Terminal length - do you know what yours is?

[Rosa Harris]

Well, I know some of ya'll have reached terminal. I only know one person in real life that has reached terminal and that is my son. His 3c locks (not dreads) were terminal at about mid-thigh - curls stretched out. My great grandma's may have been terminal but I have no idea how long it was standing since she was in a wheelchair at the time I knew her. Hers hung on the floor sitting when my mom would go every week to re-do her bun at the nursing home.

Knee length is the longest mine has been but I was in the 4th grade so much shorter and I have no idea if it was terminal since at that age I did not care and actually wanted it gone since I was forced to have long hair for cultural reasons.

Anyone else reach terminal? I know its highly variable based on genetics.

I've seen the internet site with the woman with hair longer than she is tall. That is amazing. I think I would change my goal if it was still growing past ankle length. Is it that Asian hair usually has longer terminal length?

Are there factors that can efect your terminal length? I know hormones can be a factor in hair growth and shedding. Does terminal length get shorter post-menopause?

[Theobroma]

No, I have no idea what my terminal length is. But for me the question is academic, since I have no plans to grow to terminal. I think I'd find my hair too annoying to manage beyond fingertip or thereabouts!

[Singing Bird]

I don't know what's terminal length on me. I'm now almost at mid-thigh and my hemline is still very full - even with layers. I think my terminal length is somewhere below knee or calves.

[Madora]

I have no idea what my terminal length is. It is still growing post menopause (just scraping knee).

I think it all boils down to genes and diet and how gentle you are with your hair.

[Panth]

I don't know, but I'm seeing if I can find out (maybe). All I know is, it wasn't TBL despite the fact I spent years there. Protective updos make one heck of a lot of difference. For me, it's the difference between my old TBL "terminal" and my current scraping-knee-and-still-going-strong.

I think terminal depends on genetics (both anagen length and also the density of hair follicles and the thickness of each hair -- denser, thicker hair takes a lot more fairytaling to get down to nothing). That said, health (including diet) and haircare (e.g. protective updos) will have a massive effect on whether your genetic potential can be realised.

[YvetteVarie]

I do not know, but I am definitely planning to find out what my terminal is (no chemical straighteners, limited heat use, protective styles etc.)

[jeanniet]

I don't know, but reached BCL with very little taper, so I'd guess at least mid-thigh. Interestingly, I've seen a picture of my dad on wash day before he cut his hair (he was raised Sikh), and his hair wasn't more than classic and maybe a little shorter than that. But I don't think they took particularly special care of their hair, other than not cutting it, so there might have been some breakage at the ends.

[Imalath]

I don't know what my terminal length is either...I've been to just shy of TBL in the past while doing absolutely nothing to care for my hair. I've had several major sheds over the past few years that I'm just starting to recover from, so I can't go by the state of my ends. My mom had calf-length hair though, so I'm hopeful I inherited her hair-genes! :pray:

[ravenreed]

I have layered hair so it is harder to notice natural tapering. I am mid-thigh at the moment and am starting to get noticeable fairy tale ends.

[SunnyIC]

I don't know exactly but I would like to find out, it might be an interesting experiment if I have the patience. I think if it's anything like family my terminal length will possible be classic length, but I think don't my lady family member take that good care of their hair so maybe a little longer.

[Hele]

I'm hoping to find out, i know i could grow it to knee length as a kid and young adult with no special care so surely i can still manage to get it that long, i have very thick/coarse hair so it's fairly indestructible. I have good hair genes so here's hoping! My mom had waist length plus hair most of her life and my dad is Native American and also currently rocks waist length plus hair, as did all the male members of his family i met as a kid. My only worry is that my mom's hair is thinning with age and i'm hoping not to go the same route.

[MINAKO]

I don't know, BCL now is the longest i have ever been, but the hemline tapers really slowly and is still kind of blunt, so i guess i'm still far from terminal length.
But i'm not going to ever find out, as i will definitely stop at classic or mid thigh and keep trimming a V-shape from there on.

As Emi recently explained to me, the average asian hair does grow faster, which would mean more lenght even at the same time period, and if the time period is extended as well, that gives some extra too. There are quiet a few ladies wo exceed 2m by far. Personally i wouldn't want to take care of that and don't see a point in having long hair if i can't enjoy wearing it down on a normal day.

[HazelBug]

I'm not sure what terminal is for me. I have memories of sitting on my hair as a child. But my hair wasn't very well taken care of. My mother liked to rip a brush through my fine hair and then use curlers and blow driers on me too. My ends were not happy looking. I got a hair cut once when I spent the night with my dad, and it was a relief to finally get to choose what I wanted to do with my hair. I kept it between bsl and shoulder for some time after that.

As a young adult I grew my hair out to about tbl or bcl. I had very little taper at that point. It took about 3 years to go from shoulder to that point as well. So my hair grows rather fast. I had kept up trimming my ends and had a full blunt hemline.

I cut my hair off when I was pregnant the first time. I was emotional and sick all day. Sometimes I regret it. But I do like the journey to a point. I am impatient and want to know my terminal length. If it is possible for me, I would love to grow my hair to my ankles.

[darklyndsea]

I don't know what my terminal is. I'd be surprised if it was less than knee, though, based on the condition it's in now.

I'm not sure there have been enough people who have grown to terminal to say anything about average terminal lengths in general (individual families may be an exception). I've seen more pictures of asian women with beyond-floor-length hair, but the caucasian women with near-floor hair mostly seem to cut it to keep it less than floor length: certainly some can manage beyond-floor-length hair, but how far beyond floor? And our sample size of people who have grown to true terminal is way too small to generalize any sort of "average" terminal length; most people either cut or maintain their length, or hit an apparent terminal before they hit the true one. If there's been some actual (good) science done on this, point the way; otherwise, I am extremely skeptical of any "accepted knowledge" about terminal.

