Don't let the fashion industry tell you what to think on this issue. Be guided by what you actually look like.

If you're strongly Ethereal, Natural, Dramatic, Romantic, and/or Classic,  you'll probably want to avoid traditionally childlike fashions -- even if you're still a teen. (I'm an Ethereal Natural, and even as a child I wasn't flattered by polka dots or bows or cutesy patterns.)

But if you're strongly Gamine,  you can feel confident in booties, funky eyeglass frames, tights, miniskirts, bright colors, playful jewelry, and everything else whimsical and funky. And if you're strongly Ingenue, don't hesitate to sport ringlets, tiny floral prints, peplums, ruffles, Mary Janes,  babydoll silhouettes, and everything else girlish and sweet.

Not sure what your Style ID is? Figure it out yourself with the Style Identity Calculator, or invest in a Virtual Analysis. 

In my part of the world, pools open Memorial Day weekend. I hope that gives many of you enough time to take advantage of the Swimwear Guides I am so psyched to offer now. 

I hope to revolutionize the way women think about swimwear. 

​If you're familiar with my blog and my style system, you know that I propose that women look best when their dress for their faces, not for their bodies.  As far as I know, no one else has made this realization, and I think it's really important to spread the word about this. 

As women wanting to look our best, we are encouraged to obsess about the tiny details of our bodies.  Are my shoulders the same width as my hips, or slightly wider? Am I an apple or a pear? Are my fingers delicate or just bony?

A lot of us have spent dozens or even hundreds of hours asking ourselves these questions.  

When it comes to swimwear, the pressure to scrutinize our bodies so minutely is particularly intense.  

I want you to know and believe that it is all utter bull.

If you have a Dramatic face, you'll look your best in a Dramatic suit -- even if the style websites are telling you to disguise your flat bust with ruffles, or choose a suit with a skirt to hide your thighs. 

If you have a Romantic face, you'll look your best in a Romantic suit -- even if the style websites are telling you to avoid string bikinis, high-cut swimsuits, and side ties. 

Here, see two beautifully busty women, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Kim Kardashian. One strikes a dissonant chord in a bust-emphasizing bikini, because her face is too childlike and sweet.
The other is amazing in a similar top, because of the mature, sexy elements in her face.

Here, see two women in a simple maillot -- Selena Gomez and Jamie Lee Curtis.
Both women have curvy bodies.
​But on one woman, the minimalism and geometry of the suit is incongruous with her sexy, impish face. On the other woman, the suit is great -- the clean, stark lines echo the clean stark lines of her face. 

​I have a ton of Natural in my face, and simple, sporty bikini tank tops are great for me -- even though conventional fashion wisdom tells me I am supposed to inflate my nonexistent bust with ruffles or embellishment. 

There's no point in creating for myself the illusion of a sexy bust, when a sexy bust is at odds with my face!

We're taught to zoom in on our bodies and focus on every tiny little detail of them. 

But when you zoom out, our bodies are not that different.

​And that's how other people look at your body: zoomed out. When you're in a bathing suit,  NO ONE is noticing whether your shoulders are square or tapered. 

What they are looking at -- what they are zooming in on and examining minutely -- is your face. That's how all of us look at faces, because the human brain is wired to do that.

And if your suit coordinates with your face, that's all people will notice.  


I know this is a difficult idea to take in.

When we feel unsafe, we default to what we've always done -- and, for many of us, appearing in a swimsuit feels incredibly vulnerable.

Let me just suggest this:

Try on a suit that I am recommending for you. 

Take a pic of yourself in the dressing room, and share it with the friend you know will give you honest feedback. (That's not all of your friends, bless them. Be judicious here. You want real honesty.)

Or just keep it on your phone, and come back to a week later, when you have fresh eyes. 

I believe you'll see yourself looking more flattered by a bathing suit that you have been in a long time.  Or you'll have a moment in which you realize why you always loved that one particular suit, despite it supposedly being wrong for your "body type." 

Here's the first page of the guide for Natural-Classic-Ingenue.

 Each guide comes with the following:

• Pictures of at least five sample suits
• What basic suit types to look for
• What necklines to choose
• What leg cuts to look for
• Which prints and patterns are best
• What color schemes to choose
• What details to look for

The are $11.99.

​Try your Swimwear Guide here.  Be sure to indicate in a comment to your order which Style Identity you'd like me to send you.

(And if you're not sure of your Style Identity, consider trying the affordable Style Identity Calculator, or investing in a Virtual Analysis.)

A woman for whom I recently did a virtual analysis offered to write a customer testimonial for me. Now that I'm in my 40s, one of my personal goals is to become more comfortable tooting my own horn. So here it is.  :-)

    *    *    *

Why get a Style Analysis from Rachel? After all, can’t you just figure out this stuff yourself? I mean, it costs money, and all that. I can give you one great reason: Rachel’s gift is magical. Her style analysis is spot-on, objective, and exact. She nailed it.

Like most of us, I have been rather haphazard about my style choices. While I like to think of myself as a smart woman, I have a hard time filtering out the style and fashion noise that bombards us daily. Many of us find the process too difficult to navigate, so we opt out. Many just wear sweats and flip flops,  unless heading to work. Others, like me, try and try again, spending countless dollars testing out theories and never quite getting it right. Both extremes can justify these choices with the idea that we are not going to be victims of consumerism, or that we can reinvent ourselves as the occasion demands. And many are satisfied with that.

I am not. Like most, I have a lot of demands on my time and money, so I want to make sure I maximize both. These days, at least, image is important, so making the most of that image without breaking the bank is, to my mind, a worthy goal.

I have educated myself about image matters, at least minimally. According to many media sources, I should, at my age, “know what works for me.”  I’ve spent more than 50 years as a female marketing target in the United States, though. And I know I am not alone in being more confused about what works for me than ever. Let’s face it: we are constantly being told that we can control or create our image. We can even live virtually behind an avatar, if we choose. This image thing is NOT easy.

Meaningful style analysis was (and is) an elusive target. When I first started spending my own money on clothes, style analysis was limited to the passing reference to types in the back of the Color Me Beautiful books: Dramatic, Classic, Romantic, Natural,  and for a small number of people, Ingenue. I never felt drawn to any of those pure types. Based on the offhand comments of family and friends about how small I am (5’4” on a good day, and very short waisted), or how I should look for my various life roles (work, wife, mom) I always distorted the self-test results away from the Dramatic looks that appealed to me. I am too short to pull those off, I would think. High fashion is not for women like me.

I persevered, though. I did not resort to sweats. I watched makeover shows. I bought fashion books. I pinned all the pins about face shape and how to put on makeup for my eye shape. I wore the Lilly Pulitzer dress that matched the pink dress my daughter loved. I wore the Land’s End quilted jacket all the moms were wearing. I developed a utilitarian basic work wardrobe that required no effort on hectic mornings. My image functioned, but it wasn’t great. And it wasn’t cheap.

Trying the latest fad, or buying clothes just for the right color, gets expensive. So does purging your wardrobe of clothes you love because they supposedly don’t work with your angular shoulders. Because, you see, I would focus on individual features of my image without having a vision for the whole.

