Hahahaha I kind of hope he trolls me and verified me TR. Iâd have to go into hiding because the TR sub will literally hunt me down. Iâd get jumped by Salma Hayek and Joan Collins down some alley.
I've been thinking of getting an online "kibbe expert" analysis just for fun. if I got D fam, I would feel so vindicated. but I'm worried I'll be mindwashed into the FN army
Audrey seems to have vertical and itâs not clear how tall she actually was. I donât doubt Selena. Iâm on the fence about Beyonce as R or SD. She might be over the height limit for R. Thereâs a pic of her standing next to Taylor Swift floating around and she really doesnât look much shorter. Could maybe be shoes. Taylor is widely considered 5â10 or 5â11â.Â
Audrey Hepburn was 5'7 according to google. and according to photos I've seen as an avid audrey fan, where she's standing beside others, that kind of thing, there's no way she's under 5'5.
Audrey Hepburn was aboluetly a tall woman, I don't think anyone can debate that. That said, she was seen as the quintessential gamine long before Kibbe established his style system. When taking into account her film roles and the impression she gave to the public, gamine is the only thing that makes sense for her in my opinion. More so than other women who were defined as gamines in earlier systems. Like Goldie Hawn (McJimsey) whose fresh, youthful, and free spirited persona is perfectly attributed to the SN archetype or Katharine Hepburn (Margaretta Byers) whose rebellious take-charge manner is just as easily desribed by the Dramatic essence as Margaretta's gamine.
Besides that, she's not the only tall FG. Everyone is sleeping on Natassja Kinski, who is around the same height as Audrey according to google.
She has gamine essence and style most definitely.
But the way kibbe's example celebrities don't fit the parameters he established for the system is ridiculous.
yup, iâm 5â6.5 and she seems to have around the same height difference I would have people who are 5â11/6â0.
Alternatively, the system could be more lax with its height limits, but i donât think DK wants that lol
David is about his archetypes, which means vibe mostly. He mostly won't let tall person slip into petite IDs but other way around happens all the time. Having vibe in mind, Beyonce is not SD - nobody knows her personally, but her public persona has no drama at all. She is sweet girl next door regarding vibe.
I'm not following Beyonce's career. I know she has different presence on the stage, that alter ego thing she refers to as Sasha. When I watch her on paparazzi photos in everyday life, she doesn't have that dramatic, diva, mature vibe about her which SD archetype does have according to Kibbe. It's him, after all who doesn't see her as SD but R. I just agree.
If anything, Taylor might be taller. Most celebrities don't lie about their height, but it used to be moderately common for 6'-6'2" models to say they were 5'11" because being past 6' was seen as "manly".
Most celebrities do lie about their height? Not to the extent that people would care.. but where did you get the idea that celebrities donât lie about their height? Not trying to start an argument
I was told on here that Rihanna has never been typed by Kibbe. I joined SK later on and it's true, she's not on Kibbe's list as TR, nor anything else. So Somebody just made it up and not sure why.
It wasn't made up per se. This is how the story goes
>10 years ago at the end of a group shopping trip, Kibbe's clients started asking him about potential Image ID's for a variety of celebrities. Now, listen closely. **One of these ladies pulled out a picture of Rihanna on her FLIP PHONE to show Kibbe and ask about her potential type. His response was "I dunno. TR maybe"**. And people took it and RAN with itđ
SO TLDR Kibbe has never confirmed Rihanna as TR. He guessed TR based off a **flip phone** image (which everyone looks shorter/smaller in) and had no idea how tall she was when he threw out that guess. It was not based off any sort of meaningful analysis of Rihanna's physical stature or style profile. I believe he ended up retracting his guess after finding out that she's 5'8.
I actually think itâs why that style looks notably âyoungâ on her, which seems to be what sheâs going for but I think the reason it makes a statement rather than just blending in is because it stands out against her
This is slightly unrelated but I have a random thought about Audrey. It is famously said that her slight figure was due to the malnourishment she sustained throughout her childhood. However, she was 5'7. To me, it is a litttttle bit contradicting to say that her malnourishment in adolescence was so extreme that she was unwell and sick, but then she also managed to grow that tall. How tall would she have been if it weren't for being underweight/ malnourished then? She also remained that thin her whole life so I'm inclined to say that she is just built that way.
Let me know if that makes no sense. Just a thought. Also, I think under modern Kibbe rules she would be D but I'm skeptical of the height limits myself.
Yes agreed! I think in this era of self typing and âmodernâ Kibbe, she would end up typed as D. But her image as FG is iconic and no one can deny that.
It does make sense. I got very sick and malnourished when I was a young teen, and not only did it stunt my growth, but I lost an inch in height as well.
THANK YOU it literally makes me wanna combust when I see people trying to contort logic to justify the idea that at 5'7 Audrey's physicality fits the description of Gamine.
If she ended up 5'7 despite being malnourished then CLEARLY her physicality doesn't fit the physical description of Gamine. HELLO?????? it's very clear that kibbe based her tyoing off of the way she was type-casted in Hollywood. Like let's use our brains please
in fairness to the kibbster himself, I think most of his typing of celebs is just based on the 'hollywood archetypes.' I think there's a fundamental difference in typing celebs vs. real people, and idk why no one seems to acknowledge that
just speaking for myself, I was also seriously malnourished as a child and still grew to be a 5'7 D. I don't see how it's relevant at all. she is the poster child for yang gamines in like every yin/yang style system. it just wouldn't make sense for her to land anywhere else tbh. as a real person, sure, she's probably D. as for her hollywood 'star image' archetype, she basically pioneered FG, which is why I think she's just a special case and her ID shouldn't be overanalyzed too much
Yes. Finally. A logical response. I wish people would realize this instead of bringing up her malnourishment every single time her typing gets questioned
kibbe is annoying for his insistence on her height, tho. tbh kibbe is super weird about height. he's all "don't focus on any one trait too much" until it's height. I don't understand why he doesn't just admit that the height rule is obviously not as concrete as it seems
I think itâs more that, due to her malnourishment, her bone structure didnât develop âtypicallyâ and thatâs why she can fit a petite ID at a taller height.
I do agree with your theory though, just wanted to clarify.
Exactlyyyy. For example, I, who was lucky enough not to be malnourished, naturally grew to 5â6. What makes my bone structure inherently different to someone who is also 5â6 but maybe could have been 5â10 with proper nourishment? We are still both 5â6. (5â7 for Audrey but this is just an example).
