What is the Golden Ratio?

**SThr** · July 30th, 2014, 08:51 PM

Oh cool, I figured mine out, and it's what my length goal already was!

**SThr** · July 30th, 2014, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by MINAKO

You have to add about 5-7 inches depending on the shape of your head to translate the numbers to LHC length.
Theres no way a golden ratio hits at tailbone. It is literally around waist or mid thigh for everyone, no matter wath height you are or body shape you have, there's just not that much room to make a big difference. Basically its 2/3!

I think Shibe forgot to adjust for the difference between height and LHC measuring, which is about 5".

**MINAKO** · July 30th, 2014, 09:22 PM

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com/amen7.jpg

The first picture gives a good idea of what it looks like one way aroungd or the other. The second one is more specifically deviding it up onto other parts of the body. I still think it's something that you almost recognise in anything if you just want to look hard enough. Pseudoscience imho... it's just there, but no evidence that this is aesthetically the MOST appealing.
Grow your hair however long you want to.

**MandyBeth** · July 31st, 2014, 03:53 AM

~39 & ~24. I'm 5'2, but mostly leg height. 24" would be bra band area with LHC measuring, hips to butt crack if by individual hair I guess. 39" would be upper mid thigh in LHC, lower mid thigh in individual. Or there about. My hair doesn't get past my shoulders much however.

I will say with adorably evil minion, the longer length is where she likes her hair to look. It's really close to ankle length but is so curly it hides.

**two_wheels** · July 31st, 2014, 05:40 AM

I have to say I enjoyed Pierre's determined punning at the beginning of this thread, several years ago

I get 43:26 which in LHC measurement terms is 48:31. 31" is about waist on me which is my current goal.

However, speaking from my personal aesthetic point of view, it's more about the length of the hair vs. the width of the hair (when it's down), rather than the length of the hair vs. the length of the body. No?

**Syren_Curls** · July 31st, 2014, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by two_wheels

However, speaking from my personal aesthetic point of view, it's more about the length of the hair vs. the width of the hair (when it's down), rather than the length of the hair vs. the length of the body. No?

Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

**darklyndsea** · July 31st, 2014, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Syren_Curls

Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

I think part of what she's saying is that thick hair, on the same height of person and at the same length as thinner hair, looks shorter, because the ratio of width to length is higher. You can't just look at the hair length to height ratio because hair thickness makes a difference in whether e.g. waist length looks long.

**MINAKO** · July 31st, 2014, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Syren_Curls

Hmmmm, interesting to think about. Mind if I ask you to say a bit more on that and help me flesh out what you mean?

MINAKO, thanks for finding a working link for the calculator. I will say that I agree with you on there being other factors to consider in looking for an 'ideal' length. I am having a hard time pinpointing them, though, other than the ones related to things like maintenance. What are some of the factors you think about or keep in mind??

Thank you!
First of, i'd like to agree with two_wheels suggestion of length also relating to thickness.
I have pretty thick hair that would just look awfully poufyif not perfectly straightened, it very much like the look of straightened hair, but forget about wearing that all the time past APL. So i would rather be able to look neat AND tkae care of my hair at the same time in form of a beautiful protective bun (i love shiny and accurate head eaters!)
So although i think collar bone length did look amazing on me, i decided to stop chopping it off and discovered that i pretty much hated any lenght (including waist aka golden ratio 1.0) until i hit tailbone. It's just where it start to look flowy enough for me, taking out the thickness, without looking to heavy.
I'm about 6 feet tall and very slim, so one thing in addition i figured out was to let go of blunt hemlines to not drown in my hair, same thing would happen anywhere much longer than classic, instead of balancing the proportions it would swallow me. Hence i decided that i want a V shape that hits just a tiny little bit past classic with the longest layer (scaping fingetip), keeps legs looking long from the back and sort of barely covers the crotch when taken to the front (like a micro mini skirt, lol)
Let alone that i think i could not handle my hair at mid thigh or knee or beyond and would get terribly annoyed not to be able to wear it down, or sit on it or get tangled in something thats past where my arms can reach.
This preference of mine happens to be around the middle of my body height, but making a rule of thumb for other people out of this would be plain silly imo.

I can't say "don't grow your hair to golden ration legth because its wrong" because for some people it happens to suit their shape and their hair, but that would be the case without even considering that number. I think alot of that so calles ancient wisdon, especially when it comes to aesthetics is way overrated (i wouldnt really call paintings of a few selected ladies amongst a million other women an evidnce, they are most likely to be adjusted to look overall pleasing anyways, pretty much what photoshop does nowadays, the number of rapunzels might have been larger back in the days, but that doesn't prove anything along with that golden ratio, fibonacci numbers or likewise, it's just a spiral and the calculation hardly fits any of the pictures it actually claims to support the theory, lol)

**PsychoLoverly** · July 31st, 2014, 10:34 PM

Hmmmm well I did my measurements, I'm 5'3". That makes ~63 inches, and I got ~24in and ~38in. In LHC terms, I got ~30in and ~44in (I had to add 6in). Just measured where that would hit me, and I got one inch above waist and tailbone. I also had my dad help me..... so I'm pretty sure it's accurate.

**ExpectoPatronum** · August 1st, 2014, 11:12 AM

I'm about 5'6 - 5'7 depending on the day and my numbers are 25 and 41. Translating to LHC, the 25" puts me at about hip length and then...thigh? It's a couple inches past classic. Looks like my hair needs to be fairly long in order for it to be "aesthetically pleasing"