Why the "thickness" classifier is flawed

[Norwegian_Metal]

So ive been thinking about this and it really is un-scientific as it has no controls. This is because people with super fine hair are getting classified with people with medium or coarse or anything in between. Think about it this way. My hair is a ii by this classifier, and i have very fine hair. I can guareentee you that if i had the same amount of hair but it was coarse i would be a iii no problem. So for me to be a iii by these standards i have to grow WAY more hair. It's pretty obvious of the flaws in that. It could also be said of ethnicity this way too not jsut what type of hair. Almsot every Asian person i see would fit in the iii category here as there is no controls. So for this really to be an accurate "thickness" guage it would have to have this averages from different ethnicities and individual hair thicknesses. With those results i think alot of people who think they have thin hair would find they have a normal amount and alot of those who have thick hair might just be a normal amount too. I'm not trying to start any trouble im just saying it is flawed.

[KiwiLiz]

I think it's only meant as general guide. There certainly is a difference between "fine" hair and "thin" hair -my hair is fine, but there is a lot of it, so it's not thin.

I think it's really intended for people to measure against themselves whether or not their hair is getting thicker. Some people have thin hair due to illness and are trying to grow it thicker, the thickness classifier is a way of measuring that progress. So I guess you could say it functions more as personal benchmark, rather than something with which to compare ourselves to others.

Hope that helps :)

[Katze]

I have to agree with KiwiLiz.

My hair is (mostly) fine, but medium thickness - so ii. However, I have to measure at the nape, since my ends are so thin - THAT'S the unfair part, to me, but it's my own darned fault! :silly: Oh, and I don't think that if my 'M' textured hairs ever get long, that they will significantly alter the fact that my hair is medium thickness.

My BF also has fine hair but a LOT of it. He's easily a iii, though I have not measured him. His hair simply takes up more space than mine, because he seems to have 3x as much of it.

As I understand it, people with F hair have more hair per square inch/centimeter anyway, so technically, it comes out even. Why worry?

Society seems to put a lot of pressure on us nowadays to have 'big' hair, leading many people to think that ' ii ' is 'thin', or that F is 'thin', but it isn't, it's normal, and there is nothing wrong with having i, ii, or F hair! :)

[malabarista]

Hm, I agree with you in that many people who think they have very fine hair, actually have quite normal hair (for their genes and ethnicity, if we want to consider this here). And on the other hand, some people who seem to have very thick hair, also have normal hair.

But your post still confused me. I always thought, the i-iii was just to tell the ponytail circumference (is that the right term? Sorry, English is not my native language). If this is the case, then it has nothing to do with fine or coarse hair, the measurement is the same for everyone.

But for what you're saying, that you have to consider the hair's texture as well, there is the F, M, C classifier. So basically you could have every combination from Fi to Ciii - someone with fine hair could have a thicker ponytail with many, many individual hairs, than someone with coarse, but less hair!

Does that make sense?

[Norwegian_Metal]

Im saying there should be averages between f, f/m, m, m/c, c and then how thick they are on average if this was really to be exactly on. Then you would pick what category you fit in and measure to that average.

[Norwegian_Metal]

I have to agree with KiwiLiz.

My hair is (mostly) fine, but medium thickness - so ii. However, I have to measure at the nape, since my ends are so thin - THAT'S the unfair part, to me, but it's my own darned fault! :silly: Oh, and I don't think that if my 'M' textured hairs ever get long, that they will significantly alter the fact that my hair is medium thickness.

My BF also has fine hair but a LOT of it. He's easily a iii, though I have not measured him. His hair simply takes up more space than mine, because he seems to have 3x as much of it.

As I understand it, people with F hair have more hair per square inch/centimeter anyway, so technically, it comes out even. Why worry?

Society seems to put a lot of pressure on us nowadays to have 'big' hair, leading many people to think that ' ii ' is 'thin', or that F is 'thin', but it isn't, it's normal, and there is nothing wrong with having i, ii, or F hair! :)
I don't think it does come out even though because like almost EVERYONE i see with coarse hair is a iii by this classifier system. Im not worried about my hair being to thin or anything as i could really care less but i guess i just like accurate results. I also think that people who do worry about there hair being to thin would find a more concrete anwser if the results were adjusted to averages on individual hair thickness.

[Calista]

Norwegian Metal, the thickness classifier i/ii/iii is meant to help you find people with similar ponytail circumferences, so you can e.g. help each other with updos at a certain length. For example, a ii can usually do a figure-8 at waist, while a iii can´t, or only with a different technique. So if you are a iii another iii could help you better with updo troubles than a i.