[chen bao jun]

Have no idea. I'm guessing around tailbone or hip curly because my grandmother grew to that length and she had the best hair care possible (always up, washed with aloe, no heat, no chemicals, very careful detangling, etc). At least, she 'sat on her hair' and that is the length I would assume that it was. Nobody else in my family has grown past waist, but I have a lot of aunts and cousins who did reach waist curly, so I think I probably?possibly? can. I have never had my hair taken care of properly, as they did (my mother did not know how), so I really don't know. With the most horrific haircare possible, blowdrying and flatironing almost daily, I have usually had APL-BSL hair (straightened) so I assume my terminal is longer than that.
My hair is coarse, which is good for growth, but on the other I am a hypercurly and at every bend the hair takes, there's a weak spot. So I don't know to what extent the two opposite things cancel each other out. I have no idea what the terminal length is for African hairtypes. I always used to assume, very short, but now I have seen a lot of women with this hairtype on various hair boards and youtube with waistlength hair stretched, so it must be at least that. I have only seen one or two longer. There a woman with my hair type on LHC who has mid-thigh, though. African type hair usually has been cared for horribly (still usually is) so its hard to say what is possible--or probable. I would like to grow my hair 'long enough to sit on' (tailbone or hip) when in a single braid and after that, I will see. I don't mind wearing it up all the time so wouldn't mind longer, if possible. the only thing I wonder about is what the care would be like at that length. I saw a youtube vid the other day with a south Asian woman with very long making a braided bun and her hair was obviously catching at itself on the bottom when she braided and I wondered what would happen with MY hair type if hers caught a little bit. I do have a problem with snarly ends. I think it is from old damage but am not sure, again, we will have to see.
Up to this point, contrary to what I have always heard, the longer my hair gets, the easier it is to take care of, and also, the more I keep my hair natural the more manageable it is. there is this thing in the black community where they say natural hair is 'unmanageable' but I really think that is just lack of knowledge.

[chen bao jun]

I don't know what my terminal is. I'd be surprised if it was less than knee, though, based on the condition it's in now.

I'm not sure there have been enough people who have grown to terminal to say anything about average terminal lengths in general (individual families may be an exception). I've seen more pictures of asian women with beyond-floor-length hair, but the caucasian women with near-floor hair mostly seem to cut it to keep it less than floor length: certainly some can manage beyond-floor-length hair, but how far beyond floor? And our sample size of people who have grown to true terminal is way too small to generalize any sort of "average" terminal length; most people either cut or maintain their length, or hit an apparent terminal before they hit the true one. If there's been some actual (good) science done on this, point the way; otherwise, I am extremely skeptical of any "accepted knowledge" about terminal.
Interesting. Where have you seen that Caucasian women usually cut to keep above floor? I haven't seen this anywhere and I'd be interested.
I agree with you that there is no science done on the subject though, unfortunately.

[Eisa]

I have no idea what my terminal length is, honestly. I don't think I really care, because I don't want my hair to be much more than waist-length or so, anyway? It's not that now, but it has been in the past, with no problems, so I'm guessing that's not terminal length. :P

[darklyndsea]

Interesting. Where have you seen that Caucasian women usually cut to keep above floor? I haven't seen this anywhere and I'd be interested.
I agree with you that there is no science done on the subject though, unfortunately.

There are, of course, exceptions--and asian women with beyond floor-length hair are exceptions too, of course (they just seem like less of an exception than caucasian women with beyond floor-length hair, as far as I have seen)--and it's not like I have quizzed every person with knee+ hair and compiled a database. But there's a lot more talk about maintaining than continuing past floor in the knee length and beyond thread, and I can think of at least 2 women (plus a few more that I'm almost but not completely sure of) off the top of my head who are or were maintaining in the calf-to-ankle range although they could definitely grow longer. Every time I see a caucasian woman talking about having floor+ length hair, she always seems to add in that she's going to cut ASAP.

[Hairitic]

I have no idea what my terminal length is, honestly. I don't think I really care, because I don't want my hair to be much more than waist-length or so, anyway? It's not that now, but it has been in the past, with no problems, so I'm guessing that's not terminal length. :P


Eisa, many of us long time LHCers are chuckling at this post. You see, we've seen many a newbie come on board with a specific length goal in mind. Usually, at some point before reaching the goal, they decide they really want to grow to the next longer marker. As they get closer to that new, longer marker, they realize they want it even longer again. And so on.
WELCOME to TLHC. :p

[Hairitic]

BTW, I may find out what my Terminal length is at some point. I'm currently about 1.5" shy of Classic. I will trim at that point and maintain a bit to thicken up the hemline, then grow on. I am post menopausal and have never had my hair as long as this before. I'm luvin' it! :p

[Anje]

Given the way mine tapers, I wouldn't be surprised if terminal is near classic length. I've only had limited luck trying to get it to thicken at TB, though maintaining near this length for several years has made a significant difference.

At the beginning of this year, I decided to try to let mine grow with minimal trimming for ... a while. I'm curious to see if it will get substantially longer, and there's only one way to find out. I've heard too many other people say that they thought that they were near terminal at TB only to later reach knee, and I want to know if that's true for me as well.

ETA: Not that I expect to reach it, but I will draw the line at about mid-calf or above the ankle. I personally want to keep my hair well short of ground-level for practical reasons.

[chen bao jun]

Oh, I thought you were talking about historically but I see you mean nowadays. Thanks.
I do notice that in the 'long hair contests' that some countries (you can find them on youtube and other places on the internet), it seems to always be only Chinese with hair trailing literally feet behind them. Though that of course is not the 'norm' in China. The longest I've seen Caucasian women (from Eastern Europe where they either seem to grow hair longer or cut it less still, I'm not sure which it is) is long enough to reach the floor when they are in high heels.
Of course you can only talk in a general way about race and ethnicity--you always find an exception as soon as you say anything. Thanks again for answering.
P.S.I've been looking at paintings a lot in medieval books of hours mostly 15th century and noticing the loose hair. (when they have it loose. Mostly only the virgin mary and the female saints ever have loose hair and the virgin starts wearing something that looks like a blue hijab as soon as Christ is born). I expected to see really really long hair, but I'm not seeing this. the Virgin is usually a scandinavian blonde type (even when the book of hours is from Spain) and she never has hair past bra strap (usually not even that)and they very realistically broken off ends and thin, fine hair. Other saints get varying lengths--if they are that sort of blonde, they are the same length but some of the thick haired ones get to waist, which is usually the limit. Mary Magdalen is the only one ever shown with as much hair as an LHC member (classic or more). Of course, she's supposed to have enough to wash Christ's feet and then dry them off with her hair (this was a biblical mistake they made, but its what they thought) and also there's some legend which I'm unfamiliar with where she wandered in the desert so long her clothes tore off and she was covered by her hair. So sometimes she even has floor length. But it looks crazy unrealistic, as if the painters imagined it rather than ever saw it. I'm in fact getting a strong feeling that in 15th century europe, few women had even waist length hair (and that if you were a blonde, it didn't matter). I had thought I would see that hair that you see in 19th century photographs and even in early twentieth century movies sometimes, where everybody seems to be at least classic and has very, very thick hair and full hemlines. On the rare occasions when their hair is loose.

