A Winning Formula

Yay Math!!


Florence Colgate has the most mathematically beautiful face in the UK

Leonardo Da Vinci spent a lifetime trying to paint one. Scientists and mathematicians have puzzled for centuries over what makes one, while cosmetic surgeons have amassed fortunes striving to create one.

And Florence Colgate? Well, she simply has one. The 18-year-old student is blessed with what is described as the perfect face. It matches an international blueprint for the optimum ratio between eyes, mouth, forehead and chin, endowing her with flawless proportions.

In theory, that needn’t necessarily cause her to appear anything more than symmetrical (in which department, incidentally, she is also faultless).

But the blue-eyed blonde’s mathematical dimensions have just added up to success in a competition to find Britain’s most naturally beautiful face.

Florence, who has a Saturday job in a seaside chip shop in between studying for her A-levels, beat 8,000 entrants to win the title. Contestants were judged without make-up and were barred entry if they had had plastic surgery or chemical enhancement.
But it is the scientific definition of beauty – not to mention a healthy portion of beauty genes from her mother – which gave Florence the crown.

A woman’s face is said to be most attractive when the space between her pupils is just under half the width of her face from ear to ear. Florence scores a 44 per cent ratio. Experts also believe the relative distance between eyes and mouth should be just over a third of the measurement from hairline to chin. Florence’s ratio is 32.8 per cent.

So I guess that makes her the UK’s “closest fit” to the formula. If her eyes were a tiny bit further apart and her mouth a hair lower (or her head was a tad thinner and shorter) she would match the formula exactly.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I think the girl is perfectly lovely just the way she is. Fresh, warm, wholesome. But, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I think she lacks that certain little bit of edge, a touch of sharpness or a bit of planar angularity that turns a very pretty face into a classically beautiful one; one that could be carved in marble and thousands of years later be recognized as outstanding.  But let’s give Ms. Colgate a tiny break; she’s just 18 and really hasn’t finished growing. We’ll come back to her when she’s 24 or 27 or 33 and see how she fares then.

Is the formula correct? I used a graphics tool to narrow and shorten her face a little in the next pictures, which results in her eyes being relatively wider, and the eye to mouth distance being relatively just a bit longer. Is she more beautiful that way, or just a bit harder looking? Granted, this was a quick attempt: the graphics quality is lowered, and I didn’t run the numbers to find the exact pixel counts that matched the formula. I just took a little off the top and sides each time. What’s your reaction?


Posted by Drew458    United States   on 06/09/2012 at 03:01 PM   
  1. I don’t think any of the three photos is as pretty as the one at the first of the article. But that could be because of resolution/size changes.

    Posted by ooGcM taobmaetS    United States   06/10/2012  at  01:11 AM  
  2. WOW, Florence surely is the girl of my dreams.

    My wife absolutely is the subject of the previous post!

    Posted by New Jersey Yankee    Ireland   06/10/2012  at  05:35 AM  
  3. I can’t see the difference but then again, it’s a mcgoo says re resolution or more then likely my old eyes just ain’t what they used to be.

    NJY .... I kinda think at our age, almost anything female under 40 might be a dream girl.
    Oh for the younger years, foot-loose, free and often lonely but with hope. LOL

    Posted by peiper    United Kingdom   06/10/2012  at  11:09 AM  
  4. The full size 3 face picture is 2000 pixels wide ... a bit big for a blog post.

    The picture on the left is the original, just sized smaller. The one is the middle has her head downsized the approximate amount she is said to be “less than perfect”. The one on the right is downsized that much again.

    I’m not turned off by wide faced women, so I think #1 is just peachy, and maybe #2 is just a bit better. #3 still looks good to me, but I’m starting to read in less positive personality assumptions. She doesn’t look as friendly.

    In full disclosure, I think Billie Piper is just fine too. She always looked like a nice playful & energetic romp in the hay and a good snuggle after, though compared to Ms. Colgate she’s the hound of the Baskervilles, what with the overbite and all.


    Posted by Drew458    United States   06/11/2012  at  12:26 AM  
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Have you seen my Zombie?

Previous entry: I'd call this REAL target marketing

<< BMEWS Main Page >>