The fineness classifier and the thickness classifier are really unrelated - one is about the thickness of the individual strand of the hair, the other about your ponytail circumference (measured at the nape of the neck). All combinations of the two exist, and it doesn´t really mean anything but help you find people with similar hair.

[Norwegian_Metal]

Norwegian Metal, the thickness classifier i/ii/iii is meant to help you find people with similar ponytail circumferences, so you can e.g. help each other with updos at a certain length. For example, a ii can usually do a figure-8 at waist, while a iii can´t, or only with a different technique. So if you are a iii another iii could help you better with updo troubles than a i.

The fineness classifier and the thickness classifier are really unrelated - one is about the thickness of the individual strand of the hair, the other about your ponytail circumference (measured at the nape of the neck). All combinations of the two exist, and it doesn´t really mean anything but help you find people with similar hair.
Oh ok i understand. Thanks for making it clear.

[aisling]

The hair type classifier and the thickness are not related in any way. Hair type is one thing, thickness is a certain number that can be compared between different individuals, despite the type. I see no flaws or unfairness there, as I think you mean there is (sorry, your posts aren't very easy to read). These two things are not meant to correlate or be combined like you want to.


I think it's only meant as general guide. There certainly is a difference between "fine" hair and "thin" hair -my hair is fine, but there is a lot of it, so it's not thin.


Type: 1b/1c / F / i

So, KiwiLiz, you're contradicting yourself, claiming your hair isn't thin but then you have it classified as a i.

[Norwegian_Metal]

Yea i get it now. There is no correlation between them and i jsut made a mistake.

[Katze]

KiwiLiz, I have the same question as Aisling. There are one or two other people here with 3" ponytails listed as I... :confused:

Also, none of this is meant to be scientific. Just look at the other aspect of hair type - waviness! It is subjective, but meant to be a general guide to help us understand our hair type so that we can better take care of it.

Without LHC, I would have gone on thinking my hair was straight and thin, and would have kept treating it accordingly.

NorwegianMetal, since you're new, maybe you should check out some threads started by people with similar hairtypes as yours so you can see why and how we use this classification? :)

[Hypnotica]

Heh.

I can't even rely on what other people with appx. same lenght and thickness can wear - my hair seems to ultra thick as soon as I put it in an updo. At the same time, it looks thin when I use a simple ponytail or letting it loose.

[MsBubbles]

The ponytail circumference has really helped me see why some people can have lovely updos & buns and mine look non-existent. It has also helped me to stop yearning for someone else's hair, since I'll probably never have more hair than (ii). I was only (i) as a kid so I am thankful now for the extra (i) :D.

Photos can be deceptive and seeing someone's hair type and thickness helps me interpret their issues.

[Denebi]

I think, this classification makes only sense, when it is used like it was intended. Then you are able to find other people with the same hair type and learn something about the proper treatment and updos.

Some people tend to interpret too much into it. So, if you feel your hair is thin, that has nothing to do with maesuring your circumference ;) It's a value which only has a meaning when considering updos, nothin more, nothing less.

[akurah]

I consider my hair "normal" in thickness, despite being a "iii" classifier. That being said, I find the "iii" classifier vital in determining hairstyles I can and cannot do. I CANNOT do a figure-8, even though I'm almost waist, whereas there are people here with shorter hair than I who can. People at shoulder length, who can, even. There are a number of wrapped buns I want to try that I'm not even bothering with because I know my hair is too "thick" circumference-wise to successfully do so.

[jivete]

My only complaint is the circumference distinction. There is a huge difference between having a pony tail circumference of 2 inches and having one at 3.75", but they're considered the same "thickness".

[squiggyflop]

hmm well yes it is flawed.. when i curl my hair my thickness goes from 3.5 to 5 inches.. 1.5 inches just from my hair being curly (and i had the hairtie as tight as it would go).. so curlyheads can have thicker ponys that are only thick because of the curls.. so yeah its flawed..

[Tap Dancer]

I think it's only meant as general guide. There certainly is a difference between "fine" hair and "thin" hair -my hair is fine, but there is a lot of it, so it's not thin.

Your stats say 1b/1c f i. So doesn't that make your hair at least a ii? No one who has "a lot of hair" is a i. :confused:

[Darkhorse1]

There is a flaw with the thickness theory. If you have bangs or layers, your circumfrence of a ponytail may not measure your true amount of hair. It would just measure the amount of hair you have to style at that time. So, if these measurments are for styling purposes, that works. If it's for saying how much you have, it's a bit flawed. But, it's hair, so I'm not going to stress out about it :D

[Altocumulus]

Heh.

