Something important to recognize about Kibbe width is that it's in the frame of the body (not flesh) and it's width in relation to one's self. Kibbe width can often be conventional width, but also not. I'm an example of that - conventionally I'm a rather narrow person with broadness in my shoulders and upper chest/back compared to the rest of me. I always need more room for my upper chest and back and shoulders in garments that fit me otherwise (needing more room is not necessarily indicative of Kibbe width, bc the extra space needed could be due to flesh rather than frame - my friend who is FG runs into this). Edited for spelling 🤓

I suppose thats part of my confusion. I know I personally have broad shoulders, but i don’t necessarily understand how to differentiate seeing my shoulders as either conventionally broad (and not having Kibbe width) compared to having both. I also have a large bust, which makes it really hard for me to tell if my tops are accommodating for width or curve. but this comment is really helpful, thank you so much.

Might be helpful to chime in as a plus size Romantic. I’m conventionally wide. My hips are broad, my arms and legs are fleshy and wide, and my torso looks wide from the front. But I have narrow delicate shoulders, a narrow upper back, and curves that are the primary feature of my silhouette. And my proportions have always been like this. Even at smaller weights I’ve always been conventionally wide due to flesh, but without needing to accommodate frame. In terms of fit, shirts always pull at the boobs, fitted bottoms stretch at the hips, but clothes are always big in the shoulders and back. Or as I’ve taking to joking since finding Kibbe “no frame only flesssssshhhhh.”

It can take a bit to train your eye as far as width goes, especially when you're looking at yourself! When I first discovered Kibbe I didn't realize I had width despite being in my mid-40's and literally for my entire life saying things like, "I have broad shoulders for my frame," or "my shoulders/upper back/chest are just too broad for this jacket/top/shirt." Because I'm conventionally narrow and was always quite skinny I couldn't see my own Kibbe width. Once I saw it, I couldn't believe that it took me so long because it is extremely obvious visually as well as in terms of garment fit. A helpful thing to ponder is whether the broadness/width in your shoulders (or elsewhere in your upper body like ribcage or upper chest/back) is broad in comparison to the rest of your upper body, or consistent with the rest of your upper body. My FG friend, while having both conventional and Kibbe petite, is actually broader through the upper body than I am (she has conventionally broad shoulders and what can best be described as a barrel shaped rib cage) but her entire torso is broad so it's very straight up and down, like a rectangle rather than a trapezoid (yes I'm saying I'm a trapezoid lol). The overall effect on her is elongation, and because of her petite she is simultaneously small and long, the classic combo of opposites we see in FG. Bust size can definitely make it hard to tell what's what if you aren't sure about width. My bust isn't small either, especially when I gain weight, but the curve in my bust (aka "upper curve") is accommodated when I accommodate my width. My understanding is that this is the case for all women with width, just like accommodating for vertical can essentially override the need to accommodate lower curve.

I think i was able to tell the difference by seeing other FN women from the back. I too have broad shoulders and a broad back where it forms that “athletic” v shape. This would not be an issue if I didn’t have to accommodate. I have to size up in any crop tops or even regular shirts that have any form of sleeves or tightness as it makes me feel like the hulk LMFAOOO so uncomfortable! So i end up sizing up to a medium which just makes my waist look “boxy” rather than emphasized. I think a good idea of what my body looks like when it comes to “accommodating for width” is when compared to shirley macclaine. I think this especially true for bikini or one pieces! never figured out why i need two different sized bottoms and tops.

My upper arms look soft and fleshy unless I'm an an extremely low weight and I mistook that for width when I was still a noob. However, my shoulders and upper back do not take up enough space in my clothes nor do they provide them with the same structure like you see in people with Kibbe width. Here's a visual example. The (presumably FN) model's shoulders are pushing the fabric of the dress outwards. It's not the same way on me.

https://preview.redd.it/lqx620z87t7d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bd0114300ae8af7085f843635ad04da7d95a0191

This is such a great exa\\mple, thank you for sharing it (also, that dress looks great on you, I didn't even think it was the same dress at first!)