But Rachel has hit on something the shows, books, blogs, and advice columns won’t tell you: there are parts of your image you can’t change. As she says, your combination of facial features and body parts, the curves and lines they create, give off an impression. Whether you like or accept them, it is good to know what they are.

When I started reading Rachel’s blog a few months ago, I tried to self analyze. I had never heard of the Kibbe types, so I read and looked on Pinterest. I read Rachel’s research on facial typing, and I realized that I probably did not have the discipline to apply this information to myself accurately.

I had never heard of Ethereal as a style type. Flowy clothes were always either Romantic or Natural, but the supernatural Ethereal look is distinct from the others. Gamine is similarly distinct from Ingenue as a youthful look and from the other masculine types. And it makes so much sense to have this symmetrical division from Dramatic on the masculine end to Ethereal on the feminine, with Classic in the middle.

My self analysis wasn’t trustworthy. Years of fashion industry static has made me doubt my eye and my instinct. What’s more, I sometime confuse my mischievous side with a visual style: in short, I saw myself in all of the types. I am small, so I could argue the Ingenue or Gamine essences, but I don’t like the fussiness they need. I am not symmetrical enough to be a Classic, but I do like proportion. I have some rounded features, so maybe there is some Romantic in there. I have some rather average features, and earth tones work for me, so maybe a Natural. Dramatic and Ethereal really appealed to me, but I could not see whether I was coming forward (Dramatic) or receding (Ethereal). And those can’t be right because I am short. I needed help. Enter Rachel.

For me, Rachel’s style analysis, like all truths, has set me free. I am a Dramatic Ethereal Classic (50% Dramatic!). I felt drawn to this type, but had talked myself out of it! Again, I had failed to see that my whole was greater than the sum of my parts. This type makes sense of all of my conflicting signals. I am no longer afraid of my dark coloring: it fits. I am no longer trying to soften the things about my appearance others find intimidating: the Ethereal elements in my style can do that for me without being cutesy, overly casual, or overly ornate (all things I have tried). The Classic part gives proportion to my shortness.

On Rachel’s recommendation, I am trying hairstyles some of the online experts would disapprove of, like no bangs on my long face. I am trying styles that are supposed to be wrong for me, like boatnecks for my broad shoulders. AND THEY ARE WORKING. I have gotten compliments from random co-workers for each of these small experiments. The people who have seen Rachel’s recommendations for me have unanimously approved.

Here is the best part: I am not afraid of growing into this image. I can look back and see that these elements have always been part of me, and knowing that, the future looks so much brighter! Is Style Analysis worth it? With Rachel it is. Thank you, Rachel, for helping me find myself!

   *    *    *

This customer's words made me so happy. More than anything, I want to help women feel authentically beautiful. If you're interested in a virtual analysis for yourself, book it today!  :-)  And keep in mind that many women do find success using the very affordable Style Identity Calculator on their own. :-)

Despite the fact that we women are taught almost from birth to obsess about the appearance our bodies, what looks good on us is determined almost completely by our faces. (Read more about this here.)

Style systems that rely much more on body shape are probably going to put a disproportionate number of heavier women into the Romantic category. 

She looks best when she dresses for her super-cute face, not her curvy body. 

What about as a person gains or loses weight -- if one's face becomes more or less rounded, does this add or remove Romantic Style ID?
​
Women with a lot of Romantic essence tend to have very rounded and characteristically feminine features -- full lips, full cheeks, narrow chins, high foreheads.

I do think additional weight can sometimes add Romantic to a face. ​

But OTOH, it can add Gamine or Ingenue instead, by making the face appear rounder and cuter. ​ There's overlap on those points between Romantic, Gamine, and Ingenue.

I think it takes a lot of weight change to make a significant change in one's Style ID. 

Star Jones famously had a big weight change. I think she had a good bit of Romantic before -- I liked her in blingy jewelry, lace, and a smoky eye. 

Did she lose some Romantic when she lost a ton of weight? Perhaps. I can identify a few changes. Younger Star's nose reads as tiny and delicate in the context of her fleshier face; when her face is leaner, her nose reads as more strong and angular. Her overall face, though still somewhat rounded, appears a bit narrower. Maybe there's a bit more Natural or Dramatic?

 But she's still pretty good in curls and cleavage emphasis.  I think she retains a lot of her Romantic from before. 

Star Jones' weight loss was reportedly over 100 pounds. If that really big change in a person's body results in only minor changes to the face, it's reasonable to expect that a person's style identity won't change much from less drastic changes in weight. 

Yes, I know I'm late to this party! But I don't have network TV, and I have two kids. I'm just now catching up with the rest of the world TV-wise.

Anyway, here are the color seasons of several of the actors on Mad Men, as best I can tell.

Elisabeth Moss: True Summer

Her best colors aren't particularly dark, but they're very cool. Soft Summer is also a possibility for her, but what really convinced me of True Summer was seeing how pink her lipstick can get. The pinker it is, the prettier she looks. Most seasons can't wear those super-pink lippies.


Jon Hamm: Dark Winter

His best colors are certainly cool, and quite dark. They're not vivid enough to be Bright Winter colors, and they have the "sooty" quality (as Christine Scaman puts it) that characterizes Dark Winter colors. 

January Jones: Light Spring

Her best colors are warm, clear, and rather light and delicate. I don't think True Spring is impossible for her, but I think it's unlikely; it's telling to me that her very worst colors are dark (remember when Betty dyed her hair black?) I also find some colors to be too clear and warm for her; pure orange and bright red are not great.


Jessica Pare: Bright Spring

This woman was obviously a Bright from her first moment on screen. I decided on Bright Spring rather than Bright Winter because so many warm, clear colors are glorious on her, and because too-cool colors can make her look a bit goth.

I love how often she's costumed in her best colors. It's a joy to behold.

​
Linda Cardellini: True Winter

What a gorgeous example of a True Winter. The way black, white and grey make this skin look amazing -- it's just beautiful. 



Although I know it will disappoint some people, I have to say that I can't accurately type Christina Hendricks.  :-(

You might be thinking, "She's obviously a Bright, or a True Spring!"  But don't let yourself get distracted by the colors she's costumed in as Joan  -- they're generally very bright colors, but they're also brighter than she is. 

​Your best colors should let us see you; Joan's colors force us to just see lips, hair, and curves. 

​Which is probably the point.: the colors make her into a cartoon.

 I suspect that, IRL, Christina Hendricks is probably a Soft Autumn, or just maybe a True Autumn; warmth seems to be good for her, but she needs less saturation than she's given on Mad Men. 

What do you think? Any ideas about Christina Hendricks' color season? Do you think I've missed the mark on any of the other characters? Let me know!

Here's an interesting paper  documenting some scientists' efforts to develop a computer program that can identify the relative masculinity/femininity of human faces as accurately as humans can.  It's a great article to read or skim for a quick exposure to the world of "subjective gender scoring" in scientific research.

Overall, human raters tend to agree about how masculine or feminine any given face is.