I can't even rely on what other people with appx. same lenght and thickness can wear - my hair seems to ultra thick as soon as I put it in an updo. At the same time, it looks thin when I use a simple ponytail or letting it loose.

I think taper plays a role in this...I can't do styles I could do a year ago even though my hair is the same length, because my taper is reduced.

[Ursula]

There is a flaw with the thickness theory. If you have bangs or layers, your circumfrence of a ponytail may not measure your true amount of hair. It would just measure the amount of hair you have to style at that time. So, if these measurments are for styling purposes, that works. If it's for saying how much you have, it's a bit flawed. But, it's hair, so I'm not going to stress out about it :D

That's not entirely a flaw.

If you cut bangs the coil of your hair will be thinner. If you want to look up updos you can do, then you'll be able to coil your hair in the same way as someone with the same length and thickness of coil.

The point of the measure is not about getting the biggest number possible. It is about sharing information in a consistant and useful way.

And few people have bangs that are thick enough to change their measure, unless their hair is right on the border between two classifications. If you have bangs, and are right on the border between classifications, you can used a slashed classification. For example, if your hair measures in the ii range, just 1/16" less than the iii mark, and you have thick bangs, you use ii/iii. No confusion!

[Tabitha]

If you cut bangs the coil of your hair will be thinner. If you want to look up updos you can do, then you'll be able to coil your hair in the same way as someone with the same length and thickness of coil.

The point of the measure is not about getting the biggest number possible. It is about sharing information in a consistant and useful way.

Ursula's right there. I find it particularly useful also for judging suitability of different sizes of hair accessories/fork length etc.

And people with fine hair can also have thick hair in terms of overall volume - I am an iii with just over 4" of ponytail despite having a fringe. My hairdresser told me each hair was fine, but "I had a lot of them". Certainly finer than a thread of cotton, and finer than most people I've compared with at hair meets.

[Just_Isabel]

My only complaint is the circumference distinction. There is a huge difference between having a pony tail circumference of 2 inches and having one at 3.75", but they're considered the same "thickness".

I agree with this. :agree: A person with a 3.75" inch ponytail has 3.5 times (350%) more hair than a person with a 2" circumference. That's a huge difference.


hmm well yes it is flawed.. when i curl my hair my thickness goes from 3.5 to 5 inches.. 1.5 inches just from my hair being curly (and i had the hairtie as tight as it would go).. so curlyheads can have thicker ponys that are only thick because of the curls.. so yeah its flawed..

My ponytail circ is the same with curly or straight hair. :confused:

[may1em]

All the hairtyping is is a mechanism to find others with similar hair so we can learn how to work with what we have. It's not a judgment call on the quality of the hair by any means. I think that's where your confusion lies. We're not looking for normal here, just for other people we can learn from.

So I have fine hair (each individual strand is very thin) but lots of it (my ponytail measures an even 4 inches around). I don't care where I fit in in relation to fine-haired people with much more or much less thickness than me. What works for them is probably not going to work for me (at least style-wise - i.e. I can't do a log roll, but someone with i/ii hair my length probably could).

It's understood by most people here that a fine-haired ii/iii or iii person is going to have more individual strands than a coarse-haired iii. Take a 2c/F/iii person and a 2c/C/iii person with 30 inch long hair. Both of them are going to be able to do the same kinds of updos because the mass of hair being put up is the same, even though the C person has fewer strands. But the F person probably won't be able to use the same deep-treatment as the C person because the individual strands would get weighed down.

The words thick, thin, fine, and coarse have very specific value-neutral meanings here. Someone with thick hair doesn't necessarily have better hair than someone with thin hair. Most of us know that and just want what we have to be the best it can be.

ETA: I find the use of the term "fine hair" on hairtoy packages really annoying. I have fine hair, but I can't use them! "fine" is used as a euphemism for "thin" a lot of the time because the general, non LHC world puts definite value on thick hair over thin hair (though this same world is full of stylists who want to thin the heck out of thick hair).

[squiggyflop]

I agree with this. :agree: A person with a 3.75" inch ponytail has 3.5 times (350%) more hair than a person with a 2" circumference. That's a huge difference.



My ponytail circ is the same with curly or straight hair. :confused:
weird.. i wonder why mine gets so much thicker curly..

yes 2-3.75 is a massive difference..

[Hypnotica]

I think taper plays a role in this...I can't do styles I could do a year ago even though my hair is the same length, because my taper is reduced.

