totchipanda

Someone on my Instagram list was sharing videos from another user about the "Kibbe" system of styling. I followed the trail for a hot minute - it's based on a book from the late 80s, written by David Kibbe, and his focus was more on archetypes. The poster who was sharing tips from it had posted an intro series and it wasn't super intuitive, but I was curious enough. The book is out of print and what copies are for sale are *ridiculously* expensive. Archive.org to the rescue! I didn't read it fully, just did the quizzes and read the sections that applied to me.

It's based on an overall look rather than numbers, which we all know can be damn liars. The person sharing noted that she fits into a typical "curvy" category, with her waist 10" smaller than bust and hip, but in looking at her body straight on (she showed on camera, wearing snug athletic wear) she doesn't have much curve. Her shoulders and ribs are wider than her bust which affects how clothing fits on her body. She's also posted some comparison videos in dressing for that width and the difference is subtle, but there.

I even took a photo of myself to doodle on with the various lines of my body, for my own reference. According to the book's quiz, I am a "theatrical romantic" and in reading the style guides, I just had to laugh and laugh because it was already things I knew about myself. I have a softer, rounded shape overall, with some angular lines particularly in my face (one question referred to upper arms and thighs at the same time, which at a glance are vastly different, but in thinking about it more abstractly, they are the same - soft and round). I should be looking for style lines that are wider on top and more tapered on bottom, avoid things that are boxy or severely tailored (ie focus on waist definition), fabrics that flow and are less structured. If there is a loose top, wear a tighter bottom, and fitted tops with looser bottoms. High waisted pants are a must!

No wonder I hate the look of wide-legged pants on me - they are TOO loose and I lose definition below. No wonder the looser, boxier dresses and tops I made last summer look strange on me (I thought) - they are TOO loose and boxy and I lose definition period. I didn't mind the Bruyere top because it was fitted at the waist and while I'm not sure the tunic length is quite right, it looked ok. Some of the things I'm making are going to be fitted at the waist, or are intended to be tucked in and will almost never be worn on their own. The things I'm drawn to have fun details like ruffles or pleats, and the overall look I want to cultivate is "mid-century librarian" - fitted but not too fitted, and also not boxy (like wide-legged pants and squared skirts).

I started working on the Nicks dress, the silk is *wonderful* to work with, if a little shreddy. I'm using the mid-century Brother for it, which I think still needs some bobbin tension adjustment bc the top thread pulls it up quite a bit. I had lengthened the front with an FBA but did not remember that, so when I went to cut it off last night (after 9pm, bad news bears!) I think I cut too much. Grrrr. I also don't have an 1/2" elastic like I thought so I can't finish it until I get that.

Tonight is the very last hockey game of the season, the Stanely Cup Final! Think good things for us!