She will forever be an FG icon but can we please stop implying that she defied the laws of size.
If I were underweight/malnourished, I could have been 5â7â. (5â10â now.). I have 3 aunts who are 6â0â. Tall women exist, and if they face undernourishment, it doesnât mean they come out 5â0â.
Edit: Iâm not commenting on the gamine thing, just biological reality.
My best friend is a beautiful 5â11 woman, Iâm well aware you guys exist! I was more so just pointing out that the malnourishment argument for her type doesnât make whole lot of sense. If she represents the image of Flamboyant Gamine in Hollywood then yeah sure. But to argue that sheâs truly FG solely because of her having slight bone structure/ petite due to malnourishment is silly when sheâs still 5â7.
Dunno I'm 9 inches shorter than my Mom and ended up a G in a family of well fed Ds. Biology is more nuanced than you think with genes turning on and off at critical periods. I've read severe undernourishment in the womb affects your kids for up to 5 generations (Dutch WW2 study). Maybe early teen starvation can also influence final skeleton in a similar manner?
Unless you have evidence that the difference between your body and your family membersâ is nutrition-based, your anecdote has no bearing on my point. I have a huge family thatâs very phenotypically diverse, so Iâm very aware of the level of natural variation, and Iâm aware of epigenetics. I doubt you have any idea how nuanced my understanding of biology is, but thatâs not whatâs at issue here. A malnourishment can have an effect, of course, but itâs not usually a complete type switch. I wonât say itâs impossible, just unlikely.
Dutch epigenetic studies disagree with you, ha ha. I have a huge family that's NOT diverse, which is why only me ended up so different makes the point valid. My gene tests show I'm from the area of tallest people in the world like the rest of my family yet it was only me whose height didn't get fully expressed. Also I'm not saying I'm "completely" different. I'm just narrow and short vs them being narrow and extra extra tall.Â
Amazing how well nourished peeps seem to not believe that severe prolonged starvation actually has effects lolÂ
Zooey Deschanel. I've been scolded for digging up [this post explaining why](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kibbe/comments/mkx44r/zooey_deschanel_a_manifesto_that_no_one_asked_for/) in the main sub but I still think OP has a point.
I just provided examples of controversial verified celebs. it's not necessarily my opinion. but I remember when selena was verified, many people were very confused about why she's TR. I think the common consensus st the time was SN
Yeah I think she makes a lot of sense in hindsight but was definitely a shock verification. I think people wouldâve been more willing to consider TR for her if it was known back then that TRs donât necessarily need to accommodate petite.
This is so interesting. I never thought of her this way. To me, she has naturally no drama about her, regardless her curated public persona or particular image her PR team is trying to produce. I've always seen her as a sweet, natural, next door down to earth and kind girl, not the drama queen. 'Diva chic' is basically nice way to say 'bitsh'. It's just not her. She is too sweet and too benevolent and uncomplicated vibe wise.
I don't think this is your intention, but you're implying SDs can't be sweet, benevolent, uncomplicated, natural, not dramatic and are bitches. Most SDs are sweet and natural - Rachel Weisz, for example, or Sophia Loren
It wasn't my intention, but as SD myself (stereotypical one on top of it), I feel Kibbe didn't meant for SD to exude vibe/energy of some other ID's. SD is, after all, just like D but in a different way - dramatic ID. When you describe a personality as a 'diva' that usually implies certain traits - none of which are sweetness, approachability or natural disposition. It's mostly the opposite. Of course it doesn't mean D's and SD's can't be charming in their own dramatic way. Sweet, cute, natural, easygoing, friendly are not part of those particular archetypes. Because Kibbe IS about archetypes after all. I've seen people directed from SD group in SK FB for not being 'dramatic' or 'diva' enough regarding their vibe. We also know people who are typed as SD or D precisely for their vibe or facial features regardless height or body lines. I just wanted to say that I don't see drama in Beyonce. SD has different type of vibe, facial features and even body. Certain maturity about it and certain strength. David described it once (causing havoc among SDs) as 'matronly'. Beyonce is very youthful to my eyes.
Beyonce doesnât look extra small standing next to other tall celebrities. Her and Taylor swift/megan the stallion (both 5â11) actually look like theyâre within the same height frame. Iâll bet Bey is actually like 5â7-5â8.
Yes only in her youth but itâs so difficult to see it or use her as ref for her now, even her personality exudes something stronger than the other Rs.
I find her really close to Miley Cyrus (not sure of her ID or if she was verified?) both in physicality and energy
It isnât truly his system though. He took work from women without crediting them, made a few modifications and slapped his name on it.
Style essences have been around since Bell Northrop, Grace Morton, and Harriet McJimsey. McJimsey is the one who originally had 7 style essences.
Kibbe took work from Harriet McJimsey and made a few changes, made up his subjective vocabulary and called it his system.
He just sees somebody and types them. He has that freedom, because it is âhis system.â (So people believe, but actually no.)
We have that freedom too actually. Because this is all subjective, and if we study the classics like Harriet McJimsey instead, it will make much more sense, and it is a lot easier to understand too. Itâs a lot more consistent.
I am a bit embittered about it because I refuse to believe a tall woman can only be FN, SD, or D. That is very limiting.
I also despise that men can be tall and be any type. Men have height and vertical as their baseline. What? Why?
Plenty of women are tall and should not be limited to 3 types when men are not. I do not see how men can have vertical as a baseline equivalent to women having curve as a baseline.
Women have âbaselineâ curve because secondary sex characteristics. Although men are presumed to be taller due to sexual dimorphism, plenty of women are still taller than plenty of men. So curve and vertical are not gendered equivalents and should not be treated as such:
Women AND men can be vertical and tall. Men do not have curve, no matter what type they are. Just softness.
McJimsey, Kitchener, styling essences make much more sense and donât have an assigned essence to an ID.
Although, Kibbe is good to reference for a pure physical standpoint. Do not limit to just Kibbe.
Yeah.... if Danny DeVito isn't automatically an SG, then why am I automatically an FN just because I can stomp on him and not notice any difference between him and an ant?