There are, of course, exceptions--and asian women with beyond floor-length hair are exceptions too, of course (they just seem like less of an exception than caucasian women with beyond floor-length hair, as far as I have seen)--and it's not like I have quizzed every person with knee+ hair and compiled a database. But there's a lot more talk about maintaining than continuing past floor in the knee length and beyond thread, and I can think of at least 2 women (plus a few more that I'm almost but not completely sure of) off the top of my head who are or were maintaining in the calf-to-ankle range although they could definitely grow longer. Every time I see a caucasian woman talking about having floor+ length hair, she always seems to add in that she's going to cut ASAP.

[darklyndsea]

Oh, I thought you were talking about historically but I see you mean nowadays. Thanks.
I do notice that in the 'long hair contests' that some countries (you can find them on youtube and other places on the internet), it seems to always be only Chinese with hair trailing literally feet behind them. Though that of course is not the 'norm' in China. The longest I've seen Caucasian women (from Eastern Europe where they either seem to grow hair longer or cut it less still, I'm not sure which it is) is long enough to reach the floor when they are in high heels.
Of course you can only talk in a general way about race and ethnicity--you always find an exception as soon as you say anything. Thanks again for answering.
P.S.I've been looking at paintings a lot in medieval books of hours mostly 15th century and noticing the loose hair. (when they have it loose. Mostly only the virgin mary and the female saints ever have loose hair and the virgin starts wearing something that looks like a blue hijab as soon as Christ is born). I expected to see really really long hair, but I'm not seeing this. the Virgin is usually a scandinavian blonde type (even when the book of hours is from Spain) and she never has hair past bra strap (usually not even that)and they very realistically broken off ends and thin, fine hair. Other saints get varying lengths--if they are that sort of blonde, they are the same length but some of the thick haired ones get to waist, which is usually the limit. Mary Magdalen is the only one ever shown with as much hair as an LHC member (classic or more). Of course, she's supposed to have enough to wash Christ's feet and then dry them off with her hair (this was a biblical mistake they made, but its what they thought) and also there's some legend which I'm unfamiliar with where she wandered in the desert so long her clothes tore off and she was covered by her hair. So sometimes she even has floor length. But it looks crazy unrealistic, as if the painters imagined it rather than ever saw it. I'm in fact getting a strong feeling that in 15th century europe, few women had even waist length hair (and that if you were a blonde, it didn't matter). I had thought I would see that hair that you see in 19th century photographs and even in early twentieth century movies sometimes, where everybody seems to be at least classic and has very, very thick hair and full hemlines. On the rare occasions when their hair is loose.

I think one thing to keep in mind about historical hair is that in the majority of cases, much like with most people today, they weren't obsessing over their hair's condition and length like LHC members do, so even if it was up all the time a lot of women's hair probably never got near their true terminal.

A lot of biblical representations, particularly from the renaissance onward, were heavily influenced by classical art, where the women had short hair. (The head covering Mary is usually depicted as wearing would have been called a palla in Rome, a symbol of her status as a respectable married woman. Since she lived in a not-very-Romanized province, it might have been called something different...or she might have worn different clothes IRL)

I think that most of the early photographs of women with their hair down were done to show off/because their hair was thought to be their best aspect. It was normal to wear their hair up all the time; to take it down for a picture must have been a very deliberate thing. So I don't think it's possible to generalize hair length or condition at that time from those photographs; at least some women surely had hair that was barely long enough for the hairpieces to work their magic. What percentage? :shrug:

Yeah...my training in the classics has trained me to be skeptical of every piece of evidence.

[vindo]

I created a formula once that helped estimate the terminal length under the certain circumstances. It got lost when my forum host went broke and shut everything down, but I really should piece it back together!

I calculated mine to be between thigh and knee length. The longest I have had is thigh length, but my ends were very tapered because I grew it after I suffered from hair loss (see sig pic).

[maborosi]

I honestly do not have any idea. I know it's got to be well past waist, though, so hooray!

I'm not sure I want to find my terminal length.

~maborosi~

[Islandgrrl]

I don't exactly know but it's somewhere below knee.

[MadeiraD]

I've had mine at knee when I wore it down all the time and washed every day and it was still growing, so I suspect somewhere on the calf, maybe ankle with really good care

[Saldana]

I'm not quite sure....when I did the big chop a couple of years ago, I was at TBL with no discernible taper. I have never seen any of the women in my biological family with hair longer than shoulder length (if that), except for me. However, I suspect that I could grow it to between mid-thigh and knee, if only because of the Native American genetics I seem to have inherited, hair-wise (thick, medium textured, VERY straight...although I seem to be developing a bit more body in the cool damp climate I live in now!). We'll see....I have my goal as waist-length, but I've been around LHC long enough to realize that I might just need to keep growing....:)

[jacqueline101]

I have my thoughts on my personal length. I think mine will be about classic. I don't want hair that long. I thought I did and there was an old thread about a theory on terminal length.