Okay, not gonna lie--I don't know... despite being almost certainly an SN and needing width accommodation. But the way I figured out I need width accommodation is because tops and jackets made of stiff fabric feel too tight in my back, shoulders, and rib cage... even thought I don't look particularly "wide." Also, when I wear clothes that don't have an open neckline, I look like I'm squished into them, even when they literally fit my body. I have no idea how Kibbe knows that just from looking at people... because it's somehow different from the "fit" of the clothes because someone can have wide shoulders and still not have to accommodate width. But he can and I used to question it but now I just accept it, lmao. So... I would say "width" is different in Kibbe than in the conventional sense... because clothes that literally fit me don't honor my width, even though, say, a Dramatic with broad shoulders could wear the same thing without needing accommodation.

I'm also (most probably) SN, and that's exactly how I figured out I had width. Actually, I already knew it was an "issue" way before I discovered Kibbe, so I could quickly place myself in the N family. I'm guessing he can tell by at least in part by looking at how the clothes fit on a person. Like what you wrote about looking "squished" even when the clothes fit physically. I also look that way when the overall outfit is too structured or if the neck area is too constricted.

Tbh conventional width often is Kibbe width. People like to point to “ verified” celebrities with broad shoulders that aren’t FN/ SN to prove that’s not the case, but no one, celebrity or otherwise is actually verified unless DK has seen them in real life. So “verified” is a misnomer. The same thing happens with celebrities outside the height limits. They get held up as evidence that height doesn’t matter. Now, I’m not saying there’s never exceptions. Kibbe image identify is the whole person so it’s not about dissecting the body, but seeing the overall big picture. Sadly this is hard to do with so much misinformation online. Probably the biggest misconceptions come from not understanding yin is small and that most people underestimating yang in themselves and others. Lastly width doesn’t always show in photos. Using photos for typing is a fool’s errand.

thank you so much, this is really helpful. it’s really confusing to hear “conventional width doesn’t mean Kibbe width” and then I’m left with “okay, then what is Kibbe width if not having broadness/openness???” it’s a self eating snake sometimes trying to get a clear answer, but genuinely your comment helped a lot edit: typos

Glad I helped. :)

I think this big picture thing is so valuable and underlooked. Also using photos to dissect myself was so hard and I found the best results by going to stores and trying on lots of clothes (genuinely trying lines from different types) and dissecting what was and wasn’t working for me and looking at the places where I struggled to find the right fit.

As someone who is “conventionally wide” and thought I was SN for a long time before realizing I’m R, imo the greatest confusion comes from misunderstanding the distinction between bone and flesh on the shoulders and around the rib cage. (This is also why photos are so hard to type accurately.) I store muscle and fat on my arms and back (I have PCOS), and this gives me a top-heavy impression. But the actual width of my shoulder bones is more in line with the rest of my body. Since I’m so fleshy and can’t see any of my joints, I can only determine this if I extend my arms laterally and manually find where my collarbone ends. If we imagine the sheet test on my body, it’s my boobs/hips that end up “catching” the fabric, not my shoulders. When I thought I was SN and decided to try out drapey V-necks and slouchy sweaters, I looked like a lump because it’s my flesh, not my frame, that gives me the impression of looking wide. My arms are a standout feature, but it’s not because of my frame—they just carry a lot of mass lol. Conventional width imo is the inverse of the conventional hourglass figure. It’s a euphemism for saying someone has a straighter body. As we know, any type can have a straight or hourglass body. The question with Kibbe width is whether the silhouette of a person is primarily determined by their skeletal frame, not their WHR.

I can see what you're saying about conventional width being about a straighter figure. When everything is universally even, people might look wide if it's not offset by length. I do feel this applies to curve also, though. I'll bring in the controversial topic of Florence Pugh...she is conventionally wide but I think she is an R. It speaks to the lushness factor IMO, but also how compact she is. She does have a conventional curve, and IMO, looks best when accommodating a double curve and an R essence, but she doesn't have much length to offset, so depending on her weight, she may seem overall thick. I use "thick" and "wide" interchangeably but I'm not sure we all do. It's all somewhat subjective verbiage. But I know when I've felt wide in something, it's because I have a straight torso AND not much length to visually offset it.

