This is a revolutionary new way of thinking about style.

All of the advice you've received, all of your life, has been about how to dress your body.  "If you're petite, avoid long pants. If you're curvy, emphasize your waist. "

As far as I can tell, every other style system advises you to dress primarily for your body.

But your body isn't what people are mainly looking at.

​They spend the vast majority of their time looking at your face.

And dressing for your body at the expense of your face means  you end up looking all wrong. 

Let me offer you several examples to demonstrate this phenomenon.

Here's Ellie Kemper:
​

You might know her from "The Office" or "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt." She's adorbs, right? 

If you're guessing that she has a lot of Gamine and  a lot of Ingenue  (and maybe some Classic?), I'd agree with you. Those stripes are cute on her. (The palette is a separate issue, but never mind.) 

Another pic of her looking fantastic:

And here: adorable, face-framing curls, small geometric print, simple, round neckline, high waist -- again, lots of Gamine and Ingenue, very good: 

Just a few more images of her looking awesome with lots of Gamine and Ingenue (and some Classic):

But let's imagine that Ellie Kemper's going to get style advice that considers her body as a significant factor.

​I don't know if you noticed, but Kemper actually has a super-curvy, very Romantic body.:

Most style systems will assign Ellie Kemper a style type that dresses her for her curvy body.

But that would be all wrong.

See how uncomfortable, how not-herself, this Gamine Ingenue (or Classic-Gamine-Ingenue)  looks in Romantic styles: 

Thank goodness Kemper (or her stylist) usually understand that she needs to dress for her face, not her body.

Here, Kemper's waist is obscured and her bust is unemphasized. And it's sooo much better!

(Jenna Fischer, also from "The Office," is another example of a woman with a Romantic body but a very youthful face. Like Kemper, Fischer looks all wrong in overtly sexy clothes.

​By contrast, Mindy Kaling of "The Office" has quite a bit of Gamine, like Kemper and Fischer do -- but she also has enough sexy Romantic in her face to totally pull off figure-emphasizing clothes. )


"If you got it, flaunt it" is not a thing. Let it go. 

Only emphasize your curvy body if it also harmonizes with your face. 

​Dress for your face. 

Other celebrity examples of dressing primarily for one's face, not one's body:
​

• Jane Krakowski of "30 Rock" and "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"
  
  

A rather Natural body (little waist, thicker neck, small bust).
​
A rather Ingenue face (tiny chin, high forehead, big eyes.) 

Is she better in Ingenue or Natural?
​

Ingenue bows, ruffles, puff sleeves, cap sleeves, high waist, feminine hair, midi length skirt: so good.

Natural t-shirts, layers, separates, shaggy hair, undefined neckline, geometric shapes -- not great.

Jane Krakowski is lovelier when she dresses her face, not her body.


I'm not saying to totally disregard your body. There are individual tweaks your body may call for that are consistent with a style your face doesn't manifest.

For example, Jane Krakowski is flattered by open necklines; they elongate her rather short neck.

That's consistent with Natural, not with Ingenue. 
​
​But her open necklines are best when they're adorned with ruffles or bows. True Natural necklines are wrong for her. 

extremely ​tall, mostly Dramatic body. 

Christie is so tall -- 6'3" -- and relatively narrow,  most style systems would require her to dress as a Dramatic, or a Dramatic/Natural blend. 

​But that's really wrong for her.

Mostly Dramatic, and so not great:

Much more feminine, and so much better for her:

Even more celebrity examples: 

• Despite her height, Taylor Swift is fantastic in Gamine , Ingenue and Classic
  
  
• Despite his height, Leonardo DiCaprio can pull off dapper Gamine looks because of his Gamine baby face
  
  
• Brigitte Nielsen's gorgeous Dramatic face makes her best in similarly Dramatic clothes, despite her very curvy body


• The same goes for Jamie Lee Curtis: her Dramatic face makes sexy Romantic looks seem wrong for her , even though her curves are pronounced

To sum up: 

1. Identify your style identity based primarily on your face. 

2. Make a few tweaks in the direction of a different style identity if you know your body calls for it. 

Dress for your face!



​

For several years, my readers have been asking for makeup guides for each of the 63 style types.   I started doing the research necessary to create these guides in 2017, and I'm finally done!​​

Your makeup's color palette comes from your color season. But two women with the same color season  won't apply makeup the same way to look their most beautiful.

Have you ever wondered why certain makeup trends -- a matte lip, a cat eye, contoured cheeks -- just don't work for you, even when you know that the colors you're using harmonize with your skin?

The reason is that the lines of your face, which determine your style type, harmonize with certain makeup looks and not others. 

