the makeover´s were so horrific for the most part..I was so confused, if there wasn´t the before pictures I would have been thinking these are pictures from the 90ies, early 2000s..

100% agree! What I would love to add in is also the fact that no one besides Kibbe himself or someone personally trained by him is „able“ (as he says) to type anyone - which I completely disagree with and begin to question his integrity. Wouldn‘t you want people to understand your system and use it/ help others with discovering their lines? This and the overall self help vibe of the book made me feel a bit icky. Thank you so much for being so honest and open 🤍 sending you much love and appreciation for your work!

Adding on to what another commenter said here. This is a reworking of McJimsey's ideas that doesn't give credit where credit is due. I think it likely that Kibbe was influenced by McJimsey but didn't think to give her her flowers. And then McJimsey herself was continuing the work of such women as Belle Northrop, Margaretta Byers, Grace Margaret Morton, Celeste Carlyle, and others. If you listen to these women they are all unanimous--most women are a mixture of types; aiming at one true image identity is often a fool's errand. McJimsey especially was known for this: An ingenue matured into a classic or a romantic with age; her gamine counterpart was probably going to blossom out as a dramatic, a natural, or a classic. Thus the offshoots that were possible (a classic or a romantic with a young heart; a dramatic, a natural, or a classic with a spunky and rebellious edge).

 Especially re makeup, hair, and palette I found myself nodding in vigorous agreement. I'm a self-DX'd Soft Dramatic with curly hair, features that don't allow for fiddly makeup application, and a Dark Autumn palette that shakes hands with Dark Winter while greeting True Autumn as a long-lost cousin. If I followed Kibbe's advice to the letter I'd have an autumnal palette that almost but not quite does the trick, a face of makeup that doesn't suit me or allow for (say) hooded eyes, and a messy blunt cut that doesn't accommodate my largely type 3 curls. And don't start me on his ideas of what jewelry suits a Soft Dramatic either. "Sparkle, sparkle, sparkle" is fine for big events, but for everyday it doesn't suit me and in fact would just sit on top of my features without doing a lot.

 Great video!

Been trying to understand kibble for years.

I was familiar with the "types" but more in an aesthetic, style type description & not a body silhouette description so that kind of confused me with Kibbe. I also really hated the extensive questionnaire that got so minute about individual body parts. His height restrictions always put me in the Romantic or Gamine category,  neither of which felt right to me. But this new book made it easy for me to recognize my lines. Width & curve. I always suspected I was a natural type but I'm under 5'5" I know from trial & error that I need elongation & a longer vertical looks best on me. People often think I'm taller than I am. I can also follow Romantic lines since I'm quite busty but I do not have that double curve or rounded hip/snatched waist shape. I'm not interested in emulating Marilyn or dressing overly femme fatale so his archetypes kind of alienated me. I doubt most people fit a pure archetype & need clothes that work in the real world of their lives not some idealized Hollywood glamorous lifestyle. Most of the recommendations for any of the "soft" types will work for me depending on the look I'm going for as long as I get the proportions & fit right for my height/weight.

I'm here for the height limit criticism. I have a hormonal issue that makes me gain weight in a specific pattern. My shoulders and bust line are the dominant parts of my body because of this pattern, but I am 5'7" - 5'7 and a half. The Soft natural recommendations fit me way better than the Flamboyant natural or Soft dramatic ones. I keep seeing people shoo 5'7" girls away from some kibbe types communities, as if it's not allowed to be width dominant and tall at the same time. I like the system because it made me realize that body shape can be different from body weight, and I can look good in clothing even if I don't look like a model or wear a size XS. I just lean on the helpful parts of kibbe and move on 😅

I appreciate your thorough analysis of this book very much!
I think his rejection of objectivity and technicality is very interesting, because since I learned about Kibbe, my eye for outfits has developed to be more technical now, especially in balancing yin and yang. I'm thankful for Kibbe's original ideas because I felt they empowered me.

Finally an honest review of this book! I agree 1000%

I was gifted this book for my birthday as a good friend of mine knows I‘m buried in a Kibbe hole at the moment and am skimming through it😛 Just from a change management point of view, I‘m a fan of the way the book is structured (why, how, what) and the visuals he paints with his words, commending a playful approach to finding your line, also by watching old movies for inspiration. „You are not a kumquat“ felt like a very endearing quote.

Until you turn the pages to find that there are only 3 types dedicated to anyone over 167 cm tall, and none of them exactly match the understanding of how you appear - I feel closer to the drawn lines for anyone below 167 cm. Apparently, I am tall, but it never was my dominant trait! While the flamboyant natural emphasizes shoulder width, the limbs remain slender; soft dramatic emphasizes curve, but it is defined by chest and narrow shoulders does not apply to me either. So this is why we had to go so extensively into creating a new visual filter to begin with!

Maybe it‘s worth actually going through the „exercises“ at the beginning and creating an own visual. But until Kibbe does not give full consideration to arms and legs, beyond height restrictions, there is still some more metamorphosis to do!

I bought the book too. I also agree 1000% with you. I wanted more technical information, more pictures or drawings of which types of clothes to wear for the different body types and more types of clothes for different situations. One thing that this book did for me that I think was worth the price of the entire book was that I realized that I have a double curve and am really a romantic and not a theatrical romantic, which I had believed. Thanks to David Kibbe for that. The book also had great descriptions for color analysis and recommendations.

Thank you for your review! I won’t waste my time with the boot - it’s pretty expensive to boot! Glad I purchased a body typing from you instead.

Excellent critique! I would also add that, not only are there too few visual examples of the image identities but the one for each id that is there is extremely dated. I was very disappointed in the examples. Allegedly pulling off the street a woman who's obviously schlepping around and dressing her up  in a head-to-toe outfit in her image id is not at all helpful in showing how to dress well in day-to-day clothing. I would add that some of the activities, such as the Dream Mood Board, were fun and I did learn about my personal style by doing them. However, it is, in the end, a coffee table book that has sat closed since I worked through it once. Not worth buying. Maybe worth signing out from the public library once, if you're curious.

i adore seeing people following their passion!!! Makes my heart feel full and my eyes water!! Thank you ALYSSA oxOXOXOXOX

I hated the book so much that I had to sell it before finishing it...

A song that's immediately playing in my mind, that I'd love to share with you, is Fascination by Alphabeat!!!!
Much love and joy oxoxoxo

Seems his book is tongue in cheek and thought provoking! Love your critique so muuch!!!!! xoxoxoooxxoox

I find much, in the world, a word soup.... love the view of "painting and sculpture" though.... gives me imagination with notion and emotion! thank you xoxooxoox

yes! thank you for calling this sad book OUT! (the first book was at least useful)

I agree completely.

I might also add that I think color has always been a weakness in his system, even in the earlier book. I'm sure the four seasons work just fine when applied in a real-life session by someone applying it with nuance to a given individual, but it's too rigid a system for anyone who isn't a "true season" to do much with on their own. (And the exercises for that just don't work. For instance, when I look at the "is this color or that color better?" lists for differentiating between seasons, I literally would have to choose half from the autumn list and half from the winter list.) I always found his system stronger for image identity than for color season.

What did you think of David Kibbe's new book? Were you disappointed?

I haven't read the new book yet because I couldn't put my hands on it, but a lot of what you said can be applied to the first too. I love Kibbe, but your approach to the subject is more aligned with mine. Sometimes, I think that he writes taking into consideration a specific group of people and that's why some parts feel confusing and contradictory. It's like he's trying to break the person's resistance to what he has to say and then say what needs to be said. Just my two cents, of course. Anyway, great video! I love your channel! To me, it's one of the best ones on the subject!🥰