusiast. Makeup and skincare junkie. Occasionally - movie and book reviewer. Come join me on my quest!

12 thoughts on “Taylor Swift Kibbe Body Type, Lily Cole Kibbe Body Type. Why They AREN’T Gamine”

  1. I take it you have seen Merriam Styles videos. I am a 159cm Gamine, who is extremely baffled by giant women being classified as petite. a small frame equals small structured clothes and the larger person requires the opposite. Merriam has some good points about some things but she has gone way off into another realm as her channel progresses. Nice lady though.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hello, yes, as I was researching Kibbe system back in the day I stumbled upon her videos and was equally baffled, which is why I wrote this post in the first place. What this woman talks about is nonsense and has nothing to do with Kibbe system, and I wouldn’t refer to her as ‘nice’ or ‘lady’ because she exploits Kibbe’s name to get people to click on her videos and pay her for typings in a system that’s not Kibbe at all. I got attacked multiple times by her followers simply for discussing this system the way I understand David Kibbe presents it, even though I never directly bash her or anyone else – I just share my thoughts on my own blog.
      A lot of people do what she’s doing, so I just generalize them all as ‘self-proclaimed Kibbe experts’ cuz David Kibbe doesn’t certify anyone to practice his system, which makes anyone who offers paid typings a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ (it’s none of my business what she’s doing – I write about Kibbe because of my own passion for the topic). She’s spreading a lot of bad information about Kibbe system, which confuses people a lot (like saying one can ignore height or focusing on ‘babyface’ – it’s got nothing to do with the real Kibbe system). I know she tried to distance herself from Kibbe by simply renaming the image identities, but then quickly turned back, I assume because this didn’t work in terms of YouTube views. The truth is, anyone can use Kibbe system without even having the book or anyone else’s help and there’s even a Facebook group where David Kibbe posts and answers questions. In my opinion, these ‘experts’ do exactly what David Kibbe stands against – creating ‘boxes’ and ‘types’ for women to fit in, perpetuating these silly stereotypes (like ‘babyface’), instead of really embracing their own features. Moreover, they present Kibbe system as something extremely convoluted and complicated (either from not understanding the system or in order to purposely confuse people and motivate them to pay for typings), while it’s not. Finally, the sheer amount of passive aggressive attitude towards David Kibbe himself is terrible and comes from these fake ‘experts’ – they present him as some kind of out of this world man, who didn’t even try to explain his system to anyone, who is biased towards certain image IDs, etc… Just a sad thing to look at, especially because Kibbe system was genuinely life-changing for me (I learned from the book excerpts and his website) and helped me so much. I’d love to share my understanding of Kibbe system on my blog more, but the negativity that surrounds Kibbe system completely discourage me.