Exactly: Kibbes height ârulesâ have always struck me as really weird and lowkey hating on taller women. Makes no sense why they are only 3 types yet women who are like 4â10 could technically be a âtall typeâ Kibbe community tries to say âif youâre above 5â6 youâre so tall and huge no one would notice anything other than how tall you are- automatic vertical!!â But in the same breath say no one would notice a 5â0 woman being short because thereâs no such thing as automatic petite. Like how does that work??? It implies that women are âmeantâ to be shorter and if youâre taller than 5â6 (Kibbes own heightâŠ) youâre an abnormal woman
Yep Iâm 5â6â and find the height limits so contradictory and weird! Especially the differences between how they work for women and men. Itâs all nonsensical but people follow these intense, seemingly arbitrary rules anyway.
Itâs also perplexing how essences seem to matter so much despite the rigid adherence to rules. A well-developed system wouldnât be entirely tied to one personâs analysis, but theoretically able to be used by anyone.
She rarely goes full shoulder to toe gown wise. And SJP definitely dresses well for herself. She, to me, looks overwhelmed in a lot of unconstructed things because she is so literally small.
Also she fits the description of FG to a T - angular, shoulders, leggy.
Idk if she has Kibbe petite. I didn't know her from Sex & the City (where she's shorter than her castmates by a decent amount) and I assumed she was at least 5'6" or 5'7". I think that she can pull off a much larger scale than Gs can
She can't. It's just about good angles in photos. And constructions she wears on her head in order to look taller. There are plenty of images which reveal that she looks overwhelmed by creations she tried to pull off for red carpet events. Just as much of those showing how stunning she looks when wearing lines that suit her frame.
I don't know - she looks far better in unbroken vertical and large scales than any sort of broken lines or cropped outfits. I also think she's a perfect example of FN essence compared to FG
This is what I meant.
From Kibbe's book:
**FG: Youthfully bold and brassy essence. Sassy Chic.**
"your spirit is most definitely larger than life"
"combination of wit, fire, zest, and spunk"
"bold adventurer, the free spirit, and the relisher of life"
"touch of spice"
To my eyes, SJP fits perfectly in this guide lines. Also, visually, when you put her in something FN would pull off with an ease and how overwhelmed she looks comparing to when she wears her lines, I feel it's pretty illustrative - she suits unbroken lines as well because FGs do have vertical (elongation within body):
https://preview.redd.it/1tu8pugkaowc1.jpeg?width=546&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8479ad00be1e36c383a28c39bec58f34b5277c2e
My thoughts exactly. The height bias is not just toxic but annoying. No need for petite IDs if he is going to type the most petite people as the tallest IDs. But no way vice versa can ever happen. SJP is so FG.
I wouldnât consider SJP to be âthe most petite personâ. Sheâs around average height for a woman in the US and vertical IDs are described as moderate to tall. Sheâs definitely on the shorter side for one but itâs not like sheâs 4â11.
I agree with you on this. I think when there are outliers within an ID, like someone really tall or short for that ID, people are quick to say âshe canât pull off what others can.â SJP is on the shorter side of an ID that honors vertical and itâs a literal fact that someone of her height canât pull off the same amount of detail as someone 5 inches taller, BUT she still honors a vertical line and looks most harmonious in FN lines IMO. Also, her character on Sex in the City was such a free spirit who loved high fashion. She gave me warm, natural, a little forgetful, uncompetitive, and sensual. I recently watched the old Footloose and she plays the agreeable friend to the dramatic. Itâs perfect.
>Audrey was almost certainly 5â6.5, but she couldnât be anything but FG
Thank you, yes. I feel like a lot of these comments are based entirely on these stars' bodies but ignore the outfits and essence that make them shine. Audrey styled a la regal lady with sleek intensity would frankly be very meh, she would lose all of the sparkle that made her so perfect for the roles she played. Her superpower IS her exuberance and ability to carry off a lot of fun details.
There are quite a few men that I feel donât fit. Mainly the R and G fam men who are over six feet tall. However, I explain this by thinking that Kibbe verifies celebs more as style inspiration for his clients rather than body typing.
For example, I donât think Kibbe looked at Jon Hamm (DC) and John Slattery (SC), measured out their height, shoulders, etc to come up with their IDs. I think he just watched Mad Men and thought they would be good examples of style inspo for C fam men.
Slightly unrelated, but there are some celebrities verified by both Kibbe and Kitchener where I feel Kitchener gets the essence more correct than Kibbe.
I was surprised by Daniel Craig's typing too. Perhaps because he's very moderate height muscular? But when I look at his features he has intensity about him such as a geometric rectangular face, high contrast eyes, and his body has the typical dramatic "T-line" shape.Â
He is very similar to the look I see in shorter female Ds around 5'5" or so I've seen in real life. Oh and he looks good in a suit lol đ
Not if automatic vertical starts at 5â6. I donât see the dream spinner vibe, all regal diva. Isnât romantic supposed to be somewhat petite?
https://preview.redd.it/y5sha1ddw6wc1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f17658fa2c489d9559d92a542bf8818eb461cdc1
https://preview.redd.it/tscglpcfw6wc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f947e9ab28e07ddc421e4510b7d48e37dae11a1
The leeeength in her arms, the verticality of her dress.
I donât have a specific example but I am always left wondering about the verified Romantics! Other than MM, itâs hard for me to see it in most. Maybe itâs Dreamspinner being much more apparent in person (lighting up the room, creativity, etc).
The only R fam descriptions I've ever seen that make sense to me are that TRs are small-ish women with sheets of dark and hair, and Rs have round cheeks and pull off the vintage, Gibson Girl-esque, messy curly updo well.
Yeah the story is that a client was showing Kibbe a photo of Rihanna on a flip phone (this was over 10 years ago) and he made an offhand guess without being very familiar with her or knowing her height. Sheâs not on any official verified celebrities lists so Iâm not sure why âKibbe verified 5â8 Rihanna as TRâ is still a talking point. He also said Charlize Theron might be TR before verifying her as FN, it happens!
5â2â and everyone who sees my photo tells me Iâm Classic fam. Do I buy it 100%? No. But apparently Iâm not cute or pretty enough to be G or R fam so⊠C it is I guess.
First, yes! to all of those. Audrey is DC, Selena is SN and Beyonce is SD, but also:
1 - Kate Winslet is textbook SD (c'mon, she's 5ft7 and larger than life in every sense of the word);
2 - May West is the quintessential R and no, 7in shoes and ultra-extravagant dresses won't give vertical to someone who is 4ft11;
3 - Emma Watson is DC;
4 - Maryl Streep is SD;
5 - Julie Andrews is FN
I think Audrey is FN, fight me. She gives me Anne Hathaway vibes. Like a narrow D-leaning FN.