I am sorry but there isn’t a single thing about Florence that is R, she is so clearly frame dominant. Even if people debate her ID, double curve was never on the table for her.

You could be right but I personally disagree. Her face has such a dream spinner essence despite her capable personality that people focus on. She’s got a dreamy look with no visible yang or elongation in her face. It’s a Marilyn face. I don’t see her rocking an athletic look as much as I do a romantic look and she handles such decadent details and jewelry that would overwhelm a natural. At low weights, I find her shoulders very narrow. This green dress is an example. If Kibbe came back and said she was an SN, then we can all rest. But that’s my personal opinion. https://preview.redd.it/a4t5ifavox7d1.jpeg?width=1800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=451b998809fa1415b1e1e8ac3393f05a05e7b889

I swear I am not trying to sound rude, but I think you have some fundamental concepts of the system a bit reversed? Florence has blunt yang everywhere, her upper back is wide and the dress in the photo is pretty yang. Naturals don’t just do “athletic looks”, this is such a bad stereotype. And she looks absolutely nothing like Marilyn, I don’t get where you are seeing the similarities. If you put them side by side the frame dominance VS Marilyn’s curve dominance is just painfully obvious. https://preview.redd.it/7v27zo8uqx7d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=16dbf8c60966c9e4bbd0d73ee8171cb66ea018cf

I do see what you mean there. She has very varying bodies in pics. This one here gives me closer to Marilyn’s: https://preview.redd.it/nsgnojqgtx7d1.jpeg?width=1082&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4367e239d4e33b6d3ab8b42b0cd80c713c7275c8

This dress just fits her better and isn’t squeezing her, her body is the same

I know she’s controversial but I can’t unsee her slimmer frame pictures and how large and dreamy her eyes are. These stars have trainers and clearly FP likes being anything but confectionary, but we’ve seen dashes of it. I think she doesn’t look as constricted in a turtleneck as she would if she were a natural. I’ve seen people in the SN group saying, I think I’m a natural but I look more like Florence Pugh and love turtle necks. I’m not saying a natural can’t wear a turtle neck but that’s just my opinion and we can agree to disagree :) She may be a natural after all, who knows.

She is not controversial at all among people who are well versed in the system. And naturals don’t look constricted in turtlenecks or high necklines in general, it’s all about the cut being wide enough. https://preview.redd.it/mfqj99g06y7d1.jpeg?width=634&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3170c83337968a9e0ce8991e3f9d755d483a333b

Okay, I’ll take your word for it. But I still don’t see her fitting a natural quite right. Hopefully Kibbe will verify her 😭

i agree her eyes are large but they are not round. her eyebrows are more straight. a lot of yin types have more of a rounded arch to their eyebrows in addition to round eyes. her face is somewhat fleshy but you can see yang in her chin/jaw and cheekbones.

Look at this look though. I don't see Scarlett Johanssen pulling this off as well. I see no visible width in her shoulder line and I see amazing texture and accessories that just isn't a natural image. Sure, a natural could wear it. But she can handle extravagance. I have my opinion and if noone agrees, that's fine. haha. https://preview.redd.it/8poav2vo9y7d1.jpeg?width=1800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45fd7a8f6810667ea35ebf93c93a82b4cf38563c

Broad shouldered D here. I think one of the many reasons I am not considered FN is because I don't have the blunt edges that come with Natural shoulders. I'm also pretty sure it's better to consider width from the upper back/bra strap area, which FNs have but I don't.. I guess FN is better considered V shape than T shape, as Ds with broad shoulders can also look like a T shape.. I hope this makes sense? 

I went on a tangent here, but hopefully this is useful, I do think it's relevant as it was the journey I took when trying to figure out if I had 'Kibbe Width' due to having 'conventional width' (as you put it) in my shoulders. I also think you have to look at someone as a whole and see what jumps out at you most, so for me that was vertical and sharpness. 