      Like

      1. I actually got scammed (giving out misinformations for money is scamming for me) by Merriam last year. I know, i was the silly one to purchase a “Kibbe typing consultation”. I was naive and very new to the Kibbe system. She typed me as FG as she does with many peope, in the Kibbe subreddit there were quite a few SD/D/FN who got typed as SG/FG by her. I am 5’7 btw, so nowhere near petite and i was confused for a few months because FG recomendations just didn’t worked well for me. I figured out by myself (I’m DC) but it would have been easier without Merriam and I would still have that 100 USD or so that i spent on her.
        I wish there would be more people in the community like you. I tried to explain to so many people before why Rihanna is not TR, Audrey Hepburn is not FG (they are just representing the vibe/image identity in my opinion) and Taylor Swift is not Gamine, but they are quite agressive about it. Anyway, I like your blog so much!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. This is just appaling. I’m so sorry that these fake Kibbe ‘experts’ exist and profit off of people who simply want to understand their features better and learn how to apply this knowledge to build great outfits. This is wrong for several reasons: David Kibbe doesn’t certify anyone to plactice his system like this, typings can’t be done by pictures (there’s always distortions), there’s no guarantee these people even understand what they are talking about (IMO, what they are saying about Kibbe system indicates the exact opposite situation), filming YT videos doesn’t make anyone an expert, and, most importantly, anyone can determine their Kibbe image identity themselves if they get the right information.
        These self-proclaimed ‘experts’ present the systen in such a confusing way that it seems impossible to understand on one’s own, which is what draws more people to buy their services. Moreover, as far as I understand, they monitor blogs like mine for Kibbe content and write nasty derogatory comments about David Kibbe and how his system is just impossible to learn. There’s just no excuse for – let’s be frank – lies and deceit. Of course, everyone makes their own decisions, but I wish it would become more known that these ‘experts’ who offer Kibbe typings don’t reveal (or misinterpret) this system for their own benefit. Trully dreadful, unethical behavior.
        I have to share my thoughts on Audrey Hepburn, because it was a real puzzle for me. Some verified examples don’t make sense to me (e.g. 5’7” Hedy Lamarr as a TR – I saw her in a movie alongside really petite actresses and she didn’t look even nearly delicate and petite) and Audrey was one of them. She was 5’7”, which is on the tall side (the book says FG is 5’6” and under). To me a quintessential FG is someone like Liza Minelli – broadly angular, but petite. So I was left with a question mark in my head at first and started thinking which image identity would fit Audrey Hepburn instead, where she was on the Yin-Yang scale, but her height threw me off every time. I’m a big aficionado of the old Hollywood and was watching ‘The Children’s Hour’ where Audrey plays beside a FN Shirley MacLaine and then it occured to me how much smaller, more lithe and delicate Audrey’s features were compared to Shirley MacLaine’s. Audrey completely lacks the width, her main Yang comes from height only (that come with long limbs). So, here’s what I think: she’s too delicate for a Dramatic (even if Dramatics are narrow, they still have prominent bone structure – Aurey’s bone structure is small and sharp), too narrow for any Natural (they have more ‘substantial’ so to speak bone structure), too angular for any Romantic (R are dominated by rounded features), not balanced enough for a Classic (her features go on either Yin or Yang of the spectrum, but almost never the middle or average, besides too much visible angularity). Now I’d say Audrey Hepburn doesn’t fit anywhere else besides FG. Truly, she’s not petite, but I think it’s that extra Yang in height that gives her the Yin-Yang with a slight Yang surplus. She’s tall, but her major characteristic would probably be delicate angularity, sharpness (in her time, she was always considered to be the opposite to extreme Yin Marylin Monroe). She’s Yang-dominated, but her delicate features provide enough Yin to make her a combination of opposites.
        I can’t stand all the aggression and negativity in the forums about Kibbe. This system should be easy and fun, and bickering about anything and refusing to explain or discuss it in a civil manner doesn’t benefit anyone. I avoid these forums same as YouTube channels about Kibbe like the plague 😅
        Oh by the way, that’s my absolute favorite way to investigate Kibbe – watch old Hollywood movies! Back in the day the actresses couldn’t change their features so much, so the old Hollywood stars are more reliable examples than modern celebs. Besides, pictures always distort the features in one way or another, but in movies you can definitely see how a person actually looks like. I remember first watching Bette Davis in ‘All About Eve’ – from the very first glimpse I saw her SG shape.
        I’m so happy you enjoy my blog! It’s so awesome that you’ve discovered your image identity yourself and will be able to use this system. I remember how inspiring it was for me to learn more about my own features and how to embrace them to create head-to-toe looks. I wish you the best experience with Kibbe system in the future ❤️ And of course you’re always welcome here ❤️

        Like

  2. I just found your blog and I can’t tell you how much I love how you write so intelligent and thoughtful about David, his system – and the so called “experts” allover the internet.

    David gives out all of the information about his amazing and holistic system in the FB Kibbe groups (not the “Freestyle Kibbe Group”) generously for free, he’s always so sweet and kind. And the sh*t that’s written about him (being rude – WTF?), and how complicated or wrong or whatever he/his system is, is a really sad portrayal of a huge part of this fast food society. Yes, like you wrote, that’s what the typings via test or experts result in – again boxes. With uniformed content.