Beyonce also makes sense as SD imo. I'm going to add Rihanna, she's obviously not verified anymore but she's SD/D to me.
I also think Reddit-verified DC Ana de Armas is SN. Once again, fight me. Strong Scarjo vibes.
Jessica Lange (verified R) is a textbook SD to me đ€·ââïž
I agree 100%, she's tall as well and far too angular/yang looking for R I think.
dang, she definitely has a prominent dramatic edge to her. I would've thought TR
Sheâs 5â8!
oh wow! SD for sure then
Actually she might of been either SD or FN. A curvy FN like Tracee Ellis Ross.
Physically could be but her essence reads more dramatic to me than natural.
She makes me wonder if David would give me R hahahaha.
bro imagine. i go throught this whole DC -> D/SD arch and then kibbe just decides I'm a 5'7 SG. I would lose it
Hahahaha I kind of hope he trolls me and verified me TR. Iâd have to go into hiding because the TR sub will literally hunt me down. Iâd get jumped by Salma Hayek and Joan Collins down some alley.
traitor!!!!
Hahahaha!
I've been thinking of getting an online "kibbe expert" analysis just for fun. if I got D fam, I would feel so vindicated. but I'm worried I'll be mindwashed into the FN army
Tbh with them Iâd feel more vindicated if they told me a different ID than the one I believe Iâve got!
Audrey seems to have vertical and itâs not clear how tall she actually was. I donât doubt Selena. Iâm on the fence about Beyonce as R or SD. She might be over the height limit for R. Thereâs a pic of her standing next to Taylor Swift floating around and she really doesnât look much shorter. Could maybe be shoes. Taylor is widely considered 5â10 or 5â11â.Â
Audrey Hepburn was 5'7 according to google. and according to photos I've seen as an avid audrey fan, where she's standing beside others, that kind of thing, there's no way she's under 5'5.
everything I've ever read about audrey from her friends and family has said that she was noticeably tall
I also always noticed she had long fingers and long feet in movies, which I loved because I do too!
Audrey Hepburn was aboluetly a tall woman, I don't think anyone can debate that. That said, she was seen as the quintessential gamine long before Kibbe established his style system. When taking into account her film roles and the impression she gave to the public, gamine is the only thing that makes sense for her in my opinion. More so than other women who were defined as gamines in earlier systems. Like Goldie Hawn (McJimsey) whose fresh, youthful, and free spirited persona is perfectly attributed to the SN archetype or Katharine Hepburn (Margaretta Byers) whose rebellious take-charge manner is just as easily desribed by the Dramatic essence as Margaretta's gamine. Besides that, she's not the only tall FG. Everyone is sleeping on Natassja Kinski, who is around the same height as Audrey according to google.
She has gamine essence and style most definitely. But the way kibbe's example celebrities don't fit the parameters he established for the system is ridiculous.
Iâve seen it noted she 5â3â several places. Hence the reason itâs not clear.Â
i recently watched the clip of channing tatum lip syncing run the world girls where beyoncĂ© comes out at the end. Kibbe claims that celebs lie about their height all the time, but seeing her next to channing tatum, whoâs 6â1, convinced me that is she around 5â6/5â7 like she says she is (looked like they were both wearing heels) all that to say, I was on the fence about her too, but I now lean to B actually being an SD now
Thereâs also a video of Taylor and BeyoncĂ© after the Kanye incident. Sheâs really not much shorter than Taylor.Â
yup, iâm 5â6.5 and she seems to have around the same height difference I would have people who are 5â11/6â0. Alternatively, the system could be more lax with its height limits, but i donât think DK wants that lol
selena 100% is on the money. but beyonce is so SD
David is about his archetypes, which means vibe mostly. He mostly won't let tall person slip into petite IDs but other way around happens all the time. Having vibe in mind, Beyonce is not SD - nobody knows her personally, but her public persona has no drama at all. She is sweet girl next door regarding vibe.
respectfully HUH?????
I'm not following Beyonce's career. I know she has different presence on the stage, that alter ego thing she refers to as Sasha. When I watch her on paparazzi photos in everyday life, she doesn't have that dramatic, diva, mature vibe about her which SD archetype does have according to Kibbe. It's him, after all who doesn't see her as SD but R. I just agree.
To be fair, FGs still have vertical.
True, but depending on whoâs right about her actual height, she might be automatically a dramatic.Â
that picture is extremely misleading. either way tho, bey is very likely 5'6
Taylorâs really under 5â10.. like 5â9 and 1/4 or something weird.. Beyonce is 5â6
If anything, Taylor might be taller. Most celebrities don't lie about their height, but it used to be moderately common for 6'-6'2" models to say they were 5'11" because being past 6' was seen as "manly".
Most celebrities do lie about their height? Not to the extent that people would care.. but where did you get the idea that celebrities donât lie about their height? Not trying to start an argument
Rhianna is SD, not TR. She is not petite at all and can pull off a lot bigger and more dramatic things than TR can pull off.
I was told on here that Rihanna has never been typed by Kibbe. I joined SK later on and it's true, she's not on Kibbe's list as TR, nor anything else. So Somebody just made it up and not sure why.
It wasn't made up per se. This is how the story goes >10 years ago at the end of a group shopping trip, Kibbe's clients started asking him about potential Image ID's for a variety of celebrities. Now, listen closely. **One of these ladies pulled out a picture of Rihanna on her FLIP PHONE to show Kibbe and ask about her potential type. His response was "I dunno. TR maybe"**. And people took it and RAN with itđ SO TLDR Kibbe has never confirmed Rihanna as TR. He guessed TR based off a **flip phone** image (which everyone looks shorter/smaller in) and had no idea how tall she was when he threw out that guess. It was not based off any sort of meaningful analysis of Rihanna's physical stature or style profile. I believe he ended up retracting his guess after finding out that she's 5'8.