​Human raters are also pretty good at determining whether someone is a man or a woman based just on the face, although a large minority of faces are ambiguous enough for raters to disagree about their sex.

(There is actually some evidence that people perceive these androgynous faces as more beautiful, but that's another post.)

​All of which is to say, "masculine-looking" and "feminine-looking" are things. They are qualities humans perceive, and they're fairly objective, inasmuch as people (even across cultures) mostly agree with each other about them.

Although human biological sex is binary, masculine and feminine appearance is a dimension, not a binary.

​In other words,  it's not the case that the most feminine-looking male face is still perceived as more masculine than the most masculine-looking female face.

Instead, both men and women vary in how masculine or feminine their faces appear to others, and there is a lot of overlap. ​

You have probably noticed that I use the words "masculine" and "feminine" quite a bit in my system, to describe what faces look like. 

This sets me apart from some other theorists who use euphemisms like "yang and yin," or "sharp and soft," to describe exactly the same differences. (There are plenty of other euphemisms in use as well.) 

I could use words like "sharp" and "soft" where I mean "masculine" and "feminine," and it wouldn't necessarily be inaccurate. I know that some women just don't like having the word "masculine" applied to them in any way.

​But I prefer to use the words "masculine" and "feminine," even so, for four main reasons. ​

It's just a fact, for example, that a short nose bridge is more common in women than in men, and that human raters perceive a short nose bridge as feminine.

I care about facts, and about reality, and I assume you do too. I don't care to pretend things aren't true when they are. I prefer to accept the truth, and proceed from that acceptance. ​

2. The second reason I use "masculine" and "feminine" as visual descriptors is that the seven style archetypes largely depend on gender for their meanings. They derive in large part from our culture's pre-existing ideas about certain archetypal men and certain archetypal women.

For example, features that read as both youthful and feminine tend to communicate sweetness and innocence, and that's because, as a culture, we have a pre-existing idea that "girlhood" is synonymous with innocence and sweetness. The Ingenue archetype is the physical embodiment of this assumption. 

(Of course, little girls are neither more innocent nor more sweet than little boys, and to proceed as if they are is to proceed on a stereotype. But we can acknowledge the existence of these obviously sexist archetypes, and use those archetypes to communicate meaning in fashion, without mentally swallowing the stereotypes. I am aware that girls aren't more innocent than boys, but I also know that other people interpret girlish visual cues as signaling innocence, so I am going to use that knowledge.) 

3. The third reason that I think it's important to say "masculine" and "feminine" is that understanding your balance of masculine and feminine elements is key to looking your most beautiful. 

Almost all of us women have a mix of masculine and feminine elements in our visual appearance. Yet we are choosing clothes and accessories made for women, so they tend to be feminine choices.  This can result in us looking less beautiful, because when our clothes or accessories are more feminine-looking than we are, we go from looking "chiseled" or "striking" to looking actually mannish -- which is quite different, and unlovely, because it's jarring.

Consider Jamie Lee Curtis, one of my favorite examples of a woman with a lot of masculinity in her features. Is she her most gorgeous with longer, feminine, hair, or with shorter, more masculine hair?

In the picture on the left, her hair is more feminine than she is, and the result is that her face looks mannish, rather than striking or majestic, by comparison. She's more obviously a woman in the picture on the right; the relative masculinity of her hair is directly proportional to the relative masculinity of her features, and she's a striking, powerful-looking woman -- her best look. 

I talked about this phenomenon -- that an appropriately masculine context actually makes a woman with masculine elements look more lovely -- with regard to Winona Ryder, in my blog post about Gamines.  Google pictures of this objectively pretty woman: the more feminine her clothing and hair are, the less lovely she becomes. The same is true for Cher, for Hilary Swank, for Jennifer Aniston, for Sandra Oh, for Whoopi, for Frances McDormand, for Elisabeth Shue, and for tons of other women celebs with a lot of Natural or Dramatic or Gamine:  when their context becomes too lacy and ruffly -- too feminine --  they are less lovely, not more lovely. The same is true with me!  I have a huge helping of Natural, and too-feminine looks are unpretty for me. Messy hair, some gloss, and an unconstructed top, on the other hand -- gorgeous. If I do say so myself. :-)

IMO, we have to talk about "masculine" and "feminine" in order to achieve the proper masculine-feminine balance in our clothing context, to allow us to look our most beautiful. 


4. The final reason I prefer using "masculine" and "feminine" to using euphemisms is this:

To  change my language would be to say that I think it's right or appropriate for the word "masculine" to be insulting as a descriptor of women's features. 

To change my language would be to say that I agree that masculine features are somehow inherently unlovely in women.

I won't agree  that it's an insult to describe women's features as masculine, because I simply don't believe that's true. Women with more masculine features are beautiful. Women with more feminine features are also beautiful. 
​

To say otherwise is  like saying a circle is somehow inherently more attractive than a square. ​It's all about context. A woman with more masculine features is gorgeous when her context is more masculine; a woman with more feminine features is gorgeous when her context is feminine.  (I mean, just compare the makeup in the two pics above: matte finish, neutral colors, high contrast, and straight lines suit the woman on the left; shimmer, gloss, curving lines, and pinks and reds suit the woman on the right. Each would be less lovely in the other's makeup. In their proper context, each is gorgeous.) 


Some people won't be comfortable having the words "masculine" and "feminine"  applied freely to both men's and women's physical appearance. For those people, another style system may be a better fit.

I intend Truth is Beauty to be a value-free zone, where we can objectively discuss physical features without applying any positive or negative judgment to the fact that they appear masculine or feminine.

My long-term vision is of a world where neither of those words has a positive or negative connotation associated with it.


Knowing your Style Identity can save you time and money. If you're not sure of your Style Identity, try the Style Identity Calculator, or consider booking a virtual analysis. 
​​

We interpret scents in the same way we interpret colors and lines. Some scents smell masculine, and some smell feminine; some are mysterious, some are delicate, some are earthy, some are cheerful, some are intimidating, some are sexy.

​If you want to, it's possible for you to apply these principles toward the goal of  smelling like you look. 

As an Ethereal Natural, I love the delicate, earthy scents that harmonize with the delicate and earthy aspects of my beauty. I'm currently lusting for After the Flood by Apoteker: "The scent of soil, water, and the delicate stirrings of undergrowth in spring..." Doean't that sound gorgeous? Notes of soil, mushroom, and water lily -- delicate and earthy, for sure!

But what if I want to smell playful? Or girlish? Or sexy?  None of those words really describe my beauty; am I committing some sort of "style crime" if the way I smell doesn't harmonize with my visual presentation?

I think the question of how closely to match a fragrance to a style ID is a pretty personal one.

If you're absolutely in love with your style ID, you might naturally want to recreate that impression in your fragrance. 

But if you dream of being someone else, perfume might be a way for you to play with that fantasy. 

Even though I'm an Ethereal Natural, I'm also drawn to pure Ethereal fragrances, and Ethereal Ingenue fragrances too.

