Jackie

Kibbe classifies Jackie as a Dramatic Classic. I disagree with Kibbe a lot, and as we know it's not HIS categories, he just took an existing style chart and made it "his", so I don't think highly of his ability to actually define style.

Here's why I think he's wrong.

Jackie was quite tall (5'7), but because she had big head and short limbs, she looks shorter than she was, so her vertical line was smallish.
Being 5'7, she's too tall to be Classic, according to Kibbe... Hmm...

Her shoulders are pretty average, symmetrical, even, but... there's the sharpness, boniness of yang there... Her shoulders aren't as soft and smooth as Grace Kelly's.

Her arms and legs were very short in proportion to her height and torso.

Jackie had very square face, wide but not high cheekbones, wide nose, eyes far apart and straight eyebrows. A typical Natural face, according to Kibbe...

For bone structure, Jackie gets very mixed results. There's as much yang as there's yin and balanced added together, but not in a balanced way.

Her body is straight, in a broad, muscular manner.
Her limbs were moderate, but short.
Frankly, I'd say she was Gamine, but Kibbe says women of Jackie's length are not Gamine.

Her eyes are wide apart, her mouth is moderate full and average size, her cheeks are pretty broad but not angular, her nose is broad and short and her hair seems quite coarse to me. Also, her neck is quite sturdy and short.

Someone said that one could see that Jackie's natural style was exactly that, natural, when one looked at what she chose to wear when she wasn't the First Lady anymore.

Anyone else looking like Jackie would not be classified as Classic anything, by Kibbe or anyone else. Sure, she is a style icon for the classic style, but that's not her natural style. I think this harms the Kibbe system, as having Jackie in this category makes it hard to see who's natural and who's classic.