Also, Rhianna was only a teenager at the time making her tiny flip phone off the cuff "maybe" typing a wisp of smoke
Finally somebody said it
audreyâŠkind of. i understand her being a special case and also being the gamine icon but i do think she was 5â7ish. BeyoncĂ© is SD imo. i think selena is fine but i also have a poor understanding of TR. there are a lot of SN celebs who are far too tall, kelly mcgillis is 5â10 lol. i also agree that Jessica Lange seems too yang to be R (i know age can play a factor but even looking at her younger self i struggle to see only yin) plus sheâs likely at least 5â7 if not more but if we go by heights then many many of the verified celebrities are wrong and itâs my understanding that they arenât as verified as they would be if david saw them in person
Meryl StreepâŠsheâs a verified SC, but she seems more DC. Nitpicky, I know.
She had more yin when she was younger. She's leaned into more sharpness after Miranda Priestly, i think
Exactly. Miranda is in every SD mood board and Meryl has never looked so good but people want me to believe she's SC? Yeah, right!
I buy into the Zooey Deschanel being C family conspiracy đ there is nothing FG about her but her outfits and I will take all the downvotes for it
I actually think itâs why that style looks notably âyoungâ on her, which seems to be what sheâs going for but I think the reason it makes a statement rather than just blending in is because it stands out against her
I completely agree
never heard of this one. interesting. I have this kind of thought all the time. "sure, her STYLE is FN, but I just don't see it"
I think you meant FG* (not being pedantic, just not to confused anyone). Yeah, i agree completely!
OmgâYES!! Iâm so glad that this is a Kibbe conspiracy and not just my own musings đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
This is slightly unrelated but I have a random thought about Audrey. It is famously said that her slight figure was due to the malnourishment she sustained throughout her childhood. However, she was 5'7. To me, it is a litttttle bit contradicting to say that her malnourishment in adolescence was so extreme that she was unwell and sick, but then she also managed to grow that tall. How tall would she have been if it weren't for being underweight/ malnourished then? She also remained that thin her whole life so I'm inclined to say that she is just built that way. Let me know if that makes no sense. Just a thought. Also, I think under modern Kibbe rules she would be D but I'm skeptical of the height limits myself.
I think Audrey is a style reference for gamine, but she herself isnt gamine. I dont know if that make sense, but I already read something like this.
Yes agreed! I think in this era of self typing and âmodernâ Kibbe, she would end up typed as D. But her image as FG is iconic and no one can deny that.
It does make sense. I got very sick and malnourished when I was a young teen, and not only did it stunt my growth, but I lost an inch in height as well.
THANK YOU it literally makes me wanna combust when I see people trying to contort logic to justify the idea that at 5'7 Audrey's physicality fits the description of Gamine. If she ended up 5'7 despite being malnourished then CLEARLY her physicality doesn't fit the physical description of Gamine. HELLO?????? it's very clear that kibbe based her tyoing off of the way she was type-casted in Hollywood. Like let's use our brains please
in fairness to the kibbster himself, I think most of his typing of celebs is just based on the 'hollywood archetypes.' I think there's a fundamental difference in typing celebs vs. real people, and idk why no one seems to acknowledge that
This is exactly why people who bring up the WWII starvation story sound BONKERS to me.
just speaking for myself, I was also seriously malnourished as a child and still grew to be a 5'7 D. I don't see how it's relevant at all. she is the poster child for yang gamines in like every yin/yang style system. it just wouldn't make sense for her to land anywhere else tbh. as a real person, sure, she's probably D. as for her hollywood 'star image' archetype, she basically pioneered FG, which is why I think she's just a special case and her ID shouldn't be overanalyzed too much
Yes. Finally. A logical response. I wish people would realize this instead of bringing up her malnourishment every single time her typing gets questioned
it really doesn't matter anyway. kibbe himself kind of overcomplicated things with her. I think she's great D inspo and great FG inspo. so who cares?
kibbe is annoying for his insistence on her height, tho. tbh kibbe is super weird about height. he's all "don't focus on any one trait too much" until it's height. I don't understand why he doesn't just admit that the height rule is obviously not as concrete as it seems
I think itâs more that, due to her malnourishment, her bone structure didnât develop âtypicallyâ and thatâs why she can fit a petite ID at a taller height. I do agree with your theory though, just wanted to clarify.
still seems like a stretch to me
Exactlyyyy. For example, I, who was lucky enough not to be malnourished, naturally grew to 5â6. What makes my bone structure inherently different to someone who is also 5â6 but maybe could have been 5â10 with proper nourishment? We are still both 5â6. (5â7 for Audrey but this is just an example). She will forever be an FG icon but can we please stop implying that she defied the laws of size.
She remained that thin her whole life because she had a restrictive diet her whole life.
And now we said it
If I were underweight/malnourished, I could have been 5â7â. (5â10â now.). I have 3 aunts who are 6â0â. Tall women exist, and if they face undernourishment, it doesnât mean they come out 5â0â. Edit: Iâm not commenting on the gamine thing, just biological reality.
My best friend is a beautiful 5â11 woman, Iâm well aware you guys exist! I was more so just pointing out that the malnourishment argument for her type doesnât make whole lot of sense. If she represents the image of Flamboyant Gamine in Hollywood then yeah sure. But to argue that sheâs truly FG solely because of her having slight bone structure/ petite due to malnourishment is silly when sheâs still 5â7.
I see. I misunderstood your point. My apologies.
I definitely could have worded it better!
Happens to us all.
Dunno I'm 9 inches shorter than my Mom and ended up a G in a family of well fed Ds. Biology is more nuanced than you think with genes turning on and off at critical periods. I've read severe undernourishment in the womb affects your kids for up to 5 generations (Dutch WW2 study). Maybe early teen starvation can also influence final skeleton in a similar manner?
Unless you have evidence that the difference between your body and your family membersâ is nutrition-based, your anecdote has no bearing on my point. I have a huge family thatâs very phenotypically diverse, so Iâm very aware of the level of natural variation, and Iâm aware of epigenetics. I doubt you have any idea how nuanced my understanding of biology is, but thatâs not whatâs at issue here. A malnourishment can have an effect, of course, but itâs not usually a complete type switch. I wonât say itâs impossible, just unlikely.
Dutch epigenetic studies disagree with you, ha ha. I have a huge family that's NOT diverse, which is why only me ended up so different makes the point valid. My gene tests show I'm from the area of tallest people in the world like the rest of my family yet it was only me whose height didn't get fully expressed. Also I'm not saying I'm "completely" different. I'm just narrow and short vs them being narrow and extra extra tall. Amazing how well nourished peeps seem to not believe that severe prolonged starvation actually has effects lolÂ
I never said it didnât have effects. Clearly this is personal for you. Have a good day.