​I'd love to own Kenzoki White Lotus and Jardin des Nymphes, both of which I know are more delicate than I am -- aquatic and green floral notes without any weighty, earthy notes to balance them out. 

But why shouldn't I play dress-up with my scents? ​If I want to pretend to be a pure spirit of the air, I'm going to do it, gol darn it.  :-)

                                    *  *  *      
​
​Classique by Jean Paul Gaultier is one of my favorite fragrances of all time. 

It has a ton of sweetness , which is Ingenue, and a ton of sexiness, which is Romantic: orange blossom, plum, ylang,-ylang, tuberose. It also has quite a bit of Classic, because of the orchid and sandalwood (and vanilla too), and Dramatic as a fourth-place essence, via the sharp qualities brought in by star anise, ginger, and cinnamon.  So, a great fragrance for a Romantic Ingenue or a Romantic-Classic-Ingenue, especially one with a tiny dash of Dramatic. 

RC, the Sexy Sophisticate, and RCI, the Prim Princess, are pretty far from me. I'm Ethereal Natural; I'm the Dryad.

Yet I love love love this sexy, sweet, sophisticated fragrance.

I mean, why shouldn't I experiment with other personae through my fragrance, if I feel like it?

A special night  alone with the man I'm crazy about could a good time to bring out my inner Sexy Sophisticate, right? It seems like a good excuse to wear this fragrance that I've loved since college. 

                                   *  *  *

​People are often influenced by scent at an unconscious level. Maybe a person can use this fact to say more about oneself  than mere physical appearance might reveal.

​Maybe I have an unpleasant confrontation coming up, and I need to be intimidating.  A pure Dramatic fragrance, while conflicting with my physical appearance, might send the message that I am not to be trifled with.

Formula 1 Steel by Walter Wolf would be a good choice for this. Strong metallic notes; that's a threatening message if ever there was one.

Or perhaps I could choose a scent that's me, but with an intimidating edge that's missing from my appearance: so, Ethereal-Dramatic-Natural. Intimidating Earth Goddess, I could say. 

​La Curie by Larrea would be perfect: ozone, leather, and vetiver mean it's abstract and earthy, but with some sharpness and aggression too. 

If I'm meeting my boss's boss for the first time, I'm going to want to dress like the most professional version of Dryad that I can present, because looking like myself signals confidence.

At the same time, I could choose a fragrance that's pure Classic, to send the subliminal message, "I am reliable. I have it under control. You can count on me."

Madam President by Clash would be great for this purpose: you don't get more traditional than iris, cedar, and patchouli. (And the name is perfect, isn't it?)

You might consider playing with fragrances as a way to manifest elements of your personality that aren't obvious from your appearance.  Have you done this already? Do you prefer to smell like you look? I'm curious to hear your experiences with this. 

I'm coming back to an idea I had a few years ago: an outfit-generating tool for each of the different Style Identities.

Here's the tool I've created for Dramatic Classic:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_kwW4hb44MHmgRMMxdF5hXDbEH8l80sggc6d_8V72Vs/edit?usp=sharing​​

Hopefully you can access that ^.

​When you refresh the  page, new ideas for tops, bottoms, and dresses are randomly generated.  There are thousands upon thousands of unique outfit ideas.  

I'd love for all of you to play around with it. I think such a tool might help "word people" visualize what to shop for and what to put on in the morning. 

What do you think? If there's interest, I'll create these for all of the types, and sell them at a reasonable price. 

:-)


Not sure what type you are? Try the Style ID Calculator, or consider a virtual analysis. 

When it comes to Style IDs, the same rules that apply to women -- what works and what doesn't -- mostly apply to men as well. 

Based on what clothes flatter them, I've made some inferences about the Style IDs of a few male celebs who have caught my eye.

George Clooney 

He looks great in very Classic clothes, right? But notice how he looks even better when you relax, or Natural-ize, the styling just a bit. Remove the tie, unbutton the top button, roll up the sleeves... he's more Natural, and more sexy. So, I say Classic with some Natural for him.

When he goes too far into Natural, though, it all falls apart:

Ouch. Yeah., no.

​
Lest you say, "But can anyone actually wear head-to-toe denim?", check out Jeff Bridges. Very much a Natural. Looks great in all denim, looks great in shaggy hair. 

Jeff Bridges might be pure Natural.  It doesn't get more masculine and rough-edged than this, does it?


A lot of gorgeous men are strongly feminine in their style types. (Just as a lot of gorgeous women -- including most runway models-- are strongly masculine in their style types.)  Russell Brand looks great with long, luscious curls, lots of detail and circles near his face, and a drapy scarf. He has Romantic and possibly Ethereal, I think. 

So-pretty Kit Harington, looking amazing with both draping and curls. I think he has a lot of Romantic. 

Robert Pattinson

Very neat, slick hair looks unattractive, and so does the turtleneck; that suggests Classic and Dramatic are both unlikely.

I would have expected him to have quite a bit of Dramatic, because he's such a good vampire, and because he's quite chiseled. But I believe now that those sculpted features are probably Ethereal rather than Dramatic, and his ability to convincingly embody a vampire is probably enhanced by good makeup.  I think he has some Natural as well; an open neckline is so much better for him than a closed one. 


Idris Elba
​

Here's a gorgeous, strongly Classic man.  He's much too masculine and mature in his features to pull off a scarf near his face or a boyish flat cap. At the same time, he's not rough-hewn enough to look awesome in denim. He's dreamy in Classic's tailored suit and tie, though.

And now it's time for one of my main celeb crushes:

Stanley Tucci!  
​

See how good he is with a lot of busy-ness? Three-piece suit, stripes, separates -- this profusion of lines is great on him. Lots of detail is most characteristic of the feminine essences, but in this case it's Gamine. (Gamine is mostly a masculine essence, but because it's youthfully masculine, it has a touch of androgyny, and that androgyny shows up in Gamine's need for lots of detail.) 

To really rule out the feminine essences, check Stanley with the drapy neckine a scarf creates, or with curls:

No, Stanley, no.

Lots of detail; small, sharp, shapes; crisp lines...  that's Gamine.   

​I think he has Natural, too, because he's hot AF in open necklines and in Henleys. I suspect Classic as well, because he looks his best, IMO, with a lot of polish and tailoring -- even more than Gamine would normally provide. 

Natural-Classic-Gamine for my dear Stanley Tucci. 

​
Benedict Cumberbatch​

I've been making word clouds from the color names on my seasonal makeup lists, to see what color words occur most frequently in the makeup for each season. 

This week, I've done Bright Winter.

The Bright Winter Makeup List gives the names of several hundred products that have been matched to color swatches from the Bright Winter palette. 

Wow -- a lot of pink!  And red, and cherry, and fuchsia. Pink is a light, cool red; cherry is a dark, cool red; fuchsia is a red so cool it's almost purple.  Cool red tones dominate here.

Compare this word cloud to Dark Winter's: 

In Dark Winter's cloud, on the right, the combination of plum + purple + wine is, to me, quintessentially Dark Winter, and really distinguishes DW's makeup color's from Bright Winter's.

