Rachel Weisz Kibbe Verified SD

David Kibbe doesn’t like to type celebrities. Sometimes he get it right, but regularly gets it wrong (Beyonce, Rihanna, Mae West, etc) because he doesn’t like to analyse photos. What people refer to are ‘verified’ celebrities are normally just quick guesses.

But, people like to pull them out of the woodwork to ‘prove’ their point. Generally, this is when the cannot put forward a convincing argument. People prefer to use the ‘because kibbe said so’ argument, rather than accept that they might be wrong.

Regardless of which image was used, you stated that SD lines are ‘are heavy, crisp fabrics, not soft drapes’ which is not correct. SDs can wear D recommendations, but SD recommendations are ‘lightweight fabrics with soft drapes’. They will always most flattered by their native lines.

Not at all. I can 100% see the SD form in Rihanna, Gemma Arterton, Monica Belluci, Uma Thurman, etc. Non of these are particularly fleshy in the bust, but are very easy to see the narrow, sharp, long skeleton with soft draped flesh. I’m very willing to accept that SDs are not curvy all over, but they must possess some curvature. So your assumption on that is misinformed.

Again, I believe Kibbe will have probably looked at a couple of the styled images and gave a response based on that. When I started using this system, for months I believed she was SD too, just by looking at images of her in styled situations. It was only when looking for her as a reference celebrity, for more casual looks that it clicked. She styles as SD but is not actually one herself.

For RW, within her own body geometry, she has a broad torso, with blunt edges, almost rounded shoulders (from bone). Her limbs at slightly narrower and longer. Her flesh is moderate to taut (depending on the area).

I have seen you post about Danielle Panabaker and agree she has a similar geometry to RW. However, I don’t agree that either are SD. Typing by face is not a good idea, just like typing by sternum isn’t. Also, as I’ve said before, gamines vary in trait by anatomical region. While some may match, you will get natural variation. In FG the face can be petite and round, like any other gamines, but they can also have long, oblong faces. So this isn’t very useful. Try to focus on the lines of the body, clothes don’t go on faces.

Maybe try combining SD bikini pics with Rachel and Danielle’s bikini pics. You will see how narrow and curved SDs really are. Even at low weights, or with smaller busts. Try choosing the less curvy SDs, the difference is still huge.

Kibbe’s description of an SD is ‘fleshy, particularly through the bust and hip’ and ‘long angular bones, but with roundness and softness coming from the flesh’. The difference between D and SD is that D is taut with low flesh, while SD has yin flesh. The clothing lines, for any ‘S’ type (SD, SN, SC, SG), are created as there is a need to accommodate the FLESH CURVE which comes with yin flesh. If an individual does not need to dress to accommodate yin flesh and curves then they are not ‘S’. RW doesn’t have curves that need accommodated in the lines of her clothes, nor does Danielle. And I’m sure you can agree neither has a D skeleton? This would mean they are not SD.

Ds and SDs have the exact same skeleton. If SDs are not curvy to a point where they need to accommodate it in their clothing, then they are just a D.

RW and DP do not have curves that need accommodating. Nor do they have D skeletons.

/r/Kibbe Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it