[Lindenare]

My hair is currently two inches shy of TBL, the only taper is from layering, and it shows no signs of slowing growth, so I suspect my terminal is mid-thigh or longer. If I estimate my total number of hairs, then use growth and shed rates to calculate a terminal, the shortest terminal I calculate is just over 100 inches - nearly twice my height. Of course, that doesn't take into account hair care, but between that and my observations, I think I can grow my hair pretty much as long as I want, however long that turns out to be.

[vsvisionz]

I don't have a clue what my terminal length is. Sometimes I think I'm at it at only BSL, its taking forever to get past here. But it is slowly still growing.

[Panth]

P.S.I've been looking at paintings a lot in medieval books of hours mostly 15th century and noticing the loose hair. (when they have it loose. Mostly only the virgin mary and the female saints ever have loose hair and the virgin starts wearing something that looks like a blue hijab as soon as Christ is born). I expected to see really really long hair, but I'm not seeing this. the Virgin is usually a scandinavian blonde type (even when the book of hours is from Spain) and she never has hair past bra strap (usually not even that)and they very realistically broken off ends and thin, fine hair. Other saints get varying lengths--if they are that sort of blonde, they are the same length but some of the thick haired ones get to waist, which is usually the limit. Mary Magdalen is the only one ever shown with as much hair as an LHC member (classic or more). Of course, she's supposed to have enough to wash Christ's feet and then dry them off with her hair (this was a biblical mistake they made, but its what they thought) and also there's some legend which I'm unfamiliar with where she wandered in the desert so long her clothes tore off and she was covered by her hair. So sometimes she even has floor length. But it looks crazy unrealistic, as if the painters imagined it rather than ever saw it. I'm in fact getting a strong feeling that in 15th century europe, few women had even waist length hair (and that if you were a blonde, it didn't matter). I had thought I would see that hair that you see in 19th century photographs and even in early twentieth century movies sometimes, where everybody seems to be at least classic and has very, very thick hair and full hemlines. On the rare occasions when their hair is loose.

Hmmm... where have you been looking?* I spend far too much time looking at medieval paintings, and although I can think of a few where the loose hair is about mid-back length, most that I've seen are in the TBL to knee region. That said, I wouldn't put too much faith in predicting Caucasian terminal length by looking at medieval pictures. Yes, long hair was considered a sign of beauty (and alegories of beauty, e.g. in the Roman de la Rose, have floor-length hair). However, I don't think they were washing it with anything terribly good, and there have never (as far as I'm aware) been any finds of wide-toothed combs or brushes, so everyone must have been detangling with things like this (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O72949/lovers-in-a-garden-comb-unknown/). I can say from experience, that trying to do that (even on 1b/F/ii hair) leads to a lot of breakage and tangles, particularly if you have braidwaves in (as most medieval women are depicted).

*I'm not meaning to be rude - I'm genuinely curious. I find this sort of thing fascinating.

[ErinLeigh]

I cannot wrap my head around terminal sometimes.
Can someone help me? Lets say you have a terminal of ankle, but you grew to knee but hung out there and trimmed for 2 years.
Can you get just move on from there to ankle after that 2 year trim period, or have you cut the hairs that should have grown towards ankle already and now you have to wait a whole cycle for newer hairs to try and move down? Is this how one gets a false terminal or am I being dense on the subject?
Like would you terminal appear to stop mid calf instead of getting to ankle because you cut?

Ignore any math, I have no idea how long it takes knee to ankle so the timeline and lengths are just variables to work with for sake of question.

[ashke50]

I don't know where my terminal is, but I doubt I'll make it to knee. Should get past classic, since I'm almost there, but the ends of my hair are quite thin. Hard to know how much of that is pre-LHC damage and how much is natural tapering though!.

ErinLeigh, if you maintained your hair at knee for a while then carried on any that were cut wouldn't make it to terminal, although they might grow a bit further before they shed, but all the hairs that were slightly shorter than knee last time you trimmed would have no problem growing onwards, so you'd still reach your terminal. I don't know what the cause of false terminals is though.

[thistledown]

Mines classic length. And the last bit from bcl to Classic takes forever to grow...........
Vanessa

[darklyndsea]

The cause of false terminals is damage or medical issues.

ErinLeigh, any hairs that are cut will not reach their individual terminal lengths. But because your hair is constantly growing, the hairs that were even the slightest bit shorter than where you cut will still have the potential to reach their individual terminals, so trimming doesn't add more growing time other than however long it takes to regrow the length that you trim off. Only if you manage to trim all of the hairs that have the potential to reach your true terminal will it take an entire growth cycle to reach terminal.

[DweamGoiL]

I don't know what my terminal length is either. I have grown to TBL in the past with a pretty thick hemline so I know that's not it :)

http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae360/dweamgoil/Long%20Hair%202003%20to%20Now/GM%20Jul%202003/GM071003b4_zps001aabcc.jpg (http://s987.photobucket.com/user/dweamgoil/media/Long%20Hair%202003%20to%20Now/GM%20Jul%202003/GM071003b4_zps001aabcc.jpg.html)
2003 GM Visit

[chen bao jun]

Hmmm... where have you been looking?* I spend far too much time looking at medieval paintings, and although I can think of a few where the loose hair is about mid-back length, most that I've seen are in the TBL to knee region. That said, I wouldn't put too much faith in predicting Caucasian terminal length by looking at medieval pictures. Yes, long hair was considered a sign of beauty (and alegories of beauty, e.g. in the Roman de la Rose, have floor-length hair). However, I don't think they were washing it with anything terribly good, and there have never (as far as I'm aware) been any finds of wide-toothed combs or brushes, so everyone must have been detangling with things like this (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O72949/lovers-in-a-garden-comb-unknown/). I can say from experience, that trying to do that (even on 1b/F/ii hair) leads to a lot of breakage and tangles, particularly if you have braidwaves in (as most medieval women are depicted).