Overall, Bright Winter colors feel lighter and brighter, as they should: both Winter seasons are rather dark, vivid, and cool, but Dark Winter is particularly dark, and BRight Winter is particularly vivid. 

Let's compare Bright Winter makeup to Bright Spring:

Both seasons prominently feature pink. But coral is essential for Bright Spring makeup, on the right, while it plays a relatively minor role for Bright Winter. That makes sense: coral is a warm, light red or orange. Bright Winter does have some warmer colors, and coral-y tones are among them, but they don't predominate. 

Notice also how relatively important black is for Bright Winter as opposed to Bright Spring. The Bright Spring palette has a black, but black usually won't feature prominently on a beautifully made-up Bright Spring face -- it's just not a defining color of that warm, bright, joyful palette.

Bright Winter, on the other hand, can be gorgeous with black mascara, black liner, and even (for certain women) blackish brows and eyeshadow. The overall palette is deeper and more dramatic. 

If you suspect you're a Bright Winter, the makeup list is a great resource. If you're not sure of your personal color season, try affordable  at-home draping.

I wasn't a regular perfume wearer until I got really excited about fragrances for different style types and spent several months researching them.

Now, I'm crazy about the fragrances for my Ethereal Natural style identity.

My current obsession is Hinlay by Lorelyane.  Even the bottle is Ethereal Natural. Just look at this gorgeous thing! Blunt-edged, geometric minimalism on the bottom; gently curving, intricate, abstract detail on top. 

The scent is perfect for me, too: it's delicate and airy, but also earthy.  Lotus, water , and floral notes emphasize my Ethereal quality, while  musk and woody notes emphasize my Natural element. I feel so happy every time I spray this on myself. 

​Anyway, if you're already in love with fragrance, you may be wondering whether your favorite fragrance fits your style identity.  Here, I'll analyze a couple of the best-selling fragrances.

Happy by Clinique for Women

This aptly-named perfume is very Gamine Ingenue. Apple, citrus, and mimosa make it bright, sweet, innocent, and cheerful. 

Ed Hardy Women's EDT

This is a very feminine, "Disney Princess" fragrance -- Romantic and Ingenue. Mango, vanilla and tonka bean make it sexy and sweet.

Be Delicious by Donna Karan

Like Ed Hardy, this is a very feminine fragrance.  It adds a light, airy Ethereal quality with cucumber and grapefruit, so it's great for a Romantic-Ethereal-Ingenue.
​

Heat by Beyonce

This is a good fragrance for a Romantic-Natural-Ingenue:  peach, magnolia, and neroli give it mouthwatering sex appeal, while musk, amber and sequoia bring in the Natural quality, and a strong use of  almond gives it a bitter Dramatic edge.

Check out your personal Fragrance Guide! 
​

I think I know, but I'm not positive. Let me lay out my logic for you.

First off, when analyzing celebs' colors, I recommend using red carpet pics. They're taken under very bright lights and generally not Photoshopped or otherwise color-altered.   So I'll look at a lot of those.

(​Magazine editorial shoots are particularly unhelpful for color analysis; those are generally highly edited to create an artistic effect.)

​

The makeup above looks Soft Summery.  Its not bad, though that eyeliner is darker than she is. (That's true of almost every pic of almost every celeb, unfortunately.) 

​

This makeup looks a bit pinker (cooler) than she is, to my eye. And, again, the eyeliner and mascara are darker than she is. I'm going to rule out the very coolest seasons, True Summer and True Winter. ​




​

This block of black color is unconnected to her relatively makeup-free face here. I'm ruling out seasons that can wear black, so we additionally lose Dark Autumn, Dark Winter, Bright Winter, and Bright Spring. 
​

I do find this hair color flattering for her, though it's obviously not her natural color. (Look at the roots.)  Few people can wear lightened hair convincingly, but True Springs, Light Springs and Light Summers tend to be able to pull it off pretty well. I'm going to put a star next to those seasons. 

​
​

Do I love her in a cool, light pink lippie, though? I don't know. I would expect this to be great on a Light Summer, such as Gwyneth Paltrow: 

But I don't see it harmonizing with Lawrence's skin. It looks a little too cool. That makes me think Light Summer is unlikely.




​

I'd expect a True Spring to look pretty darn good in this vivid red. Do I love this  for her? Not sure. Any sense of harmony I'm getting may simply be because the red dress matches the red lips, not because either of them matches her skin.


​

That saturated red, which could very well be a True Spring red, is so much more powerful than JLaw's skin is. 

If that's hard for you to see, try squinting, or unfocusing your eyes:

The red is dominating her. Not good.





​

This appears to be complete Soft Summer look, including the hair, and I just don't love this for her skin.  This palette looks a little muddy on her, like there's a film over her. It looks like it's concealing her authentic self instead of revealing it.

​

​

Wow. I like this lippie for her, and this blush. And the eye's not bad, either. (Though maybe too warm? Again, there's a faint impression of a film having  been laid over her, though a warm one this time... ) 

It can be tough to tell a lippie's true color when it's on someone's skin, because the underlying skin color affects the appearance of the lippie's color.  But my best guess about this lippie is that it's Soft Autumn or True Autumn. It looks warm, somewhat muted, a little orange-y but not a lot. 

This makeup looks warm and muted; I think it's Soft Autumn or True Autumn (second choice.) I  like it for her.  

​

​

Try to ignore the super-light hair here, and just notice the effect of the pumpkin-y orange.  Is it making her glow? Is it resonating with her natural skin tone? Especially look at the effect of the orange on her chest, where she's probably wearing less makeup than on her face.

I don't see the color making her skin look more alive. I'm willing to rule out True Autumn.


I think I've got it narrowed down to Soft Autumn and Light Spring. (Which are both warm and gentle, though in different ways; Light Spring is lighter and more vivid, while Soft Autumn is darker and more hushed. Easter colors vs. desert colors.) 

I was feeling pretty sure about Soft Autumn, but look at this  light warmish pink lippie and blush. (Ignore the inharmonious black liner.) 

​Could a Soft Autumn look authentic in this? I don't think so. Yet, I don't hate it here. And I don't hate the big block of light yellow next to her face (i.e., the dyed blonde hair.) 

Is it possible Jennifer Lawrence is a Light Spring?  Or is Soft Autumn correct? Or another season?

​What do you think?

A couple of nights ago, I took my shirt off and  threw on a  headband so I could wash my face before bed.

This particular headband is from Free People, and I adore it because it's an abstract pattern in my Soft Autumn colors. I wish I could find a picture of it online.  It's a little like this, but with warmer hues:

Anyway, when I saw myself in the mirror, I was struck by how perfect the headband looked  with my  stretchy periwinkle bralette. The combination was gorgeous. 

I actually spent about ten seconds trying to imagine an excuse to wear the headband and the bralette together somewhere. Just the bralette, mind you. No shirt. A music festival, maybe? 

I discarded that idea pretty quickly, LOL.

But the feeling of happiness that I got from looking in the mirror and thinking, "That really looks beautiful!" stayed with me. 