Yep - and texture. I have medium ultra slinky slippery hair, and that means that most kind of wrapped buns are out of my league.

[lapushka]

I think that's the idea, there are multiple classifiers, so it's automatically assumed that a 2aFii is not the same as a 2aCii. The other classifiers help to explain the thickness classifier. So it works.

It might be nice to have a dry/normal/oily classifier too.

[Euphony]

I have issues with some buns because my fingers are too freaking short!

I totally agree with the idea of the updos, thickness has a huge impact on it. There's still updos I cannot do and my hair is tail bone when pulled straight.

One thing that actually drives me bonkers on the system is for some reason, some people feel the need to 'up their circumference on the scale (example, someone with a 3.8 circumference having their profile at iii) - this confuses me when I see they have the exact same length of hair as I do, they can do an updo that there's no way I can do. Upon further investigation I see somewhere in a post the person mentions their circumference in inches and it's below the specification.

But that's my gripe :D I suppose some people feel it helps their self esteem, though I haven't figured out why. Perhaps it's the same as vanity sizing in clothing.

[Phalaenopsis]

One thing that actually drives me bonkers on the system is for some reason, some people feel the need to 'up their circumference on the scale (example, someone with a 3.8 circumference having their profile at iii) - this confuses me when I see they have the exact same length of hair as I do, they can do an updo that there's no way I can do. Upon further investigation I see somewhere in a post the person mentions their circumference in inches and it's below the specification.

But that's my gripe :D I suppose some people feel it helps their self esteem, though I haven't figured out why. Perhaps it's the same as vanity sizing in clothing.

I'm a bit guilty of that. I was truly an iii (and I still had layers interfering with the thickness) when I had some personal problems, those became health problems. My hair just fell out like crazy because my body was in desperate need of vitamins. It was my own damn fault, but it hurt to see my circumference go down. I'm actually an ii/iii now. But, my hair is growing back, so it's a matter of time to be a full iii again.

Maybe I should have changed my status, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[nienna42]

One thing that actually drives me bonkers on the system is for some reason, some people feel the need to 'up their circumference on the scale (example, someone with a 3.8 circumference having their profile at iii) - this confuses me when I see they have the exact same length of hair as I do, they can do an updo that there's no way I can do. Upon further investigation I see somewhere in a post the person mentions their circumference in inches and it's below the specification.

But that's my gripe :D I suppose some people feel it helps their self esteem, though I haven't figured out why. Perhaps it's the same as vanity sizing in clothing.

I suspect some people have themselves listed as iii when they're really close because of what some other people have mentioned--there's such a huge range in the ii category. I measure in at about 3.8" most of the time, and I can tell you that there are alot of people in the ii category with way shorter hair than me who can do updos I still can't. For purposes of updo comparison, I'm so close to a iii that I can understand someone with similarly thick hair listing themselves as a iii. I've tried to be more accurate by listing myself as ii/iii and putting my actual circumference in my sig, but I wouldn't expect everyone to be as picky about accuracy as I can be.

I think the thickness classifier could be much more useful if it was broken down into smaller ranges.

[Euphony]

Oh yes, I absolutely do understand where you're coming from. What I see mean is people claiming it in their profile, but they've not had any hair loss, their thickness has always been say on the high end of ii, but they want it to be iii so they put it as iii. With yours it's totally understandable, your hair will go back eventually.




I think the thickness classifier could be much more useful if it was broken down into smaller ranges.

That would be so helpful! Maybe per inch, or even per half inch. I know with mine it's 4.6" but I can't do an updo that someone with 4.0" can do until I gain a couple of inches of length - and I know there's members here that have an inch or more circumference than I do. My fingers are so short that with the thickness I have, it boggles my mind that someone can take care of hair even thicker than mine!

[Denebi]

I think the thickness classifier could be much more useful if it was broken down into smaller ranges.

I totally agree on that! I have 2.5" circumference, which is a lot less than 3.9" but it's the same classifier....

[Nocturnal]

I see what you mean. People with coarse and fine hair and with the same pony circumference won't have the same number of hairs on their head.
But I think this thickness classifier is still a good pointer when you are trying to replicate hairstyles. Also for that matter length to thickness is also a good classifier, think figure-8 bun: someone with i hair will need much shorter length than someone with iii hair.

