“GOLD CUTTING WITH THE HUSSAR METHOD”.
For the first time in the world, using a method based on a Hungarian geometrical discovery, it was possible to use the most beautiful geometrical proportions with a free eye measurement and with millimeter accuracy:
the golden ratio and the silver ratio.

Thanks, Adrian! I appreciate the support and recognition of my efforts to get the facts out on this topic.

Good job, Gary! 🙂

Hello Said,

Regarding the university study to which you refer, “New Golden Ratio for Facial Beauty,” please see my analysis of that study at https://www.goldennumber.net/facial-beauty-new-golden-ratio/.

The researchers ignored all the recognized facial markers that embody golden ratio proportions. They made up their own overly simplistic markers, came up with different ratios and incorrectly concluded that the golden ratio does not appear in the human face.

The .36 measure to which you refer is based on the vertical distances of the pupil-to-lip to hairline-to-chin. In doing so, they failed to compare the pupil-to-lip to pupil-to-chin ratio. Their preferred horizontal measure of .46 was based on the distance between the pupils to the width of the face. In doing so they also failed to compare the inner part of the eye to the width of the face, which I also show to be a common golden ratio proportion.

In my analysis, I show that the face that their study showed to be the most preferred for attractiveness actually embodied a dozen golden ratios. This proved that their methods were flawed and their conclusions were inaccurate. See my other work on this at https://www.goldennumber.net/meisner-beauty-guide-golden-ratio-facial-analysis/.

On the Marquardt mask, you must be measuring or interpretting it incorrectly. The “eye pupils-to-nose base to lip line-to-chin” is no where near the 2 or 1.95 as you state. I’d recommend using my PhiMatrix software (free trial available) to get measurements accurate to the pixel, and to be sure that you’re measuring to the nostrils and not the base.

I thank you for your inquiry and analysis of the detail. The more discussion we can generate the more we will be able to present the facts.

ThAnk you dear

Personally I have no physical attraction towards severe burn victims, I believe the absence of Phi or the golden ratio is a major contributing factor. I do not find disfigured, mutilated or defective people attractive (based on appearance)

I find symmetry to be an attractive trait which leads me to believe that the golden ratio is a driving force in deciding whether something is beautiful. I don’t believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that there is a set method, formula or equation that can explain beauty even replicate & reproduce it.

That being said I am sure that there has to be room to allow for “freak” occurrences or times where a conventionally attractive appearance takes the back seat with other elements and factors holding leverage or sway over the deciding process when it comes to finding something attractive.

All I know that in nature 10’s date 10’s, 8’s date 8’s and 5’s date 5’s.

Its just comparing the face formation to the universal beauty formation. Its not something like one with perfect phi is the most beautiful. It just mean that the face with matches perfectly has the same face formation

She’s not wrong. She has a point. All of nature is Fibonacci…everything. But someone who is unconventionally pretty or handsome is no less beautiful than a person with total Golden Ratio aligned features. Indeed….look at the Materhorn. It’s beautiful. But is a more “perfect” mountain like Mt. Hood more beautiful because it isn’t all weathered and craggy? Nope. Beauty is subjective. However, the Golden Ratio is what determines all manner of the shapes of all living creatures…plants and animals.
This is not a wrong or right issue. It is just a really cool thing.

Whether or not we are subjectively attractive, our faces and our bodies and all of nature is created through the Golden Ratio. Check out a picture of the Fibonacci Spiral…i.e., the Golden Ratio. Then look at your eyes. The Golden Ratio starts at your pupil and goes to your eyelid and to your outer eye and to your eyebrow….almost a perfect Fibonacci spiral. Look at a sleeping cat…curled up all Fibonacci.
While beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and I think our attraction to people is multi-layered, the easiest form to create via living cells or storm systems and our own bodies is the Golden Ratio. And indeed, people whose features most closely line up to the Golden Ratio are more pleasing to the eye. That’s not a bad thing. It just is. A rose is pleasing because the entire plant conforms to the Golden Ratio…all plants grow according to the Golden Ratio. A lovely flower, a handsome man like Matthew Gray Gubler or a lovely gal like Christie Brinkley are just part of nature.
Sure, MMG is fine but I like variations on a theme…different features, unconventional. They are no less perfect than a person with Golden Ratio fine tuned looks. It’s just nature. What sucks is that our society tends to equate worth with subjective standards of beauty…that’s another discussion.
Take care!!!! Best to you.