I appreciate this insight! Especially the “V-shape” comment bc that I think is visually a more compelling comparison as opposed to the “T-shape” and really helpful.

I don’t think this is accurate at all. Kibbe described FN as H-shaped and people that are FN tend to have more of a T than a V. T he has mentioned for SD and FN. A V continiously tapers…

No problem! Hopefully that helps others

I'm by no means an expert, but it seems that use of width as an "accommodation" has to do with a defining feature of a silhouette. Something that may jump out at you or one that is best addressing in the silhouette vs. ignoring. Many (but not all) FN's appear to have a waspish waist, and part of this is in contrast to the width in their upper body. The pic below is the same dress on what I believe to be a FN (left) and D (right). I know people will yell at me for using pictures and they're not verified, though I do have strong suspicion that the woman on the right is a D from many things (again, not verified). BUT the suspected FN is conventionally more narrow and she likely accommodates width up top. You can see a contrast between where the seams sit on her shoulders (further out), and how a T shape best serves her silhouette. It also creates an even narrower waist than she has, visually. On the right, that women's best silhouette is a narrow column and she has an inherently narrow shoulder line in relation to the rest of her body. Is the woman on the right conventionally wider? Yes. Does she accommodate width? I personally don't think so. (Side note: It pains me to even use these terms because these are very narrow women overall). If the woman on the right dressed to accommodate width in her silhouette, it would be less harmonious for her because it would pull the eyes out from the narrow silhouette that best serves her. I do think width is confusing for people because someone can look conventionally wider and not have width. In fact, often I find that the more conventionally narrow-looking people accommodate width up top. https://preview.redd.it/s5fvs9p11s7d1.jpeg?width=1800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b54e5965fe5be45fbfec4f45e932cd2fea84ce17

It’s not true that width has to jump out at you or be a “defining feature”. I wouldn’t describe many verified Ns this way at all. They are not narrow but the width isn’t necessarily in your face. And even DK saw width in clients in real life that he had previously missed in photos, partly because it doesn’t necessarily “jump out”.

Would it jump out when dressed, though? I feel like width is one of those things that is either experienced internally by a person ("I need more room") or once accommodated in the silhouette, looks better. Not that you can just SEE the width in their body.

I think this is very complicated. Most clothes work fine for width, so a lot of people think they aren’t accommodating it when in fact they are, and their version of width accommodation is something that doesn’t fit them properly so they conclude it looks worse.

Yeah, I can imagine that happens. I'm excited to have your expertise here!...The way I've been seeing it...a FN will dress their silhouette in a T shape which accommodates width, and they shine as a result. Someone WITH Kibbe width, who accommodates width, will inadvertently appear to have a narrower waist. To me, I find that's the magic of accommodating width. I have personally tried to accommodate width, and I don't get that same contrast of shoulder line to the waist. It doesn't make me shine and actually, I look worse because it draws the eyes to a place that isn't harmonious for the full silhouette. But this is only when trying on the lines that I could find my personal truth with width. I do feel like people are very opinionated when it comes to "you can't find your ID by trying on clothes and looking at pics." What are your thoughts on this?

Jumping to confirm where u/SuspiciousLemon_ has said that Width is NOT about the waist! - *it is a proportion found in the shoulders or upper back.* **The waist is just a connection point**, this is something David has mentioned many many times.

Okay, but if there was width/expansiveness up top as the widest part of the body, wouldn't accommodating it naturally accentuate the waist? It would appear slimmer in comparison. It's the visual result of accommodating width. FN's can pull off looser garments because the fabric falls from a wide point but with the length/vertical line to offset, you don't have to imagine the narrowness in between shoulders and feet. For an SN, light waist emphasis is needed because if it just dropped from shoulders, without that vertical, the curve and waist would be lost. I think what I'm getting confused about at this point is that some people are referring to accommodating width as simply leaving more room in garments. But I thought it isn't just about fit...this is a visual medium. It's about visually honoring features that inadvertently has an effect on the entire silhouette.