​One of the reasons that I love knowing my perfect colors is that I get those moments often. I look in the mirror and see perfect color harmony, and my day is a little brighter. 

Visual beauty brings us joy. Being able to look in the mirror and identify beauty there brings us joy.  We all deserve to have more of that feeling. ​

Last week, I explained that Romantic, Natural, Ingenue, and Gamine characteristics come from physical traits that actually distinguish women from men and adults from children. 

​I didn't address Ethereal and Dramatic, though. That's because those beauty archetypes don't arise  wholly from what's true about actual human women and men. 

I believe that the archetypes of Ethereal and Dramatic arise instead from our fantasies of supernatural or inhuman women and men. 

More specifically, I propose the following:

• We humans like to imagine magical, superhuman, and supernatural forces.

• We like to give these imagined forces physical forms. 

• We generally  ascribe feminine physical qualities to those beings we imagine as helpful.

• We generally ascribe masculine physical qualities to those beings we imagine as dangerous. 

​

​
​The overall physical impression of these beings is rather feminine, but some traits that characterize average human women, such as a relatively round face and relatively small nose, are missing.

These are feminine faces, but it's an imagined femininity, not a mortal, "estrogenized" femininity. 

From this imagining, I believe, emerges the archetype of Ethereal beauty. ​

​See the similarities between the faces above and the Ethereal faces below. Faces are elongated and oval-shaped, gently sculpted but without harsh angles. Eyes are penetrating, wise, and peaceful, more almond-shaped than round, and often heavy-lidded. Noses are long and narrow. Lips are a bit fleshy and feminine, but not voluptuous. Eyebrows are narrow, long, and gently arched. Foreheads are high.  The hairline is rounded. 

As for Dramatics:

I believe our idea of the Dramatic archetype derives from the way that we ascribe masculine physical traits to superhuman or imaginary creatures we view as dangerous.

The obvious example of this is a devil, but other examples include vampires, dragons, witches, sorcerers, and deities of war and chaos. Even when these characters are female, we tend to give them masculinized features.

The masculine physical qualities we project onto dangerous characters include an angular, sharply sculpted face: narrow, angled eyes that are closely set; a heavy or protruding brow; prominent cheekbones; a sharp nose; and extreme coloring.

 
The overall impression of all of these creatures is masculine, but some features, such as prominent cheekbones and somewhat narrow chins, are not characteristic of average human men. These are masculine faces, but it's an abstracted masculinity, not a human, "testosteronized" masculinity. 

And it's from this archetype of "inhuman + intimidating," I believe, that we derive our idea of Dramatic beauty.

See the similarities between the faces above and the striking beauty of strongly Dramatic people: Faces are elongated and sharply sculpted. Cheekbones are prominent. Noses are long, prominent,  and flared.  Brow ridges project out over the eyes. Eyebrows are prominent and sharp, or rather horizontal.  Eyes are piercing, narrow, and often close-set. Mouths are rather horizontal. The hairline is horizontal or sharply peaked. 

​Compared to Ethereal, the face overall is more sharply chiseled and more square or rectangular, with few circle or oval shapes.

Dramatics are incredibly striking, and more likely to be called "beautiful" or "stunning" than "cute" or "adorable." But, of course,  that  doesn't imply that they're evil, any more than pure Ethereals are good.  They simply resemble, in their geometry, the intimidating creatures of the human imagination. The heart of the Dramatic is power, and power can be frightening. 

It's probably obvious to you at this point that Ethereals and Dramatics actually have some overlap. I think this is because there are certain features -- facial elongation in particular -- that read as "otherworldly," whether they're masculine or feminine. 

A key distinguisher between Ethereal and Dramatic may be your answer to the question, "Does this beauty feel pacific and still, or active and intimidating?"

​Some amazing people, such as Tilda Swinton, possess a good bit of both:
​

Is she approaching or receding? Will she hurt you or help you? It's hard to say. That's the combination of Ethereal and Dramatic. It's no coincidence that Swinton has been cast as a madonna, a deadly angel, a witch, a vampire, and an immortal sorcerer.

So, to synthesize  this week and last week: 

Our ideas of Romantic, Natural, Gamine and Ingenue beauty derive from real, human physical characteristics that signal biological sex and age.

Our ideas of Ethereal and Dramatic beauty derive from gendered fantasies of inhuman or unearthly  beauty: Ethereal represents an archetype of supernatural beauty that's feminized and benevolent, while Dramatic represents an archetype of supernatural beauty that's masculine and dangerous. 

                                               *  *  *  
A final comment that I really hope doesn't need to be made, but that I will make anyway, just in case:

By noticing that angels and aliens are generally rendered as  feminine, while devils and dragons are generally rendered as masculine, I am in no way saying I think it's right that femaleness is identified with virtue and purity, while maleness is identified with malevolence.  

Description is not prescription. 

Personally, it drives me nuts when people trot out that tired old idea of women as the gatekeepers of morality.   

Plenty of women are evil. Plenty of men are good. Almost all of us are a mix of both.  

If I could wave my magic wand, we'd live in a world where "feminine" =/= gentle and passive, and "masculine" =/= aggressive and predatory.

Alas, that's not our world, and these archetypes do exist. 

For the purposes of helping all of us look amazing, I see it as my job to accurately describe the archetypes.

For better or worse, "Dramatic" features read as masculine and intimidating, and look the most beautiful with sharp, straight, intimidating clothes.

For better or worse,  "Ethereal" features read as feminine and peaceful, and look the most beautiful with  long, sinuous, delicate lines. 

If you're not sure of your Style Identity, try the Style Identity Calculator, or consider investing in a virtual style analysis. 

How's that for a click-baity title, ha ha? 

​(Seriously though, I might be the only person alive who prefers long and dry over short and grabby. I am wholly a nerd.)

At any rate,  here's what I mean:  In my  Style Identity system, when I say that a physical characteristic reads as womanly, or manly, or mature, or childlike, that's generally because that (average) physical difference exists in real life. 

We are all unconsciously aware of the visual signifiers of masculinity and femininity, of maturity and youth. We make instantaneous judgments about other people's age and masculinity/femininity based on visual cues we're not even aware that we are processing.
​
Here are some examples of what I mean. 

• The distance between the upper lip and the nose lengthens as we age. Additionally, this distance is greater in men than in women. So a short distance here, especially accompanied with quite visible top teeth, tends to create a youthful and feminine  -- in other words, an Ingenue-- impression. 

• Lip fullness peaks in adolescence, and women's lips are on average fuller than men's.  Plumper or puffier lips tend to read Romantic, because  Romantic embodies the fully mature, "pubertal" (I love that word!) feminine essence. Thinner lips, by contrast,  tend to read as Natural. 

​

• Men's foreheads, on average, appear shorter than women's (because they are less vertical, and because men on average have lower hairlines than women).  So short foreheads tend to read as  Natural. 
  
  
• Chin clefts are more common in men than in women. The presence of a chin cleft can increase the overall Natural or Gamine impression of a face.

