I start with the idea that there are seven basic styles essences. 

I continue by accepting that any individual might be one essence alone, or a mix of several essences.

I then suggest that for any person to combine more than two primary style essences into a coherent style identity without the help of a paid image consultant is difficult at best.

This is a problem!

My solution is the Truth is Beauty Style Identity System:


7 pure identities
+
21 possible two-identity combinations 

I believe most people will be able to find themselves either within a pure style identity or within a two-style identity combination.

In upcoming posts I'll detail what I believe are the defining physical traits of each style identity, based on my study of the currently existing style systems.

I'll also provide the style recommendations I've deduced for each style identity.

In the meantime, here is my list of 28 style identities.

Dramatic
Natural
Gamine
Classic
Ingenue
Romantic
Ethereal
Natural Dramatic
Dramatic Gamine
Classic Dramatic
Dramatic Ingenue
Dramatic Romantic
Ethereal Dramatic
Natural Gamine
Natural Classic
Natural Ingenue
Romantic Natural
Ethereal Natural
Classic Gamine
Gamine Ingenue
Romantic Gamine
Ethereal Gamine
Classic Ingenue
Romantic Classic
Ethereal Classic
Romantic Ingenue
Ethereal Ingenue
Ethereal Romantic


                    * * * * * * * 

Many of you know the seven essential styles as well as (or better than!) I do.

With the exception of the Angelic style, which was first identified by John Kitchener and on which Ethereal is based, the style types go back decades.

So I would love to get your feedback, hear your ideas, see your Pinboards and Polyvores. Please contact me!


(Also, my decision about word order for each style identity was based simply on what sounded better. Disagree with my choice? Let me know!) 

Just as personal color analysis identifies your authentic, most flattering colors, there are systems that aim to identify your authentic, most flattering lines. 

Like many of you, I've spent a lot of time studying these systems.  

David Kibbe's system, as described in his book Metamorphosis,  produces 13 distinct style identities by combining five pre-existing style essences: 

- Dramatic 
- Natural 
- Classic 
- Romantic 
- Gamine   

I've discussed Kibbe's very helpful system before, so I won't go on about it at length here. If you believe you are some combination of these five essences, Kibbe's extremely detailed book is a must-read for you. No other articulation of these five essences is as specific or as complete. 

And Kibbephiles who know their seasons now have an excellent new resource: Christine Scaman and Rachel Nachmias have adapted Kibbe's types into a system called Signature/STYLE, which combines body type with personal coloring. Ds, Rs, Cs, Ns and Gs will find Signature/STYLE incredibly helpful.

Kibbe's book is fantastic. But  I am personally no longer a Kibbe devotee. 

Why? 

Because he omits two essences that I now believe are essential in style analysis: Youthful/Ingenue and Angelic. 

John Kitchener's system, from which Kibbe's supposedly derives (though I can't find a cite for that - readers?), includes Kibbe's five essences, and also includes Youthful and Angelic, for a total of seven essences.

I believe Kitchener's is the system that correctly identifies all of the basic style essences found in human beings. 

The concept of a Youthful or Ingenue essence is not a new idea. It's present in the work of much earlier analysts such as Harriet McJimsey, whose wonderful book, Art in Clothing Selection, is available on Amazon. 

(Obviously, this book is crazy expensive. Check out Jane Rekas at Expressing Your Truth and Vanessa at Style Syntax; both give thorough overviews of McJimsey's types.)


McJimsey's Ingenue style essence has a look that is girlish, innocent and sweet. Ingenue is distinguished from Romantic in that it's feminine but not overtly sexy. It's distinguished from Gamine in that it's youthful but innocent, not mischievous. McJimsey gives Shirley Jones as a celebrity example of the Ingenue type. 

Some people argue that there's no place for a Youthful/Ingenue category in a style typing system for adults. Kibbe obviously thought there wasn't. But I think Kitchener's right to include it. 

Consider Marilyn Monroe. In a system without the Ingenue essence, she would be considered primarily Romantic - womanly, sexy, passionate.

And she certainly has those qualities. 

But does the Romantic essence alone capture what made Monroe so appealing? Asked another way, do these pictures capture what we love about her?  

I don't believe so. 

She's not an icon because she was merely sexy. She's an icon because of images like these:

What we love about Marilyn Monroe isn't her sexy Romantic essence... 

It's the unexpected blend of both Romantic and Ingenue essences: sexy and innocent. 

Without the Youthful/Ingenue essence, there's no Marilyn. Kitchener makes this point in his wonderful video on the Youthful essence. 

There are many other style systems (such as this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one) that include the Ingenue type. 


But only Kitchener's system identifies the Angelic type. This great article by Andrea Pflaumer explains how Kitchener came to identify this essence. 

To see the necessity for an Angelic essence, consider Cate Blanchett.


In David Kibbe's system, she is a Dramatic. No other essence in his system describes her better.

Yet are these her best looks?

Surely not. 

Severe lines and bold design do not capture her beauty.

She has a quality that these ensembles do not allow for: she is ethereal.


In these images, she seems more like herself:

In hair and costume, she needs a much more feminine feeling...

but not a sexy, Romantic feeling. Not Elizabeth Taylor. 

And not Emma Stone; no Ingenue cuteness here.


It is this Cate Blanchett quality - an energy that's identifiably feminine, but otherworldly instead of overtly sexy or sweetly innocent - that the Angelic essence encompasses. Angelic is a thing. 

Most systems insist that everyone is one pure type. That's not right.

David Kibbe allows for combinations of two types. That's more accurate - but since he omits the Ingenue and Angelic essences, many people are unrepresented.

John Kitchener personally assigns each individual client a proportional mix of several essences. That's highly accurate for people who consult him, but difficult to adapt to do-it-yourself style typing.

What's needed is a system that includes all seven basic essences and allows people to type themselves without difficulty. 

In my next post, I'll introduce such a system.