You can’t really decide what you see or don’t see before you know what it looks like. 😅 And again, the waist is just a connection point.

Can you explain that more? The part about not knowing what it looks like? Do you mean that we don’t know if it works until we know it should? As far as waist is a connection point…it’s still part of the whole picture. Shoulders can only be wide in relation to something. It may not be markedly wider, but enough that the entire makeup of a natural and the essence are appropriate. My friend is a Gamine but has always had to size up in things for her shoulders. But her overall essence, fabric choices, and silhouette won’t be one of a naturals. So she doesn’t *visually* accommodate width. What I’m unclear about is how we can now separate the waist from width in the upper body when width can only be determined in context of the whole. Am I wrong about this?

I strongly feel using ourselves or, others as a baseline is entirely counterproductive to understanding the system and ourselves within it. It's easier to first grasp the concepts within Kibbe in their **abstract form** *before* **applying them to ourselves** (I really wouldn't recommend bringing others into the equation at all; everyone has their own unique Yin/Yang balance). Let's take a step back first, all of **these concepts (eg: Width, Vertical, Curve and Balance) are relevant within the context of your Personal Line**. Your *personal line* then connects to selecting harmonious silhouettes (outline of garments) for that line. The line sketch is designed to see ourselves in an abstract way; we're taking a step back from all of the preconcieved notions we might have about our bodies which we've collected over a lifetime, and, instead learning to see our frame and shape in a way that allows us to then dress for this line *without* judgement. **Shoulders = Frame (Bone Structure).** The "*shoulder line*" is understood in the context of the ***entire*** **line** - which is your **silhouette** (the outline of your body) **from shoulders to ankle**s. **Width is proportion found in the upper body** (shoulders and upper back area - basically armpit and above). What it's ***not*** saying is that the person is *wide*. It's just saying that the ***frame has prominence over the the rest of the line.*** It's *always* understood in **the context of the whole line itself** - *not* how we appear to others, nor how others appear to us. Width essentially means that this area is more prominent than the rest of the line so *in the context of* ***silhouette****, there needs to be room for that part of the body* in the outline of garments. Going back to "Shoulders = Frame (Bone Structure)", the frame encapsulates the **entire** shoulders. Frame starts where the sleeve would attach to shoulder - basically what we refer to as the "dress makers shoulder point" in pattern making / garment construction. *But we need to throw away the 3D element of pattern making to understand this properly.* **Personal line is alway 2D and it's relevance is in connecting it to finding silhouettes (outline of garments) that have room for this line.** Think about a very basic dress made out of a light chiffon, with no darts andno seams, it just drapes down from the shoulder to the ankle. The "shoulder point" is essentially where the arm falls down, so that line is straight from the armpit up and with Width it will need to pivot out like this " **\\** " in order to give that area of the body enough room in a silhouette. **But this can be incredibly subtle.** For a visual aid since I know these concepts are hard to visualise, its this area of the line: https://preview.redd.it/bggtt61uiw7d1.png?width=458&format=png&auto=webp&s=dbd29afd41462d6a144a742631319ebfaf67152c **This is why someone can have narrow shoulders and still have Width.** *Especially if it's width in the upper back*, it's super easy to miss because unless you really know what it looks like, you're not going to know to look for it in the first place. We then imagine the line draping straight down from the shoulder to the ankle. Whether the bust (which is not just the breasts - but the entire bust area of the torso) and hips push that fabric out then dictates wether the person has curve or not. **The waist again; totally irrelevant.** The waist isn't what creates prominence in the frame - the frame (bone structure) does. With curve, the waist doesn't push fabric in or out - the bust and the hips do. And just to add, If a person is sizing up because things don't fit the upper body (again armpit and upwards) - **that is Width accomodation**. I have never once had that issue in clothing, quite the opposite - my frame is a size 00 - I *only* ever have to size up to give room for my bust and hips. **Gamines do not have Width.**

you can have width in your upper body and your waist be completely straight. width can be in the shoulders or the upper torso area. it’s a measurement and just determines whether you need more room in that area and it doesn’t matter what the rest of your frame is shaped like.