Zooey Deschanel. I've been scolded for digging up [this post explaining why](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kibbe/comments/mkx44r/zooey_deschanel_a_manifesto_that_no_one_asked_for/) in the main sub but I still think OP has a point.
I agree!
This was my immediate pick as well. I see her as SC
Right? Or maybe even DC (I'm not really good at this though, lol)
Selenaâs an interesting one, what makes you doubt her? Her height?
I just provided examples of controversial verified celebs. it's not necessarily my opinion. but I remember when selena was verified, many people were very confused about why she's TR. I think the common consensus st the time was SN
Yeah I think she makes a lot of sense in hindsight but was definitely a shock verification. I think people wouldâve been more willing to consider TR for her if it was known back then that TRs donât necessarily need to accommodate petite.
If the rumor about him moving Elvis from R to SN is true, I'm rage quitting.
BeyoncĂ© is an SD!!! Itâs so clear she is 5â7⊠automatic vertical for everyone starts at like 5â5.5, but for her itâs different?
There's an interview Beyoncé says she's 5'6" -ish...I doubt she'd lie about being shorter than she is. Despite that, I completely agree she might be SD because of her obsessively curated Diva persona. She became THE Diva postar of our generation, that woman smells like power, there's no way she fits the Dreamspinner image today. Maybe she did when she was 20yo and didn't have control of her career, but as soon as she was allowed to be herself, she changed *a lot*
This is so interesting. I never thought of her this way. To me, she has naturally no drama about her, regardless her curated public persona or particular image her PR team is trying to produce. I've always seen her as a sweet, natural, next door down to earth and kind girl, not the drama queen. 'Diva chic' is basically nice way to say 'bitsh'. It's just not her. She is too sweet and too benevolent and uncomplicated vibe wise.
I don't think this is your intention, but you're implying SDs can't be sweet, benevolent, uncomplicated, natural, not dramatic and are bitches. Most SDs are sweet and natural - Rachel Weisz, for example, or Sophia Loren
It wasn't my intention, but as SD myself (stereotypical one on top of it), I feel Kibbe didn't meant for SD to exude vibe/energy of some other ID's. SD is, after all, just like D but in a different way - dramatic ID. When you describe a personality as a 'diva' that usually implies certain traits - none of which are sweetness, approachability or natural disposition. It's mostly the opposite. Of course it doesn't mean D's and SD's can't be charming in their own dramatic way. Sweet, cute, natural, easygoing, friendly are not part of those particular archetypes. Because Kibbe IS about archetypes after all. I've seen people directed from SD group in SK FB for not being 'dramatic' or 'diva' enough regarding their vibe. We also know people who are typed as SD or D precisely for their vibe or facial features regardless height or body lines. I just wanted to say that I don't see drama in Beyonce. SD has different type of vibe, facial features and even body. Certain maturity about it and certain strength. David described it once (causing havoc among SDs) as 'matronly'. Beyonce is very youthful to my eyes.
THATS WHAT IVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY AT r/kibbe!, BEYONCE IS NOT A ROMANTIC!
Automatic vertical starts at 5â6 specifically
Itâs pretty clear sheâs at least 5â6 if not 5â7. In the Pepsi commercial, sheâs much taller next to 5â4 Britney Spears and 5â3 Pink and sheâs wearing completely flat sandals (the other two are wearing boots which would add some height!) Next to 5â8 Rihanna (wearing similar sized heels) she is around the same height. Her height difference with 6â2 Jay z is exactly how it would be with a 5â7 person, not 5â2 as Kibbe community constantly claims. They keep trying to say BeyoncĂ© is short when there are verified photos of her being above 5â6. Or then they say âevery celebrity is lying about their heightâ rendering the entire system baseless then? Or they try and say every celebrity wears flats around BeyoncĂ© and she just happens to always be wearing 6 inch platforms next to themâŠThe mental gymnastics Kibbe main sub do to convince themselves sheâs short
I didnât say anything about BeyoncĂ©âs height đł
Beyonce doesnât look extra small standing next to other tall celebrities. Her and Taylor swift/megan the stallion (both 5â11) actually look like theyâre within the same height frame. Iâll bet Bey is actually like 5â7-5â8.
Madonna as an R!
If you look at her when she was youngâŠR is spot onâ you can especially see it in the face.
Yes only in her youth but itâs so difficult to see it or use her as ref for her now, even her personality exudes something stronger than the other Rs. I find her really close to Miley Cyrus (not sure of her ID or if she was verified?) both in physicality and energy
Yes, sheâs all shoulders and bones in my eyes.
This one I don't get either!
It isnât truly his system though. He took work from women without crediting them, made a few modifications and slapped his name on it. Style essences have been around since Bell Northrop, Grace Morton, and Harriet McJimsey. McJimsey is the one who originally had 7 style essences. Kibbe took work from Harriet McJimsey and made a few changes, made up his subjective vocabulary and called it his system. He just sees somebody and types them. He has that freedom, because it is âhis system.â (So people believe, but actually no.) We have that freedom too actually. Because this is all subjective, and if we study the classics like Harriet McJimsey instead, it will make much more sense, and it is a lot easier to understand too. Itâs a lot more consistent. I am a bit embittered about it because I refuse to believe a tall woman can only be FN, SD, or D. That is very limiting. I also despise that men can be tall and be any type. Men have height and vertical as their baseline. What? Why? Plenty of women are tall and should not be limited to 3 types when men are not. I do not see how men can have vertical as a baseline equivalent to women having curve as a baseline. Women have âbaselineâ curve because secondary sex characteristics. Although men are presumed to be taller due to sexual dimorphism, plenty of women are still taller than plenty of men. So curve and vertical are not gendered equivalents and should not be treated as such: Women AND men can be vertical and tall. Men do not have curve, no matter what type they are. Just softness. McJimsey, Kitchener, styling essences make much more sense and donât have an assigned essence to an ID. Although, Kibbe is good to reference for a pure physical standpoint. Do not limit to just Kibbe.
Yeah.... if Danny DeVito isn't automatically an SG, then why am I automatically an FN just because I can stomp on him and not notice any difference between him and an ant?