*I'm not meaning to be rude - I'm genuinely curious. I find this sort of thing fascinating.
You are not at all rude. I find this kind of thing fascinating, too. and I have been very surprised by the lengths I have been seeing in the books of hours paintings. I am the person who fell in love with the depiction of Queen Guinevere's knee length hair by Howard Pyle as a child, which is my avatar. What paintings have you seen and by who, and what century? I'm unaware of 'lots' of medieval paintings outside of books of hours, surely the 'painting' in a frame or the wall mural, outside of a book mostly starts with the Renaissance? I'm mostly in the fifteenth century, international period.
Hours of Mary of Burgundy, Virgin and virgin saints nobody longer than midback, everyone blonde
Englebert of Nassau--lovely little virgin, dark blonde or light brown, again mid back and looks very broken off at the ends,not a lot of virgin saints in this one, St. Barbara has thicker hair but about midback, maybe waist
Belles Heures, Jean Duc de Berri, Virgin Mary has lovely, healthy looking hair, blonde with braidwaves, no longer than bra-strap, long sequence on Saint Catherine of Egypt which show bareheaded Catherine and a bareheaded Roman empress both very very fair blondes, in the paintings their hair length varies from looking like BSL to looking like midback, except when they get their heads cut off, then it suddenly looks as long as waist and much thicker. Looks like the same model for both of them in the beheading scenes.
Hours Catherine of cleves, very German looking strawberry blonde virgin, again she's midback at most. Most of the female saints in this one look like nuns (though they could be married women, the outfit not so different), the bareheaded ones definitely do not have long, St. Dorothy and St.Agatha are both very curly and have the typical triangle head look, hair not even to their shoulders, (BUt one can assume some shrinkage).
Rohan master, Virgin's head covered in all paintings. They do show other women with loose hair (but not many) notably a naked Eve near the apple tree, she's about waist length but after bra strap, her fine blonde hair gets very very thin and see-through.
Visconti Hours, has two very different painters and paintings done 80 years apart, again not a lot of loose hair, Eve again (this time shown dressed in fur and hoeing the ground), very blonde, not past APL with thick hair but thin ends.
Tres Riches Heures Duc deBerry , this is the one with the famous calendar, but the women mostly have covered heads. In the month of April, sonme loose haired ladies, one looks as if she might be waist (seen only from the front), the one turned to the side, very thin hair, seems to stop APL. This again was started at one time and finished decades later by someone else. The second painter shows one woman with thick classic length hair and in the coronation of the Virgin, she has thick classic length hair. I'm going to stop saying that they are blondes. I'll mention only if someone is brunette, which I haven't seen yet. I'm leafing through the reproduction books as I type.
Houra Jeanne d'Evreux, no bareheaded women. This one is early 14th century. the further back in the MA you get, the less likely to see women without very encompassing head coverings.
Book of Hours, paintings Simon Marmion, Virgin's head always at least half covered so can't the length. The few times ends peek out, they look wispy.
Hours of Henry VIII (which probably did not belong to Henry VIII) with paintings by Jean Poyet, when you can see the hair, (its not covered up but few of the ladies face sideways or backwards) its maybe bra strap at most.
Bible Moralise, the few times the women are bareheaded (if they are Eve or have just given birth, otherwise you see no hair), its never past bra strap.
Cloisters apocalypse, even the whore of babylon looks like a nun, no hair visible at all.
Plus, I have several books showing lots and lots of examples from different centuries, only a couple of mary magdalenes have what LHC would call long hair.
Also, where in the Roman de la Rose is the heroine said to have floor length hair? I haven't read it a long time, but I own it and would love to look that up. Last time I read it, didn't notice, I was not yet obsessed with hair :)
What you are saying about medieval period probably not showing Caucasian terminal maybe explains this. Maybe the 19th century would show better? What seems to these medieval people important in a woman is fine, blonde hair, which you of course are correct about, not well taken care, it doesn't hit great lengths. I have to say that the hair in these paintings looks very well observed and very carefully depicted, by and large, like you could diagnose hair type and condition from them, if so inclined.

[FuzzyBlackWaves]

The longest my hair has ever been was waist length, but I don't think that was a true terminal, more a damage induced plateau.

[Panth]

You are not at all rude. I find this kind of thing fascinating, too. and I have been very surprised by the lengths I have been seeing in the books of hours paintings. I am the person who fell in love with the depiction of Queen Guinevere's knee length hair by Howard Pyle as a child, which is my avatar. What paintings have you seen and by who, and what century? I'm unaware of 'lots' of medieval paintings outside of books of hours, surely the 'painting' in a frame or the wall mural, outside of a book mostly starts with the Renaissance? I'm mostly in the fifteenth century, international period.
Hours of Mary of Burgundy, Virgin and virgin saints nobody longer than midback, everyone blonde
Englebert of Nassau--lovely little virgin, dark blonde or light brown, again mid back and looks very broken off at the ends,not a lot of virgin saints in this one, St. Barbara has thicker hair but about midback, maybe waist
Belles Heures, Jean Duc de Berri, Virgin Mary has lovely, healthy looking hair, blonde with braidwaves, no longer than bra-strap, long sequence on Saint Catherine of Egypt which show bareheaded Catherine and a bareheaded Roman empress both very very fair blondes, in the paintings their hair length varies from looking like BSL to looking like midback, except when they get their heads cut off, then it suddenly looks as long as waist and much thicker. Looks like the same model for both of them in the beheading scenes.
Hours Catherine of cleves, very German looking strawberry blonde virgin, again she's midback at most. Most of the female saints in this one look like nuns (though they could be married women, the outfit not so different), the bareheaded ones definitely do not have long, St. Dorothy and St.Agatha are both very curly and have the typical triangle head look, hair not even to their shoulders, (BUt one can assume some shrinkage).
Rohan master, Virgin's head covered in all paintings. They do show other women with loose hair (but not many) notably a naked Eve near the apple tree, she's about waist length but after bra strap, her fine blonde hair gets very very thin and see-through.
Visconti Hours, has two very different painters and paintings done 80 years apart, again not a lot of loose hair, Eve again (this time shown dressed in fur and hoeing the ground), very blonde, not past APL with thick hair but thin ends.
Tres Riches Heures Duc deBerry , this is the one with the famous calendar, but the women mostly have covered heads. In the month of April, sonme loose haired ladies, one looks as if she might be waist (seen only from the front), the one turned to the side, very thin hair, seems to stop APL. This again was started at one time and finished decades later by someone else. The second painter shows one woman with thick classic length hair and in the coronation of the Virgin, she has thick classic length hair. I'm going to stop saying that they are blondes. I'll mention only if someone is brunette, which I haven't seen yet. I'm leafing through the reproduction books as I type.
Houra Jeanne d'Evreux, no bareheaded women. This one is early 14th century. the further back in the MA you get, the less likely to see women without very encompassing head coverings.
Book of Hours, paintings Simon Marmion, Virgin's head always at least half covered so can't the length. The few times ends peek out, they look wispy.
Hours of Henry VIII (which probably did not belong to Henry VIII) with paintings by Jean Poyet, when you can see the hair, (its not covered up but few of the ladies face sideways or backwards) its maybe bra strap at most.
Bible Moralise, the few times the women are bareheaded (if they are Eve or have just given birth, otherwise you see no hair), its never past bra strap.
Cloisters apocalypse, even the whore of babylon looks like a nun, no hair visible at all.
Plus, I have several books showing lots and lots of examples from different centuries, only a couple of mary magdalenes have what LHC would call long hair.
Also, where in the Roman de la Rose is the heroine said to have floor length hair? I haven't read it a long time, but I own it and would love to look that up. Last time I read it, didn't notice, I was not yet obsessed with hair :)
What you are saying about medieval period probably not showing Caucasian terminal maybe explains this. Maybe the 19th century would show better? What seems to these medieval people important in a woman is fine, blonde hair, which you of course are correct about, not well taken care, it doesn't hit great lengths. I have to say that the hair in these paintings looks very well observed and very carefully depicted, by and large, like you could diagnose hair type and condition from them, if so inclined.