 

• A dark ring around the iris -- a "limbal ring" -- is more common in children than adults. (Limbal rings fade with age.) So the presence of a limbal ring tends to contribute to a Gamine or Ingenue impression.  

• Men tend to have wider noses than women, so a wide nose tends to read as Natural or Gamine, while a narrow nose tends to read as Romantic or Ingenue. 

NB: A viewer makes these judgments in the context of the subject's perceived ethnicity.  So, while it is the case that African noses are on average somewhat wider than European noses, it's not the case that women of African descent appear more visually masculine than women of European descent. The viewer in this example unconsciously takes perceived ethnicity into consideration when processing the visual appearance of a nose. 

​                                    *  *  *  *  *

You may notice that I didn't mention Ethereal, Dramatic, or Classic in this article.

Classics are easy: Imagine that you averaged all male features and all female features. Beauty in a female Classic represents a face that's slightly to the feminine side of that perfect average, and beauty in a male Classic represents a point that's slight to the male side. In Classic men and women both, nothing's noticeably big, or small, or sharp, or round, or high, or low, or full, or thin, or wide, or narrow.  See more about that beauty  here.

As for Ethereals and Dramatics, their beauty derives from archetypes that aren't based in human physical reality. That's a long post, though, so I'll save it for next week.  :-)

Wow, brown is important for True Spring, right?  

​It makes sense if you think about the fact that we rely on our darker neutrals for eyeliner, eyeshadow and mascara. Which dark neutrals does each season get?  A lot of seasons get brown *and* charcoal, or brown *and* black, or charcoal *and* black. But True Spring, being purely warm, doesn’t have black, or even charcoal. Its darkest neutrals are basically versions of brown:

True Spring colors, and makeup, are warm, warm, warm. (Brown is just dark orange, and orange is arguably the warmest color.)
​​
If you compare this word cloud to Light Spring’s, you’ll notice that the True Spring cloud features “red” much more prominently. That reflects True Spring’s turn to more vivid primaries, from Light Spring's comparatively pastel-y hues.

Compared to Bright Spring’s word cloud, “pink” is de-emphasized here. True Spring doesn’t have any real pinks to speak of; they’re all quite orangey and coraly:

​If you think you’re a True Spring but you don’t yet own the makeup list, try googling cosmetics with words from the True Spring word cloud in the name. (For example, lipstick apricot, or blush coral, or eyeliner cocoa.)

And if you’re not sure what your season is, try the at-home draping cards. They're the most affordable option for accurate color draping. 

I'm pretty sure that, at $48, the  12 Season Home Draping Cards are the most affordable way to figure out your color season.  

But for some of us, even that is a big chunk of change!

If that's you, I recommend trying the Six Season Home Draping Cards.  

But how do you narrow yourself down to just six seasons?

Here's are a few techniques that work for many people: 

Ask  yourself, "Can I honestly wear both black and white?" If black and white truly don't overpower you, that narrows your seasons down to five: Dark Autumn, Dark Winter, True Winter, Bright Winter, and Bright Spring.  If black and white are too intense for you, that leaves seven seasons; then you only have to rule out one more. 

Are you sure about your undertone? If you are pretty sure your undertone is more warm than cool, that narrows you down to the six Autumn and Spring seasons. And if you're sure your undertone is more cool than warm, that narrows you down to the six Winter and Summer seasons. 

If you're confident that  you need very bright colors, pick Bright Spring and Bright Winter, plus the two seasons to either side: True Winter, Dark Winter, True Spring, and Light Spring.

If you're certain you need gentler colors, pick Soft Summer and Soft Autumn, plus the two seasons to either side: True Summer, Light Summer, True Autumn, and Dark Autumn. 

I hope this  helps!

Is matching the color of a pinched cheek or pinched finger a good way to pick your lippy and blush colors? 

Well, the answer is a little complicated.

The color of your pinched skin is usually the effect you're going for. That's true.

​But you won't achieve that effect by matching that color and then putting it on your skin. 

Why not?

When you pinch your cheek or finger,  you're seeing a color that combines the red of your blood with the brown of your skin tone. (All human skin is some variation of brown.)

This is why your  pinched-skin color is  less saturated than the actual reds and pinks in your swatches. (Try it and you'll see.)

If you choose a red or pink that you've matched to a pinched finger, it's already desaturated, because it's a combination of your body's red with your skin. As this matched color mixes with your skin color, it gets further desaturated -- most likely too desaturated for you. 

So, to create that same pinched-skin effect on your skin from the outside,  you need to add a purer, less browned red or pink to the brownish tone of your skin. 

This is where your swatch reds and pinks come in.

 ​When you apply a purer red or pink from your swatches to your skin, the result that the viewer sees is a color that combines that red or pink with your skin.  So the color you end up with is very similar to the pinched-skin color.

That's the effect you're going for. It's a less saturated version of the pure swatch red or pink because it's blended with your skin color, and it  looks perfect on your skin. 

That's how your palette reds and pinks are supposed to function. They shouldn't sit on top of your skin like red circle​s of blush on a Raggedy Ann doll, right?

This is the same reason that matching makeup colors to your palette by swatching them on your skin is wrong, wrong, wrong. For purposes of matching your palette, makeup should only be swatched on white paper.

If you "swatch" makeup on  your skin, you're not learning what color it really is; you're learning what color it looks like mixed with  your skin color.

That information is interesting information. But it's not the information you need in order to know whether a pink or red matches your actual palette colors. You're looking to match those reds and pinks.

I can only speak from anecdote and personal experience with regard to this question.  (Looking forward to the day when I have the resources to do real research in this area!)

I don't think that parents' seasons have no effect on kids' seasons. Since skin tone is heritable, it makes sense that season would be heritable.

But I don't believe we can predict with great accuracy a child's season from a parent's season-- just as we can't predict with great accuracy a child's hair or eye or skin color based on the parent's.

We can make good guesses--  two Winters are probably likelier than average to have a kid who can wear black, don't you think? --  but we can't know for sure.

I don't see clear patterns in the families I know. In my own family of origin, my mother and father -- a (probable) Bright Winter and a Soft Summer -- produced a Dark Winter daughter, which you might very well expect, and a Soft Autumn daughter, which you probably would not expect.  

In my family of generation, as they say, I combined my Soft Autumn genes with those of a Light Summer.  We made two Light Springs.  They're warm, like me, but they're more  saturated than either of us. Who would have predicted it?

What combinations do you see in your family? Share in the comments!  :-)

There are seven basic style essences. People can be pure essences, or they can be blends.  If you count two-essence and three-essence blends, there are 63 possible types in the Truth is Beauty Style Identity System. 

Most people find that three essences is the maximum needed to account for their beauty. It's rare for people to go beyond that, for two reasons.

One is that 4-plus essences is more visually complicated than most of us get.

The second is that, at a certain point, a combination of five or six or seven essences can start to look like a balanced average, which is itself an essence -- Classic. 

But I do see a mix of four occasionally.

In those cases, a woman can usually view one of the four as an "accent" essence, to be sprinkled in with a more typical three-way blend, or as a "fudge factor" essence, to  fill in any small aspect of an ensemble that isn't accounted for by one of her other three essences. 