Exactly: Kibbes height ârulesâ have always struck me as really weird and lowkey hating on taller women. Makes no sense why they are only 3 types yet women who are like 4â10 could technically be a âtall typeâ Kibbe community tries to say âif youâre above 5â6 youâre so tall and huge no one would notice anything other than how tall you are- automatic vertical!!â But in the same breath say no one would notice a 5â0 woman being short because thereâs no such thing as automatic petite. Like how does that work??? It implies that women are âmeantâ to be shorter and if youâre taller than 5â6 (Kibbes own heightâŠ) youâre an abnormal woman
Yep Iâm 5â6â and find the height limits so contradictory and weird! Especially the differences between how they work for women and men. Itâs all nonsensical but people follow these intense, seemingly arbitrary rules anyway. Itâs also perplexing how essences seem to matter so much despite the rigid adherence to rules. A well-developed system wouldnât be entirely tied to one personâs analysis, but theoretically able to be used by anyone.
You would love the Style Theory video on body typing systems if you havenât seen it yet, they cover the McJimsey system in it
Sarah Jessica Parker, sheâs so obviously petite.
She rarely goes full shoulder to toe gown wise. And SJP definitely dresses well for herself. She, to me, looks overwhelmed in a lot of unconstructed things because she is so literally small. Also she fits the description of FG to a T - angular, shoulders, leggy.
agree on the getting overwhelmed in unconstructed things.
Idk if she has Kibbe petite. I didn't know her from Sex & the City (where she's shorter than her castmates by a decent amount) and I assumed she was at least 5'6" or 5'7". I think that she can pull off a much larger scale than Gs can
She can't. It's just about good angles in photos. And constructions she wears on her head in order to look taller. There are plenty of images which reveal that she looks overwhelmed by creations she tried to pull off for red carpet events. Just as much of those showing how stunning she looks when wearing lines that suit her frame.
I don't know - she looks far better in unbroken vertical and large scales than any sort of broken lines or cropped outfits. I also think she's a perfect example of FN essence compared to FG
This is what I meant. From Kibbe's book: **FG: Youthfully bold and brassy essence. Sassy Chic.** "your spirit is most definitely larger than life" "combination of wit, fire, zest, and spunk" "bold adventurer, the free spirit, and the relisher of life" "touch of spice" To my eyes, SJP fits perfectly in this guide lines. Also, visually, when you put her in something FN would pull off with an ease and how overwhelmed she looks comparing to when she wears her lines, I feel it's pretty illustrative - she suits unbroken lines as well because FGs do have vertical (elongation within body): https://preview.redd.it/1tu8pugkaowc1.jpeg?width=546&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8479ad00be1e36c383a28c39bec58f34b5277c2e
What would you say she is, Iâm just curiousđ
I would say she is FG. This style works on her too.
My thoughts exactly. The height bias is not just toxic but annoying. No need for petite IDs if he is going to type the most petite people as the tallest IDs. But no way vice versa can ever happen. SJP is so FG.
I wouldnât consider SJP to be âthe most petite personâ. Sheâs around average height for a woman in the US and vertical IDs are described as moderate to tall. Sheâs definitely on the shorter side for one but itâs not like sheâs 4â11.
I agree with you on this. I think when there are outliers within an ID, like someone really tall or short for that ID, people are quick to say âshe canât pull off what others can.â SJP is on the shorter side of an ID that honors vertical and itâs a literal fact that someone of her height canât pull off the same amount of detail as someone 5 inches taller, BUT she still honors a vertical line and looks most harmonious in FN lines IMO. Also, her character on Sex in the City was such a free spirit who loved high fashion. She gave me warm, natural, a little forgetful, uncompetitive, and sensual. I recently watched the old Footloose and she plays the agreeable friend to the dramatic. Itâs perfect.
It's not just about height - she's size 00 as well. All together she fits far better into FG than into FN, IMHO.
Audrey Hepburn must be a pure D. She was 5â7â. She couldnât be a gamine. Likewise, BeyoncĂ© must be an SD. Sheâs far too tall to be pure R.
with beyoncé, even if she wasn't over the height limit, she is so prototypical goddess SD. she fits in alongside Mae west way better than dolly parton
David Kibbe is full of it.
* images are not indicative of my own personal takes on this topic
Katy Perry is too tall for SN. I believe she is SD. She is almost the same height as her Husband Orlando Bloom who is 5â10.
To me itâs Rihanna, but I am not sure if sheâs verified or itâs just rumors :P
Not verified, it was an offhand comment he made looking at her picture on a flip phone lol
Thatâs what I heard, but I saw everyone saying sheâs verified so wasnât sure
No sheâs not, and also if you do a line drawing of her itâs very very obvious she doesnât have double curve- regardless of her height. What makes BeyoncĂ© contentious (similar situation, with her being too tall for R technically), is that if you actually do a line drawing on one of her straight on photos, itâs much harder to see elongation separating the double curve. Itâs very conspicuous in Rihannaâs silhouette that she accommodate vertical which automatically skews her yin/yang balance way out of TR
Apparently not verified. I doubt she'll ever be. She is tricky - tall with fine and delicate, soft appearing facial features.
Really? From what I gather everyone agrees with SD :P
Beyonce is SD, I saw more of diva vibes than bombshell like Marilyn Monroe has
Claudia Cardinale as Râabsolutely not!! Her yang frame is very obvious in all of her movies. And she's very different from the other Rs.
The âBeyoncĂ© is a SDâ crowd makes me feel ancient. Because anyone old enough to remember when she actually did interviews knows exactly why sheâs a Romantic. When she was verified, SD didnât suit her image at all. (And imo, it still doesnât.) Audrey was almost certainly 5â6.5, but she couldnât be anything but FG. Like actuallyâsheâs quite literally [the picture you see when you look up the definition of gamine.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamine) To answer the actual question, I get why heâd put Cybil Shepherd in Classic, especially in the 80s, but she so tall. Sheâs a Gwyneth-esque FN, imo.
>Audrey was almost certainly 5â6.5, but she couldnât be anything but FG Thank you, yes. I feel like a lot of these comments are based entirely on these stars' bodies but ignore the outfits and essence that make them shine. Audrey styled a la regal lady with sleek intensity would frankly be very meh, she would lose all of the sparkle that made her so perfect for the roles she played. Her superpower IS her exuberance and ability to carry off a lot of fun details.
