Flamboyant Gamine “Curves”

This is basically more or less on the same subject as my last post, but I thought it was important to give it a separate post because of my other posts on the subject.

To recap, before, I thought that, if you were curvy, the difference between Flamboyant Gamine and Soft Gamine was in the face. I think you’ll still see a difference in the face, but there’s a difference in the body, too.

The SGs and the FGs have a much more similar shape than we usually think of them as having. The main difference seems to be that FG will have angles and an SG will have a curve.

Let’s look at Brigitte Bardot (SG) and Audrey Hepburn (FG). Brigitte’s measurements at one point in her career, according to this website, were 36-20-35. Audrey’s were 34-20-34. So relatively similar–Audrey is technically an hourglass, and Brigitte was a slightly top-heavy hourglass and just a little bit curvier by the numbers.


Their shapes are incredibly similar… yet it’s clearly evident that the extra Romantic in SG has given a little bit of a curvy shape, and the extra Dramatic in FG has resulted in a shape composed entirely of angles.

SG’s curve is not as dramatically curved as a Romantic’s, such as Elizabeth Taylor (36-21-36, so not too far off from our G women above). But you can still see the curve vs. angularity in FG.

So what makes a “curvy” FG instead of a Soft Gamine? Angles instead of curves. I think you’d still be able to tell from the face, but it may be easier to see in body shape.

Related Posts

10 Comments on Flamboyant Gamine “Curves”

  1. Alexandra
    February 25, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    It’s actually not so much about angles vs. curves, but about the general impression. Take someone like Christina Hendricks – you see her and your main impression is that of curves. It’s probably the first thing you notice, actually. With someone like Audrey Hepburn, the curves don’t really register (and neither do angles, mind you) because you first notice the animated face. You do notice she’s a woman without getting the impression of curves, curves, everywhere.

    • stylesyntax
      February 25, 2015 at 9:30 pm

      If you have someone with a 14-inch different between bust/waist and hips and it was curvy, it wouldn’t give the boyish impression Audrey does. That’s why I posted pictures of yin types with similar measurements. I am not flat-chested like Audrey, but my curves still don’t register as curves, even when someone is looking at my body and noticing it. Elizabeth Taylor had a distractingly beautiful face, and she is still renowned for her curves.

      Animated face or not, all of the Flamboyant Gamines (the book ones) the person working on this looked at showed the exact same shape of bust/waist/hips. And an SG would be just as animated as FG, but they still have curved lines in their torso. The point is not about the general impression here. What I am looking for is the commonality between people of the same type. Types have to have common body lines; otherwise, the same things wouldn’t flatter people across a type.

  2. Chiara
    February 26, 2015 at 2:43 am

    I think the other thing is that maybe the yinner type bodies have more in-and-out both in profile AND front on, whereas yanger body types may have in-and-out front on, but less so in profile.

    • stylesyntax
      February 26, 2015 at 4:39 am

      Being curvier from the side instead of the front is an N trait, though, so while I think this would probably apply to Ds, for instance, it may not apply to FN.

  3. Chiara
    February 26, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Actually, I meant that Ds (at least, and a lot of FGs it seems) can look like hourglass-y from the front, but not in profile- they don’t project in 3D if you like!

    • stylesyntax
      February 26, 2015 at 10:20 pm

      I think it applies to D and some FGs, but probably not FN. So it’s more of a sharp yang trait, I think, rather than yang in general.

  4. Meltartaglia
    August 9, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    Great post! As a person who loves the outdoors and wrestling with the grandkids and dogs, I have been experimenting quite a bit with the FG’s version of natural, with some success and some failure. It’s quite fun.

    • stylesyntax
      August 23, 2015 at 7:19 am

      Yes, me too! :)

  5. Jen
    November 22, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    I’ve just found this blog (a great read by the way!) and I am relieved I’m not alone in my style journey. I too have tried out SN and SG, but felt displaced because FG as presented seemed like you had to be very thin and lanky looking to be one. I’ve always come across as short, big thighs and upper arms, squared shouldered; boxy in all. And due to a bit of weight gain I can see my hourglass figure seems more prominent I.e. Bigger chest, fleshy behind. Though when I look at my bones I can see my hips are sort of straight and lean looking, and my ribcage waist area is small but my upper chest/arm area is broader. Which as you said, is kinda the main thing of an FG yet anyone with those traits are made to feel like they’re an outlier.

    I am so relived to have read your story of self typing and seeing how your journey has progressed has given me hope and inspiration for my own. I think you speak a lot of wisdom and have finally found your fashion feet :)

    • stylesyntax
      November 23, 2016 at 7:04 pm

      I’ve learned quite a lot since I wrote this post, and I’ve had the chance to learn from David himself. What I would look at in your case is whether your have a larger bone structure. I have a smaller and sharper bone structure all around; I’m just carrying some extra weight. There are times when I *have* been very thin and lanky-looking. Basically, he says that there are SNs who are imbued with a kind of gamine spirit, and need this addressed in their clothes, but that they need the looser construction of SN. FG is still possible, of course; it all depends on what your yin/yang balance actually communicates and what you need from clothes.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>