Not everyone looks harmonious with fuller lips.
Not everyone looks harmonious with contoured cheekbones.
Not everyone looks harmonious with a smoky eye.
Not everyone looks harmonious with ​delicate, plucked brows. 

Here are two pics of me in two different makeup looks. In both pics, I'm wearing Soft Autumn colors. But I think you'll agree that I'm lovelier in the pic on the right than the pic on the left. 

My style type is Ethereal Natural, and the pic on the right shows me in an Ethereal Natural makeup look.
The pic on the left is a look with elements of Classic, Romantic, and Dramatic -- all essences that are unimportant for me. 

On the right, my skin finish is less powdery and matte, my eyebrows are less intense, I'm not wearing foundation, my makeup's overall level of contrast is lower, and my overall impression is less made-up. These are all features of an Ethereal Natural makeup look. 

Now, if I were a Romantic-Dramatic-Classic, chances are I would look gorgeous in a more matte, more made-up, higher-contrast look. Angelina Jolie is a Romantic-Dramatic-Classic, and that kind of makeup look is gorgeous for her:

It's interesting to note that Jolie and I both have the same Soft Autumn color palette.  Yet because the geometry of her face is Romantic, Dramatic, and Classic, her best makeup look is much more sexy, intense, and traditionally feminine than mine. My best makeup ​look combines Natural's no-makeup aesthetic with Ethereal's lightness and delicacy. 

​

The makeup guides are about 30 pages long. Here's what each guide includes:

• Specific, illustrated instructions for how to express each of your essences in the following aspects of your look:
  • overall contrast level
  • color
  • lines and blending
  • skin finish
  • contour and highlighting
  • eyes
  • brows
  • cheeks
  • lips
• Ideas for how to combine your essences to create your makeup look
• Several full-color examples of your style type's makeup look, with annotations explaining how each example expresses your style type.

​
Since I expect a high volume of initial orders, please allow UP TO A WEEK for your makeup guide to be delivered by email. All guides will eventually be instant downloads; at that point, you won't have to wait. :-)

Scarlett Johansson, Renee Zellweger, Cynthia Erivo, Florence Pugh --  what did you think of their Oscar looks?  Here, I share my thoughts about their color and style choices. 

I didn't even think about separates before I knew my style type. But how you put separates together actually has a big effect on the impression you make. 

Romantics, Ethereals, Classic, and Dramatics are each best in a head-to-toe look. If you think about it, this makes sense, because all four of these types are formal and grown-up in their own way: the Romantic is mature womanly sexiness, the Classic is a "ladylike" adult woman, the Dramatic is a powerful ruler, and the Ethereal is an immortal being. None of these pure types is youthful or casual enough to look her best in an obvious use of separates.
​

Another easy way to do a head-to-toe look is to just wear a dress.  Ethereals, Romantics, and Classics have a lot of great dress options. 

​Speaking of which: the message a Natural sends with her use of separates is, "I own nothing but separates, and I basically just throw them together because that's how confident I am, but the effect is never weird, because I can't be bothered to put in enough effort to make it deliberately weird, because that's how casual I am." 

​A Gamine's use of separates says, "I deliberately combine separates no one else would dare to put together, because that's how fun and quirky I am. I want you to notice!"

If you're a blend of two or three types, as most women are, and you manifest Natural, Gamine, or Ingenue through your use of separates, you'll want to lean a bit more heavily on your other essence (or two) to balance the effect. So, for example, A Natural-Classic-Ingenue combining separates in a casual, Natural way would take extra care to bring in Classic and Ingenue in other aspects of her look.



​

If you're not sure of your style type, try the Style ID Calculator!

A reader writes, "​Your guides have been incredibly helpful to me. However, there is one part of your guides that confuses me. What exactly does it mean for a piece of clothing to be "constructed" or "unconstructed"?"

Great question!

​Constructed garments have a defined shape that's not simply the shape of the body underneath the garment. You can't easily ball up a constructed garment in your hand; it wants to hold a shape. 

The way a garment is sewn can give it a defined shape. This is easier with heavy, stiff, or crisp fabrics. ​

Manufacturers also use lining, padding or interfacing to make garments have a defined shape. 

Dramatics and Gamines are flattered by sharp-cornered squares and rectangles. These aren't the shapes of the human body, so Dramatics and Gamines usually need constructed garments to create those shapes. 

Romantics, Ethereals, and Naturals all look their best in unconstructed clothes. For Romantics, this means sexy draping that appears to hug the body. For Ethereals, this looks like floaty, trailing garments that seem about to take flight. For Naturals, this looks like garments that are supremely comfortable and unfussy. 