    I made another cup of coffee and will continue with the next post on your blog. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Then according to all the self-proclaimed ‘experts’ your image ID has to absolutely perfectly fit into a very symmetrical box, so you’re not allowed to have any fun building your outfits, and just part the hair perfectly in the middle to demonstrate your beauty. And don’t you dare go outside of your box – that’s not for you 😉😉😉

        Like

    1. Your comment made my day ❤️ It’s simply amazing to know that my blog helps to spread the word about the authentic Kibbe system. David Kibbe’s system has been extremely helpful and in many ways eye-opening for me and it honestly shocked me to read all the nasty things about him and his system. I wonder why people choose to be so negative – it doesn’t help anyone and anger breeds more anger and hate only breeds hate. The dismissive and passive aggressive (sometimes downright aggressive) comments about David Kibbe also really surprise me, but then they usually come from those who don’t know what he and his system are all about. Life’s too short to waste on all the drama, but I genuinely feel sad about how David Kibbe and his system are being harrassed for no reason. Oh well, time will tell! After all, dozens of these fake ‘experts’ just make a quick buck and disappear when people start to realize their hoax, but Kibbe system lives on. Haters gonna hate I guess 😄
      Thank you so much for reading and commenting! Have a wonderful day ahead 💕💕💕

      Like

  3. I just have to say firstly that I love your blog! I came across it by clicking one of your images on Pinterest that was recommended to me, and I’ve been binge-reading all day! I totally agree that Taylor Swift and Lily Cole aren’t gamines, and that the Youtuber who claims that they’re in the Gamine family is also not a Soft Gamine herself. [She even has a video of real-life gamines, where the majority of the women she called gamines are clearly different body types – I just hope that they didn’t take her analysis as the end-all-be-all and go throwing out all their clothes to buy new ones, because it’d be a tragic waste of their money!]
    That all said, I do think that Zendaya might actually be a Flamboyant Gamine – but I’m no expert! I just think that it’s possible because she’s not as tall as she’s reported to be. The proof is in a photo like this: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/68/cf/8a68cf9b89546043043b9eb4449757c8.jpg

    Even though she’s wearing heels, she’s at least 3 inches shorter than Gigi. You can also see that she’s shorter than Kendall in the second picture. And in this photo with Jacob Elordi:

    Jacob is reported to be 6’5, and Zendaya looks a whole head shorter than him. They didn’t match much more closely in height even in photos where Zendaya was wearing heels. Compare the first picture of Zendaya and Jacob to this picture of Jacob and Joey King:

    Joey’s wearing heels and looks to be the same height as Zendaya is without heels, but Joey’s reported height is 5’4. If Zendaya’s reported height is fake (which I think is probably the case because she’d have to be a little taller to be a runway model and fit designer sample sizes, and she was pursuing a lot of fashion work and was doing a LOT of photoshoots and fashion campaigns in her late teens, which is when she became a style icon) – then she’s short enough to qualify for the Flamboyant Gamine category! What do you think? 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I feel so humbled by your comment! I’m glad that you’re enjoying my content and hope that it’ll somehow help you to learn Metamorphosis.
      Now onto Zendaya: it’s truly very tricky to determine her actual features, i.e. vertical line and the characteristic of the vertical line (curves, width, of straight, aka no width or curves). I’ve checked the pictures and here’s my impression: if Zendaya looks a whole head shorter than Jacob, then she’s over 5’8”. I think here it’s also important to keep in mind that the angles are different for these pictures and these celebrities have different body positions – slouching, walking, or tilting forward, so I think it’s important to see her in a larger group to have more info for comparison. To double check I quickly Googled ‘Zendaya group photo’ and this picture popped up https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lupita-nyongo-brie-larson-comic-con-photo Zendaya is wearing either very small heels there or no heels at all and she’s around the same height as Tilda Swinton, who’s reportedly 5ft 10 ½ (179.1 cm), and Laura Harrier, who’s reportedly 5ft 8 ¾ (174.6 cm). Elizabeth Debicki is wearing heels and it looks like she’s the tallest one with her reported 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) (Karen Gillan is standing closer to the camera, so she looks very tall, but she’s reportedly 5ft 10 (177.8 cm). Danai Gurira is wearing heels, but still looks shorter with her reported 5ft 6 (167.6 cm). So overall I’d say Zendaya’s reported height is pretty accurate.
      The most important thing though is that to really be able to tell anyone’s features we’d need to meet them in person. There has been a very curious discussion about this in the comments to this post https://youandmeandcupofcoffee.com/2019/12/26/rihanna-kibbe-body-type-why-shes-not-a-theatrical-romantic/ (especially the last comment from a lady who was actualy typed by David Kibbe back in the 90s) – I’d really recommend you reading it!
      Finally, I have to share my personal experience with celebrity image identities. The truth is that over time I’ve found it more confusing than useful. They are too ambiguous due to the angle, lighting, pose, outfits, and editing. I’ve found that it’s either going through lots of group pictures like that one of Zendaya and films that actually help. For instance, watching ‘All About Eve’ instantly helped me understand Soft Gamine image id by just seeing Bette Davis in motion, in various outfits, alongside other actors. ‘The Children’s Hour’ really helped me understand FG vs FN and what long vertical looks like – Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine. Modern movies are helpful too, but plastic surgery is so common nowadays and film technologies have become so intricate that I don’t find them as reliable in this sense. Although, for instance, I think that ‘Sex and the city’ perfectly shows Sarah Jessica Parker as a FN – she’s rather short, but her features aren’t delicate at all, she’s got the typical FN width. I hope it helps!
      Thank you so much for reading and commenting ❤️ Have an awesome day ahead!
      PS Your comment got into the ‘spam’ folder because it contained many links (WordPress automatically recognizes such comments as spam), but I always monitor all the comments – just takes a while to answer them. You’re always welcome to comment!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks so much for your reply! I totally agree with you that in the end, analyzing celebrities is pretty much a waste of time since we’re not seeing them in person [and even if we are, they may have had plastic surgery done, could be wearing shapewear that we don’t have access to, etc.] 🙂 At the end of the day, I definitely understand that Kibbe’s guidelines are intended for each of us to find our own body type to be able to make our individual selves look good! I just recently found out that I’m a Soft Gamine which I think I always knew deep down, but similar to your personal story, I hated the idea of dressing “cute” or like Zoey Deschanel, so I rejected my image ID at first and I tried to fit myself somewhere else (into the Theatrical Romantic category, lol). But your blog is really helping me understand that 1) the clothing collages and videos posted on Youtube do NOT accurately represent what Kibbe suggests for women to wear; 2) I really can dress any way that I want but in a silhouette that’s flattering for my body type! Please keep up the great work!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I absolutely agree! The magic of cinema really doesn’t help either. I always go back to the Lord of the Rings and how Ian McKellen and everyone playing hobbits were made to look huge or tiny using just camera tricks – it’s quite fascinating. Although I think it can be helpful to know some celebrities’ image identities just to see how they compose outfits. For instance, Lauren Bacall’s style helped me learn how long vertical line is translated into outfits (she’s a Dramatic) and Bette Davis’ early movies show why David Kibbe refers to the 1930s as the time for Soft Gamines in fashion. Unfortunately, YT videos contain a lot of wrong information that creates restrictions instead of conveying the Kibbe system as it is. In my opinion, it’s a wasted opportunity, because the YT platform has such a huge reach. Surely, there’s a FB group ‘Strictly Kibbe’ where people can learn from David Kibbe himself, but not everyone has access to FB or finds the information there easy to interpret, so it’s kind of sad that the authentic Kibbe approach somehow gets lots in the ocean of information. My goal is to help spread the awareness about that Kibbe system isn’t some convoluted nonsense that only the chosen ones can interpret – it can serve anyone. I’m so happy that I manage to convey the main idea of the Kibbe system – getting rid of the ‘boxes’ and restrictions – in my posts! Thank you so much for the feedback ❤️

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s