Oh, thank you!

I see our difference -- you are mostly using paintings/portraits and I principally look at manuscript illustrations. I generally focus a bit earlier than you -- 14th C (1350-1370 specifically) and England/France preferably.

Of course, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. ;)

I was mostly thinking of the various manuscript illustrations with Eve in. One example of the TBL+ Eves is a Cranach (http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/info.shtml). But there are also Eves with similar hair length in manuscripts, e.g. here (http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/imagining-the-culinary-past-in-france-recipes-for-a-medieval-feast/). Of course, as you've said, the earlier manuscripts generally show all the hair covered. However, there are lots of ladies with visible hair in the Manesse Codex and most of those are at TBL. Aha! And an Eve with knee-length hair (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_with_virgin_and_eve.gif)! (No proper reference, though. More's the pity.)

But yes, there are a fair amount of women in medieval illustrations with TBL-to-knee-length hair.

As for the Roman de la Rose, I think it's the allegory of Beauty who is described as having floor-length hair. That said, I'd have to wait til I get home and check my paper copy...

Mm, I think 19th Century hair might be a better judge of Caucasian terminal. At least in that case long hair was fairly fashionable, plus we know there were long hair competitions and often active attempts to grow super-long hair. That said, they too also used lots of damaging methods (either because they mistakenly thought they were beneficial, because they didn't know they were harmful, or because they didn't care that they were harmful as they were fashionable). E.g. using hot pokers etc. to create curls, the "100 strokes with a boar bristle brush" mantra (which is horrifically damaging for many fine haired Caucasians), backcombing to create the enormous hair styles, etc., etc.

Perhaps the best era to try to figure out the Caucasian maximum is ... today?

[darklyndsea]

Oh, thank you!

I see our difference -- you are mostly using paintings/portraits and I principally look at manuscript illustrations. I generally focus a bit earlier than you -- 14th C (1350-1370 specifically) and England/France preferably.

Of course, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. ;)

I was mostly thinking of the various manuscript illustrations with Eve in. One example of the TBL+ Eves is a Cranach (http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/info.shtml). But there are also Eves with similar hair length in manuscripts, e.g. here (http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/imagining-the-culinary-past-in-france-recipes-for-a-medieval-feast/). Of course, as you've said, the earlier manuscripts generally show all the hair covered. However, there are lots of ladies with visible hair in the Manesse Codex and most of those are at TBL. Aha! And an Eve with knee-length hair (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_with_virgin_and_eve.gif)! (No proper reference, though. More's the pity.)

But yes, there are a fair amount of women in medieval illustrations with TBL-to-knee-length hair.

As for the Roman de la Rose, I think it's the allegory of Beauty who is described as having floor-length hair. That said, I'd have to wait til I get home and check my paper copy...

Mm, I think 19th Century hair might be a better judge of Caucasian terminal. At least in that case long hair was fairly fashionable, plus we know there were long hair competitions and often active attempts to grow super-long hair. That said, they too also used lots of damaging methods (either because they mistakenly thought they were beneficial, because they didn't know they were harmful, or because they didn't care that they were harmful as they were fashionable). E.g. using hot pokers etc. to create curls, the "100 strokes with a boar bristle brush" mantra (which is horrifically damaging for many fine haired Caucasians), backcombing to create the enormous hair styles, etc., etc.

Perhaps the best era to try to figure out the Caucasian maximum is ... today?

Found a proper reference thanks to reverse image search: Mediaval miniature by Berthold Furtmeyer: Baum des Todes und des Lebens, 1481 (depicting both trees in one). In: Roger Cook: The Tree of Life. Image for the Cosmos. New York 1974. 44

[Dragon Faery]

I haven't hit my terminal yet, but based on how much I've trimmed off in the past several years, I should be able to reach at least Classic, if not Fingertip. Hopefully longer.

[Sarahlabyrinth]

I have no idea what my terminal length is or could be as a finey. I certainly hope it is longer than Classic. Below knee length would be ok with me.

[bte]

A very interesting question! Everyone has a unique mix of genetics, health and damage, which makes a general calculation almost impossible.

The genetic factors include how fast your hair grows and how many years each hair grows until it reaches its maximum. Health factors include general wellness and nutrition (not necessarily good nutrition - some very overweight people have amazing amounts of hair!), and then there is damage: general wear and tear, over zealous brushing etc. Finally, there is the eternal dilemma - trim to maintain maximum condition and hope to gain length bit by bit, or don't trim and hope to avoid thinning and damage.