It's not as easy to find constructed clothes as it was 100 years ago. As a society, we've all mostly agreed to dress like Naturals most of the time.  Which is great for us Naturals, but a challenge for everyone else.

Garments that are tailored into defined shapes are usually more expensive than unconstructed garments, because that kind of sewing is labor-intensive. If your style type calls for construction, you may choose to spend the money on those more expensive items. You might also save some money by focusing on clothes that are stiff not because of their tailoring but because they're made from stiffer fabrics.

If you're willing to buy second-hand, you'll find that a lot of vintage clothes are more structured than what you typically see in stores today. 

​Also, consider using spray starch to give your garments more stiffness! You don't hear much about it these days, because fashion is mostly so unconstructed, but clothing starch is still a thing. 

 Here are hairstyle ideas for the two-identity blends.

For each blend, the suggestions are jumping-off points. Use them as inspirations.

If you're a blend of three identities, try combining suggestions from the different two-ID blends that apply to you.  For example, if you're a Romantic-Ethereal-Natural, take a look at suggestions for Romantic Ethereal, Romantic Natural, and Ethereal Natural. 

Don't know your style identity? Try the Style ID Calculator!
​

Romantic Ethereal: Aphrodite 

Try:
Soft & flowing. 
​Asymmetry.
Fullness and height at the crown.
Long, luscious and full.
​Side parts.
​Low side pull-backs.
Touchable curls or waves.  
​Soft, sexy updos with lots of free curls.

​Ethereal Gamine: The Sprite.

Try:
Spunky, diaphanous, floaty, boyish, tousled.
Short and wispy.
Choppy waves.
Cute or witty "period" looks.
​Playful, unexpected braids.

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. :-)

It can be hard to know which Style Identity category a given outfit  falls into.  Here are some unexpected questions you can ask yourself to help you narrow it down.

"Could I do a walking tour in this?"

The essence of Natural style is relaxation, freedom, and uninhibited movement.  If an outfit is something you could wear for a walking tour of a hilly European city, it probably has a lot of Natural. Clothes you could comfortably take a nap in are also usually Natural. 

"Do I have an irresistible urge to touch this?"

Romantic fabrics often beg to be touched. This absolutely relates to the fact that Romantic style is the embodiment of feminine sexuality. If you can't wait to run your fingers across a fabric, chances are it's part of a Romantic ensemble. 

"Does this scare me a little?"

Dramatic ensembles are avant-garde, outside the norm -- and we humans are naturally intimidated by stuff that's outside the norm.  If an outfit makes you feel like taking a step backward, it likely has a strong Dramatic influence.
​

"Can I imagine this on a girl in a Norman Rockwell painting?"

Ingenue style is an archetype of traditional girlishness. Almost anything that's Ingenue looks as if it emerged from a Norman Rockwell painting -- or from the closet of Sandy in "Grease." (Before her makeover at the end, LOL!)  

"Could a little boy wear this?"

Gamine style is boyish.  If an ensemble looks like something a little boy could conceivably wear to school without raising eyebrows, it probably has a lot of Gamine. 

"In a movie, would someone ascend into heaven wearing this outfit?"

That may sound ridiculous, but Ethereal styles make the wearer look as if she can take flight.  

"Would I wear this to my first day at my Wall Street job? (Or to the boss's barbecue the following weekend?)"

Whether formal or casual, Classic ensembles always look conservative and rich. In a Classic outfit, you'd never be embarrassed to run into the C.E.O. of your company.  There's never anything attention-seeking, objectionable, or out of place in a Classic look. You're above reproach. 

Not sure of your style identity? Try the Style Identity Calculator, or get a Virtual Analysis. 

As a floral, rose is a note that's inherently feminine. All floral notes are feminine, first and foremost.

What kind of feminine, though? Innocent Ingenue femininity? Abstract Ethereal femininity? Or sexy Romantic femininity?

You probably guessed it -- rose's femininity is the womanly femininity of Romantic. 

Some florals have added masculine elements: for example,  carnation has an element of spiciness that brings in some Dramatic, and geranium has a bit of a lemony element that brings in cheerful Gamine.

Rose is interesting in that it has an added powdery and refined element that brings in Classic.  So rose, as a note, combines passion and sexuality with restraint and sophistication.  

If you're a Romantic Classic, this is a definitive fragrance note for you.! If you're not, a lot of rose in a fragrance may add more sexiness or conservatism than you feel comfortable with.

​Want to know what your best notes are? Check out my Fragrance Guides!

Over the years, so many of you have asked for shopping guides for each of the 63 Style Identities.
I have been working on them for a long time.
Finally, I am ready to offer them to you. 

Each of these multi-page guide tells you which specific items you should look for when you shop.