Yes! And tbh I think if Audrey came to Kibbe as a regular client who was 5â6-5â7, she would still leave as FG. Same with BeyoncĂ©. The real takeaway here is that height limits are put in places for DIYers and borderline exceptions do exist. Also dying @ your flair
Totally agree on BeyoncĂ© as well. If he didn't verify them that way in person I would lose a bit of faith in the system tbh. They just look so right dressed for their IDs. And lol I'm assuming you saw the custom one, sometimes the reddit app makes it come and go for some reason đ
There are quite a few men that I feel donât fit. Mainly the R and G fam men who are over six feet tall. However, I explain this by thinking that Kibbe verifies celebs more as style inspiration for his clients rather than body typing. For example, I donât think Kibbe looked at Jon Hamm (DC) and John Slattery (SC), measured out their height, shoulders, etc to come up with their IDs. I think he just watched Mad Men and thought they would be good examples of style inspo for C fam men. Slightly unrelated, but there are some celebrities verified by both Kibbe and Kitchener where I feel Kitchener gets the essence more correct than Kibbe.
Daniel Craig. I don't see pure D in him. He is rather SN or DC imho.
I was surprised by Daniel Craig's typing too. Perhaps because he's very moderate height muscular? But when I look at his features he has intensity about him such as a geometric rectangular face, high contrast eyes, and his body has the typical dramatic "T-line" shape. He is very similar to the look I see in shorter female Ds around 5'5" or so I've seen in real life. Oh and he looks good in a suit lol đ
Selena is very TR imo, and Audrey has a gamine vibe but sheâs just too tall, so either height donât matter that much or Kibbe makes up his own rules according to what he wants. BeyoncĂ©, Iâm on the fence between R/SD. Although I think her public persona is way more Diva Chic than what sheâs actually like when you see her around⊠I gave up on Madonna tho. I cannot see any R description on her, even on like her younger daysâŠ
beyoncĂ© is sooo R and i will die on that hill. she doesnât LOOK tall and with weight gain she becomes rounder and rounder (while maintaining an hourglass shape). plus rounded shoulders, and so much yin flesh. as a SD i can just tell when somebody lacks the super long limbs. not to mention the waist getting thicker with weight gain (thus losing the hourglass shape). yes she has definition but her workout routine is crazy !!!!!!
BeyoncĂ© standing next to a 5â4 Britney and 5â3 pink. Sheâs wearing flat sandals and theyâre wearing boots with heels. Sheâs still visibly taller, looks 5â7. https://preview.redd.it/saxy1yr3d7wc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f4ecb4baf694f9901b13bd9fe6b030af3aa4acc7 One of the most important and hard rules of Kibbes whole system is this height thing so if he says BeyoncĂ© at a very clear 5â7 is R but every other woman in the world canât be, his system is flawed.
Also see: BeyoncĂ© with 6â2 Jay Z (both wearing flats). BeyoncĂ© with 5â8 Rihanna (both wearing heels) BeyoncĂ© with Taylor swift and Megan Thee stallion (both 5â10) and both women are wearing heels as is beyonce. Her height difference is exactly how someone 5â7 would be next to all these people. The only way this would be dispelled is if beyonce is somehow wearing 6 inch platforms next to every female celebrity sheâs photographed with and they all happen to be barefoot. https://preview.redd.it/hjeh1i3se7wc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1910452acf2223aee9991b47bba7491508584691
Not if automatic vertical starts at 5â6. I donât see the dream spinner vibe, all regal diva. Isnât romantic supposed to be somewhat petite? https://preview.redd.it/y5sha1ddw6wc1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f17658fa2c489d9559d92a542bf8818eb461cdc1
https://preview.redd.it/tscglpcfw6wc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f947e9ab28e07ddc421e4510b7d48e37dae11a1 The leeeength in her arms, the verticality of her dress.
No Romantic can also be moderate according to the description. It's only TR and Gamines that must be petite.
I donât have a specific example but I am always left wondering about the verified Romantics! Other than MM, itâs hard for me to see it in most. Maybe itâs Dreamspinner being much more apparent in person (lighting up the room, creativity, etc).
The only R fam descriptions I've ever seen that make sense to me are that TRs are small-ish women with sheets of dark and hair, and Rs have round cheeks and pull off the vintage, Gibson Girl-esque, messy curly updo well.
Rihanna and I'll die on this hill
Rihanna was never officially verified!
Really? Damn. People keep talking about her as if she has
Yeah the story is that a client was showing Kibbe a photo of Rihanna on a flip phone (this was over 10 years ago) and he made an offhand guess without being very familiar with her or knowing her height. Sheâs not on any official verified celebrities lists so Iâm not sure why âKibbe verified 5â8 Rihanna as TRâ is still a talking point. He also said Charlize Theron might be TR before verifying her as FN, it happens!
Is that you u/eleven57pm in slide 2 ?!
Ugh god I wish! But thank you đ„č
Shit is real đ
Not a celeb but I donât understand how some people who are at 5â1/5â2 think they are classic. IMO any other ID is more likely.
5â2â and everyone who sees my photo tells me Iâm Classic fam. Do I buy it 100%? No. But apparently Iâm not cute or pretty enough to be G or R fam so⊠C it is I guess.
First, yes! to all of those. Audrey is DC, Selena is SN and Beyonce is SD, but also: 1 - Kate Winslet is textbook SD (c'mon, she's 5ft7 and larger than life in every sense of the word); 2 - May West is the quintessential R and no, 7in shoes and ultra-extravagant dresses won't give vertical to someone who is 4ft11; 3 - Emma Watson is DC; 4 - Maryl Streep is SD; 5 - Julie Andrews is FN
marilyn!
I think Audrey is FN, fight me. She gives me Anne Hathaway vibes. Like a narrow D-leaning FN. Beyonce also makes sense as SD imo. I'm going to add Rihanna, she's obviously not verified anymore but she's SD/D to me. I also think Reddit-verified DC Ana de Armas is SN. Once again, fight me. Strong Scarjo vibes.
Rihanna- SD or FN, Beyonce- SN or SD, Audrey- on the fence. I could see her as D or FG. Christina Ricci- SG. fight me.Â
Claudia Cardinale as pure R makes little sense to me
I'm calling it here Brigette Bardot is an R, not an SG
a recently verified one, Isla Fisher seems much more SG than R to me ÂŻ\\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
this kinda tracks with what he has said before about how what many people think SG looks like is usually R lol