My own experience of terminal is that I have not trimmed or cut my hair for over 20 years - since June 1994. It grows very slowly and took three years to grow 10½ inches (for clarity, I am talking length of my ponytail, not the type of measurement over the head usually found on LHC). It then stayed there for 17 years. I do not honestly think there was much in the way of damage, as I never found more than a tiny number of loose hairs or ever any broken off segments of hair on my pillow.

A year ago, I suffered very sudden kidney failure and nearly died. I am, thankfully, now on dialysis, which is going well, but to my surprise and delight, over the second half of this year, as the toxin levels became lower and more stable, my hair have suddenly grown two inches. Others have commented that hair grows faster on recovery from serious illness, but I do not recommend it as a method of boosting growth!

So, until a few months ago, I would have said I had reached terminal, with no change in length for 17 years. Now or the first time in my life (I am 60 in March), I have a foot of hair to tie back, which for me is fantastic.

So, never say never and if you decide to go for terminal, have fun!

[StellaKatherine]

My terminal I think more than classic.. I am very close to classic now when it is wet. And I do not see it slowing down the groth. I am going to cut some of the dry ends before new year and then let it grow more... Kinda curious to see what my terminal is

[hanne jensen]

I have no idea what my terminal length is as I've never had long hair in my life. Both of my Grandmothers had very long hair. My great Grandmother on my Mother's side of the family had ankle length hair and she was taller than I am.

I'm doing everything I can to find out my terminal length, only time will tell.

[Annalouise]

A very interesting question! Everyone has a unique mix of genetics, health and damage, which makes a general calculation almost impossible.

The genetic factors include how fast your hair grows and how many years each hair grows until it reaches its maximum. Health factors include general wellness and nutrition (not necessarily good nutrition - some very overweight people have amazing amounts of hair!), and then there is damage: general wear and tear, over zealous brushing etc. Finally, there is the eternal dilemma - trim to maintain maximum condition and hope to gain length bit by bit, or don't trim and hope to avoid thinning and damage.

My own experience of terminal is that I have not trimmed or cut my hair for over 20 years - since June 1994. It grows very slowly and took three years to grow 10½ inches (for clarity, I am talking length of my ponytail, not the type of measurement over the head usually found on LHC). It then stayed there for 17 years. I do not honestly think there was much in the way of damage, as I never found more than a tiny number of loose hairs or ever any broken off segments of hair on my pillow.

A year ago, I suffered very sudden kidney failure and nearly died. I am, thankfully, now on dialysis, which is going well, but to my surprise and delight, over the second half of this year, as the toxin levels became lower and more stable, my hair have suddenly grown two inches. Others have commented that hair grows faster on recovery from serious illness, but I do not recommend it as a method of boosting growth!

So, until a few months ago, I would have said I had reached terminal, with no change in length for 17 years. Now or the first time in my life (I am 60 in March), I have a foot of hair to tie back, which for me is fantastic.

So, never say never and if you decide to go for terminal, have fun!

I'm glad your health is recovering! What a scare that must have been.

I agree with what you wrote. There are so many variables in hair growth because it depends on the health of our bodies combined with genetics combined with hair care practices. It is complicated. I think I should just start a new mantra that states: 'God willing, my hair will grow long'.
Because I don't feel like I can 'control' my hair.:)

[sycamoreboutiqu]

No, not yet anyway. I have had mid-back length most of my life and now at 60 have the longest hair I have ever had. A couple of feet more actually.

Interestingly there is not much thinning (both parents have/had thick hair into late 80's-90's) - it was even thicker in my 50's than it was in my teens.

I am at mid/upper thigh and will probably go to knee and then if it keeps growing decide then to continue or not. Actually some natural age related thinning would make it easier to go beyond knee as there would be less volume to deal with.

http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14553&thumb=1&d=1417334603

[bte]

I'm glad your health is recovering! What a scare that must have been.

I agree with what you wrote. There are so many variables in hair growth because it depends on the health of our bodies combined with genetics combined with hair care practices. It is complicated. I think I should just start a new mantra that states: 'God willing, my hair will grow long'.
Because I don't feel like I can 'control' my hair.:)
Thank you! I agree - a lot of it is outside our control -all we can do is to try to load the dice in our favour.

[Johannah]

I don't know. I just hope I can reach BCL ;)

[LauraLongLocks]

My big goal is to reach knee. There's no telling if I will make it that far. Right now I'm just past hip and hope that terminal is well below TBL. This is the longest my hair has ever been.

[Fericera]

I have no idea what my adult terminal is. My mom had her hair between waist and hip for years, and my sister was at TBL for a while. That was despite them not bothering over it much and ripping through it with combs while wet! I'm hoping that my genetics and proper care will allow me to grow at least to classic, and to get to knee or calf length would be a dream come true!

[CassandraMarie]

I most definitely know mine, unfortunately. I'd love to see it get longer, but after over a decade at the same length (whether paying minimal care, or eschewing all heat tools, carefully deep conditioning, keeping it up/braided, etc.) it has ALWAYS been right around hip/TBL, and somewhat shorter in appearance due to curl. I cut it short at 13, within a couple years, it grew to this length, and then it just stayed there, no matter what. Genetics have spoken, and not in my favor.

Interestingly, as the majority of the ladies in my faith do not cut their hair, I have met many people at their terminal length, whether they know the term or not. I know a few who NEVER wear their hair down as it literally brushes the floor, a good number at or near knee length, and a huge number at classic length. I also know a good handful with much much shorter terminal lengths, between APL and BSL. I have to be thankful for what I can accomplish, knowing that! Due to where I live, the majority of these ladies are Caucasian with a good smattering of Hispanic mixed in, if that is of interest to anyone.

[bte]

I most definitely know mine, unfortunately. I'd love to see it get longer, but after over a decade at the same length (whether paying minimal care, or eschewing all heat tools, carefully deep conditioning, keeping it up/braided, etc.) it has ALWAYS been right around hip/TBL, and somewhat shorter in appearance due to curl. I cut it short at 13, within a couple years, it grew to this length, and then it just stayed there, no matter what. Genetics have spoken, and not in my favor.