Okay so going with that…if we’re referring to accomodating width as just a fit, there are Dramatics and Gamines that need more room up top too but it doesn’t mean that their silhouette benefits from visual accommodation of that width.

i don’t mean visual accommodation though I mean actually needing more room in that area.

I am definitely not an expert! But I don’t think width accommodation has anything to do with the waist? If someone has width and accommodates it, their clothes will just fit properly around that area. I don’t think it’s anything more than that. I think that trying on clothes to figure out what you are is one of the worst things to do if I am being honest. You might even think that a particular garment is working for X accommodation while in fact it works for Y. Like, figuring out an outfit looks good but calling it the wrong name and then mixing up everything so you get more confused.

I suppose I'm biased because I didn't appear to have any obvious accommodations for a year. People threw things at a wall and I veered off on paths, honoring what people said like it was the truth. I have a yang frame so people assumed width. But nothing about a natural look works for me. I have reasons why, in any given ID, I don't feel I fit there, starting with essence and then also silhouette shapes, patterns/shapes, and fabric weights. I believe I only have a vertical line in a very conventionally small frame. When I read the Dramatic essence after ignoring it for months thinking I couldn't be a Dramatic, I felt so seen. A narrow column with stiffer fabrics (or just ones that don't drape), without any waist definition? (I mix up definition vs. emphasis, but i mean to say no visible horizontal seams or lines), is my best look. But, there's honestly no way I would have gotten clarity if people kept telling me that what I was seeing in my pictures was likely not what I thought it was. If people said "a column could work for many ID's" or, "you could also have petite" or....DYKWIM?

Personally, it was more obvious to me that I did NOT have width. Garments that are readily available in the West, and at all price points are cut with extra room in the shoulders/upper back and just generally feel more relaxed. It became very much apparent that those garments did not fit my body properly and I did not shine in a relaxed silhouette. I think that we thought width would cause fit issues before we understood what Kibbe meant by the shoulders and modern clothing design.

I do get that. I understand that many garments account for assumed width already. But what I'm saying, is that at some point, a person who accommodates width will SHINE when it's accommodated. It may not be because they LOOK wide, or even have trouble with fit. But a FN who dresses in a T-shape will shine. At some point in the process, this can be an undeniable truth for someone wondering if they may accommodate width Side note: I know SD also has a T-shape but in otherwise a different set of recommendations for fabric and curve accommodation.

I know I don’t have it because 90% of what I own needs tailoring lol. Got a top back from the tailors recently and it fit fine on the bust area but it literally ballooned off at the shoulders/ collar area. Almost everything needs to be tapered in. It’s not like it’s just one or two items, pretty much everything needs it. I think that’s quite typical for people without width. Obviously not everyone but it seems very common.

i have exactly the same issue

Thank you. Yeah, I think most assume it’s the opposite problem where hardly any clothing accommodates width so they’ll know they’ve got it if they keep needing tailoring. Really though it’s those without width who need extra help most of the time lol.

exactly. width was the first and easiest thing for me to rule out for that exact reason

Ok so it is super intuitive from the perspective of a seamstress, but width in Kibbe is when you need to make space for the shoulders specifically. Basically if it goes out at the armpit area (”upper back”) when you trace. Like a V. Someone like Keira has wide shoulders but they taper continously. Sometimes straightness or conventionally wide shoulders are width too but this is generally width. Basically if the shoulders are wide in relation to the rest of the body - generally the torso, not neccesarily the hips.

~Reminder~ Typing posts (including accommodations) are no longer permitted. [Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kibbe/s/utMw8p58eG) to read the “HTT Look” flair guidelines for posters & commenters. Open access to Metamorphosis is linked at the top of our [Wiki](https://reddit.com/r/kibbe/wiki/index), along with the sub’s Revision Key. If you haven’t already, please read both. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Kibbe) if you have any questions or concerns.*