I myself have a dash of Romantic and a dash of Ingenue. Most of the time, I ignore them because they're so small. Occasionally, I bring in one or both if the options for the item I'm choosing  aren't available in Ethereal or Natural. For example, if my only earring options are tiny and delicate, I can wear them, knowing that my tiny bit of Ingenue gives me room for that. 



Not sure of your style identity? Try the Style Identity Calculator, or consider a virtual analysis. 

You've analyzed yourself with the Style Identity Calculator, or you've had a professional analysis.  And you hate your answers.  

You have Natural, but you hate jeans.  You have Gamine, but Gamine's funkiness feels clownish. You have Ingenue, but the last thing you want to be is a little girl.  You have Romantic, but you hate dressing like a sex object.

It's not the case that all of us are instinctively drawn to what looks good on us. Many of us are, but, for some of us, what visually flatters us the most just feels wrong.

What do you do?

Here are a couple of strategies I recommend:

1. Reconceptualize the Essence

For each of your essences, try using a thesaurus to identify keywords you're more comfortable with that you can substitute  in for the essence.

For example, a synonym for "spunky" (Gamine) could be fearless or energetic; a synonym for "girlish" (Ingenue) could be fresh or pure; and a synonym for "relaxed" (Natural)  could be peaceful or authentic. So, if you absolutely hate the idea of Natural-Gamine-Ingenue, you can rename it Fresh, Fearless and Authentic.  A small change in the words can make a big change in how you feel about it.

2. Identify Elements You Are Willing to Accept

Another way to try to get comfortable with your identity is to identify a few elements from each essence that you are truly willing to do.

For Romantic, if you hate cleavage and butt emphasis, maybe you're willing to do blingy jewelry. For Dramatic, if you hate avant-garde looks, maybe you're willing to do monochromatic looks. For Classic, if you hate feeling like a First Lady, maybe you can tolerate pearl earrings and a designer handbag.

Just pick one or two elements that you can bring yourself to wear, and try putting them together. You might find a combination that feels like you.

3. Consider That You Might Be Wrong About What's "You"

Though style analysis feels for many people like coming home, there's a small but important group of people who get analysis after analysis and still don't feel satisfied. It's the same with personal color analysis.

When I encounter those people, I usually see their correct lines and colors among the many options they're tried and rejected.

I've come to understand that these seekers are waiting for a particular feeling of relief, or joy, or wholeness, that they believe will indicate a correct answer.  When they don't get that feeling, they assume the answer is wrong.

In those cases, the feeling they are seeking won't be found in their correct colors and lines. It may be found somewhere else, but exactly where probably depends on the person.

If you see yourself in this description, it may be that what's going to fulfill you personally is still out there. If you can come to embrace your style identity, at least you'll look amazing when you finally find it. :-)

4. F*** It

Look: Style Identity Analysis is a very specific aesthetic. It's based on the idea when you dress like what you already look like, you'll look your best.

But you don't have to do this.  

If you're an Ethereal Natural but you can't resist funky, spunky Gamine prints, give yourself permission to wear them!  The whole point of this endeavor is to make yourself happy. Break your own rules; make yourself happy. If you're like me, you may find that you get it out of your system, and you're able to return to your style identity with a more peaceful heart.

​(I'm that Ethereal Natural, by the way -- I am so drawn to Gamine elements! And when I give myself permission to include them, I actually get tired of them pretty quickly.) 

If you're a Bright Spring or a Bright Winter, you've probably been advised to go for super-shiny finishes and sparkly jewelry.

But if your style identity consists only of Natural, Dramatic, and/or Gamine, you know that these masculine essences ask for matte finishes.  (Sparkly and glittery finishes read as feminine.)

How do you reconcile these two realities?

Bright seasons need, above all, an overall impression of brightness and high contrast. Blingy jewelry is of course one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way – – otherwise Bright season men,  who generally very very little jewelry, would never be able to fully manifest their Bright selves! Right? 

You can stick with matte and enamel finishes in your jewelry and still look amazingly Bright by focusing on value contrast (light-dark contrast) and color contrast in your clothes and accessories.

Here are some examples of women and men in Bright-looking ensembles  with little or no shiny jewelry.  I hope they inspire you!

​

Not all Style Identities lend themselves equally well to very practical clothes, such as workout clothes. Natural and Gamine may be the only two identities with obvious options in this area.  How to solve this problem for yourself?

My advice is this: divide the category of "workout clothes" into two or three main aspects, and assign each aspect to one of your identities. 

• Fabric is a key aspect of workout clothing. You can assign that aspect to your Dramatic, your Natural, or your Gamine. Shiny spandex and Lycra can read as Dramatic or Gamine, tightly woven cottons can read as Gamine, and cotton in general can read as Natural.
  
  (If you don't have any of these masculine essences, you'll just have to compromise a bit on this element.)

 

• Color is another key aspect of your ensemble.  That one can be assigned to any of your essences, so let's save it.

 

• Silhouettes and lines can be a third aspect.  In workout clothes, you can create a workable silhouette for Classic, Dramatic, Natural, or Gamine.  A Classic workout silhouette will be modest and perfectly proportioned; a Dramatic silhouette will be long and narrow; A Gamine silhouette will be boxy and choppy; and a Natural silhouette will be relaxed and loose. 

So color is left for your Ethereal,  Ingenue, or Romantic essence. The good news is that these days, workout clothes are available in pretty much every color. 

There are other ways to bring each of the three elements into a workout ensemble -- you could do an uber-sleek ponytail to bring in Dramatic, for example., or a large floral pattern to bring in Romantic.

You also might not give a dang what you look like when you're working out.  :-)  I don't always care.  But it's a fun challenge to try to manifest our Style Identities, isn't it?

This is an interesting issue that Bright Spring and Bright Winter women often discuss -- whether the makeup can possibly be right, translated literally from the palette to the face.  

Women draped as Bright sometimes say the colors feel too saturated on the face.  If this is you, I think there are a couple of things possibly going on:

 1. A given color might be right in clothing, but not on a person's face.

How far does a color have to be from red for it to no longer be a lip or  cheek color?  Bright Spring and Bright Winter have a lot of reds and pinks. They also have many purply pinks and orangey-reds. For some women, some of the pinks and reds are so close to purple or orange that they're no longer good as lippies (though they'd be fine as shirt colors, for example.) You can't wear every single palette color on your lips.  Goodness knows not all True Autumns can wear pumpkin orange in a blush.

I hate to sow the seeds of doubt! I know we are all looking for peace of mind. But if your reds and pinks consistently jump out of your face, that's not color harmony.  

4. Some colors are too bright for anyone to wear as a lippie.

The colors in your Bright Winter and Bright Spring palette aren't the brightest possible colors. There's a limit, it seems, to how saturated human coloring can get. There are definitely lippies for sale that are brighter than any Bright Spring or Bright Winter color.  They won't look harmonious on anyone. (Color harmony isn't everyone's aesthetic.)