Interestingly, as the majority of the ladies in my faith do not cut their hair, I have met many people at their terminal length, whether they know the term or not. I know a few who NEVER wear their hair down as it literally brushes the floor, a good number at or near knee length, and a huge number at classic length. I also know a good handful with much much shorter terminal lengths, between APL and BSL. I have to be thankful for what I can accomplish, knowing that! Due to where I live, the majority of these ladies are Caucasian with a good smattering of Hispanic mixed in, if that is of interest to anyone.
That's very interesting - and shows the difference genetics makes to terminal length. Hope you are not too disappointed with hip/TBL - I would give a lot to have as much as that!

[Begemot]

I would love to find out, in theory that is. I don't think I want to deal with hair longer than hip length but the thought of growing longer and eventually reaching terminal is very tempting. Oh well, one can dream. And maybe one day I will want to take that journey towards terminal, you never know.

[CousinItt]

I've kept my hair short until now, so I dont know what my terminal length is. I spoke with my mom about her hair, and she says her hair never grew longer than waist. I've seen pictures of her at waist and her hemline was thick, so I suspect that wasn't her actual terminal - she's fairly rough on her hair and doesn't know how to do any updos besides a ponytail, which may be the reason why it stayed there.

[DragonAngel]

In my late twenties I thought I hit terminal because it simply struggled to get past BSL due to lack of proper care, bleaching, regular washing etc but I also fell into the hairdressers trap of "you must have it trimmed every 6 weeks to get it to grow" hmmm well enough said about that. A few years later (during stressfull times) I took scissors to the nape of my neck and chopped it into a sort of pixie. I vowed never to do that again and it is showing no signs as yet (fingers still crossed) of slowing down. I hope I can get to my goal of classic with the help and advise from all your lovely threads of support and haircare and stay there.

[catamonica]

My hair stopped growing at three inches above tailbone. I'm just glad I could get it that long. But it would sure be great if I could get it longer. Oh well.

[mira-chan]

I've grown mine to almost fingertip and it tapered to nothing at that point but that was still under the effect of my shed. It might grow longer than that or might stop growing around there. As for genetics, my hair is most like my paternal grandmothers which she kept at classic or so for much of her life.

[yahirwaO.o]

The longest my hair has been is almost classic lenght and somehow it didnt grow more the last 4 months I had it.... I want to believe that was my terminal lenght, but I was guilty of wearing it in a ponytail a lot at the time and the ends were so damn thin that I cut it to mid back.

Im not sure if I want to find out, since my goal now is getting thicker and thicker hair ends... Well see if life allows me to get the chance.....

[Elizabeth E]

I don't know for sure what my terminal length is...I've always had hair around APL but since I started healthy hair habits, it's been growing fast with little tapering (currently at WL). On the contrary, I'd say my layers have evened out a little with the length.
Even without proper care, my mum's hair is down to her hips and since she's a little taller than me, that would be almost TBL for me. So I should be able to get my hair longer than that. I did an experiment a while ago, to try and determine my terminal from my hair thickness and tapering and calculated that it could be somewhere between a solid CL and a little past KL. But that might not necessarily be the case, since I've seen many ladies on LHC with hair much thinner than mine, who have managed to grow to extreme lengths after all.
I would really like to try and reach knee-length, though.

[Dark40]

No, I don't know what my terminal length is either. The longest my hair was during childhood up until I was 13 years old was MBL, ever since I've joined here at the LHC my hair has grown a little past MBL which is between MBL and Waist Length. I'm planning to grow mine to terminal length. I do chemically relax my hair every 3 months, and I color every 5 or 6 months. I don't use that much heat on it during the week, and when I do I use a heat protectant.

[lithostoic]

No idea, this is the longest my hair has ever been

[Silverbrumby]

My terminal is a few hairs reaching my tailbone and by a few I mean about 20. I've been growing for years including periods of no trimming, micro trimming etc. My hair always starts to thin around the shoulder blades then by waist it's a merry band of a few growers, never a solid hem of any kind.

[Chromis]

Oooh, lots of thread zombies today!

I thought mine was terminal just past knee, but a couple months ago I noticed it has zipped on down to midcalf.

[Ligeia Noire]

Hopefully my terminal length will let me reach floor first, I have no idea what it will be, looking at my mom I hope I inherited her genes... but you never know, like Chromis your hair might just want to grow some more after a certain period of hibernation.

[Chromis]

Yep, mine had been stalled for years.

I recall EdG had a similar experience

[trolleypup]

Yep, mine had been stalled for years.

I recall EdG had a similar experience
And me. 53" for 5-6 years, then I got about 1/2" of growth for 20 months, now I'm at 61", with one hair at 62" (with a perfect tapered grown from the follicle tip!)...been here for a few years.

[Glitch]

I don't know, but my mom's hair has grown to her knees before so I'm not that worried, especially since my goal is just hip length. I think it would be pretty convenient to have a goal length as a terminal length though :o

[Rowdy]

Nope! And I don't plan to find out. I like the mystery :D

[EdG]

Yep, mine had been stalled for years.

I recall EdG had a similar experience


And me. 53" for 5-6 years, then I got about 1/2" of growth for 20 months, now I'm at 61", with one hair at 62" (with a perfect tapered grown from the follicle tip!)...been here for a few years.

I have probably analyzed terminal length far too much... ;)

In my experience, the notion of "terminal length" is too simple. Hair does not have a single terminal length. One can see this by comparing scalp hairs to eyebrows. ;)

Rather, the hairs on one's head have a distribution of terminal lengths (and because hair is constantly growing, there is another distribution of hairs in their growth cycles).

My hair's terminal lengths are quite non-uniform. Most of my hairs have terminal lengths between 6 and 12 inches, but a small fraction can grow to 3-5 feet. This is true length as measured from shed strands, not the inaccurate LHC method of measuring a mass of hairs from the forehead.

Unfortunately, I have experienced serious breakage over the past three years and have lost all of my longer strands. I am hoping they will return.
Ed