It includes sections for wardrobe essentials such as tops, pants, skirts, dresses, sweaters, and shoes.

It also includes sections for special items such as hats, bags, jewelry, and swimwear.  

In addition, I describe what you should look for in fit, fabrics, waist treatment, prints, shapes, and use of color.

It's comprehensive! 

I will be sending these out beginning November 1st.
I'm offering them for $24.99.  
But if you pre-order today, you'll get yours for $19.99.  

I'm so excited to finally offer a tool that provides visual examples of how to wear your Style Identity!

The Style Identity Calculator helped you figure out your Style Identity.

But it can be difficult to know how to translate that Style ID into an ensemble each morning.

The new Visual Style Guides help solve that problem.

Each guide shows three different women dressed as your Style Identity. Annotations explain each element of the ensemble. 
​

The guide is a one-page PDF, so you can print it and hang it in your dressing area, and also pull it up on your phone when you're shopping.

You deserve this!

(A thoughtful and affordable  holiday gift idea: Analyze your loved ones with the Style Identity Calculator, and then surprise them with a Visual Style Guide.)

Classics are so interesting to me. 

If you're like me, you are accustomed to thinking about beautification as a process of adding things. 

Add accessories, add makeup, add costume, add scenery, add hairstyle.

But Classics become more beautiful the more you remove.

Classic beauty exists in the seemingly perfect balance and symmetry of the form and features.  In a Classic face, no one feature jumps out. The nose, eyes, mouth, chin, and forehead aren't remarkably large, or remarkably small, or noticeably close together, or noticeably far apart. 

Imagine you're a schoolyard bully: what nickname could you make up for that face? If you can't think of anything, you're likely looking at a Classic.

That impression of perfection can only be created when the form and features are all we see. 

Add details to the image, and the perfection becomes harder to discern. The Classic fades into the background. She becomes merely pretty, or even boring-looking.

Classics can become visually forgettable if the chiseled perfection of their features is not highlighted by simple, carefully sculpted hair and the removal of all extraneous details. 

Classic clothes are boring on everyone but a Classic. And attire that would be interesting on someone else overwhelms a Classic. 

When people ask "Am I pulling this off?", they may be asking, "Are my features as complicated as this item I'm wearing?"

The answer to a Classic is usually "No."

If you're a Classic, you may have grown up hearing you were "pretty" - as opposed to cute, adorable, stunning, gorgeous or handsome. 

In your self-critical moments, you may have seen yourself as plain or boring. 

But would you call this ring boring?

The clothes and hair that you put on are your portable context. 

When you choose clothing and hair that are congruent with your physical self, your physical self makes visual sense.  

That's our goal here: to present ourselves in a way that says "I am real. My existence makes sense."

When we surround our physical selves with incompatible context, our physical selves don't make sense. 

And we're signaling to anyone who looks, "I deny the reality of me."

If you compress soft, bountiful flesh into hard, unyielding fabric forms, you deny the reality of that soft flesh. (So, Romantics, no tailored suits in stiff fabrics.) 

If you bind wide, muscular frames with constricting styles, you deny the reality of those big muscles and bones. (So, Naturals, no pencil skirts.)

If you surround a face and form that's perfect in its balance and simplicity with extravagant and outsize detail, you deny the reality of the simple perfection. (So, Classics, don't gild the lily.)

...about two style identities being the maximum that anyone can reasonably work with.

I have been attempting to flesh out definable archetypes for three-way style identities.

Initially, I thought it would be impossible. But I'm actually finding it very doable.

For example, I'm thinking of Romantic-Ethereal-Classic as "Elegant Aphrodite."

Other examples of three-way combo archetypes in progress:

Romantic-Natural-Classic = "Alluring L.L. Bean."
Dramatic-Gamine-Ingenue = "Girlish Punk Rocker."
Classic-Gamine-Ingenue = "Darling Prep Schooler, a.k.a. Cher from 'Clueless.' "

My Pinterest boards for each three-way combo are still secret, but I aim to make them public soon. When I do, I'll add info about the trifold combos to this site.

In total, we'll have 63 style identity options:
7 pure essences + 21 doubles + 35 triples.

Do you have ideas about particular three-essence archetypes? Share them in the comments!

Edited to add:
I've made all of the above-mentioned Pinterest boards public. You can see them here: 
https://www.pinterest.com/coloranalysis/

This is an excellent tool if you already know what looks good on you, but you don't know how that translates into a coherent Style ID.

It's also great for analyzing friends, family, and celebs.

To use it, you'll need internet access and a PC with Microsoft Excel.


The Style ID Calculator was fantastic! Turns out I'm a Natural-Ingénue-Classic.  -  R.G.