[rags]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would it be a vanity issue to increase one's thickness classifier. Your hair is what it is - and I don't happen to think thick hair is necessarily nicer than my little 1 3/4" hair. (Now it might be, but then again - it might not!) So why would someone do such a thing? Your hair won't be a whit thicker no matter what you put down. :confused:

[wintersun99]

One thing that actually drives me bonkers on the system is for some reason, some people feel the need to 'up their circumference on the scale (example, someone with a 3.8 circumference having their profile at iii) - this confuses me when I see they have the exact same length of hair as I do, they can do an updo that there's no way I can do. Upon further investigation I see somewhere in a post the person mentions their circumference in inches and it's below the specification.

I guessed, 100%

I've never actually measured my ponytail circumference and now it's too late (with the haircut) but all my life the stylists tell me how much hair I have and how thick my hair is (these terms seem to be used interchangeably) though I know they are not... I suspect I'm probably one of those that unintentionally "upped" the thickness... and now I have to wait for a lot of growth to make it accurate.

ETA - oh fine, I'll change it from ii/iii to ii until I know for sure :p

[girlcat36]

This thread has prompted me to change my thickness from i/ii, to ii. The lowish side of ii.

[Euphony]

Oh geez, oh man...I'm so sorry - it's just this pet peeve of mine. Don't everyone go and change their profile :p I mean sure if it's unintentional or you had a shed due to illness or something than yeah that's totally understandable. But I'm there with rags I don't understand why it's done intentionally. The only thing I can think of is vanity, like in clothing sizes, if something says one thing even though it's not correct - it must be true because it says it.

It's like ii is somewhere between 2.0 and 3.99999, so if someone is between those numbers they are ii (which is way too broad as it is), but someone with iii hair cannot do an updo at the same length as someone with ii hair can (thus my major frustration).

[girlcat36]

My ponytail is just under 3", but I still think of it as i thickness, because it is still i from the shoulders down(caused by cancer and subsequent treatment). But technically--it is ii!
My hair is so thin from shoulder to nearly BSL that I have a hard time claiming ii thickness.

[Euphony]

My ponytail is just under 3", but I still think of it as i thickness, because it is still i from the shoulders down(caused by cancer and subsequent treatment). But technically--it is ii!
My hair is so thin from shoulder to nearly BSL that I have a hard time claiming ii thickness.
Naw it's ii, and I gotta say it's looking really good too. I was going to mention that, but got sidetracked.

[girlcat36]

Thanks, Euphony!

[venividibxtchy]

Someone wrote earlier that I shouldn't be able to do a figure-8 at waist with iii hair?

I've been doing it for several months now, and my hair is definitely iii. No alternative techniques needed.

[Calista]

Nobody said you shouldn´t be able to. I used this as an example in what way the thickness classifier might be useful. It also depends on how long your hair is at waist. If you are tiny or have a high waist your hair is shorter than if you are tall or have a low waist.

[jivete]

My vanity went the other way. I would claim i/ii because mine was only 2.25" and felt like it belonged in the i range and shouldn't be lumped with the 3.5 inchers.

I think there should be at least 4 breakdown sizes.

i - less than 2"
ii - 2" to 3"
iii - 3" to 4"
iv - > 4"

Or, better yet, five categories..

iv - 4" to 5"
v - >5"

[squiggyflop]

My vanity went the other way. I would claim i/ii because mine was only 2.25" and felt like it belonged in the i range and shouldn't be lumped with the 3.5 inchers.

I think there should be at least 4 breakdown sizes.

i - less than 2"
ii - 2" to 3"
iii - 3" to 4"
iv - > 4"

Or, better yet, five categories..

iv - 4" to 5"
v - >5"
ooo so i would be iii then.. i like this system because i often look at people with ii hair and cant seem to do their updos even though my hair is the same length or longer.. the ii range is just too wide.. i was trying to do updos that someone with a 2.25 inch pony was doing.. im 3.5inches..

[rhubarbarin]

My ponytail is just under 3", but I still think of it as i thickness, because it is still i from the shoulders down(caused by cancer and subsequent treatment). But technically--it is ii!
My hair is so thin from shoulder to nearly BSL that I have a hard time claiming ii thickness.

I'm glad you changed yours to ii, it's definately where you belong since you are smack in the middle of that range.

My pony is barely 2.5" (on top of my head - nape is 2.25") most of my length is an i, but I am still classed as an ii. My motto is 'it's only going to get thicker!'

I like the i, ii, iii, iv, v idea. I find looking at other people's thickness very helpful in determining what will work/look nice in my own hair, but there's a world of difference between my hair and someone whose hair is relatively untapered, with a 3.5" circ...

[Kittee]

I used to be a solid iii when I was younger and I used to moan and complain to my mom about how I hated how thick it was. My aunt, who was a hairdresser would thin it for me every summer.

THEN came my thyroid problem and then my Crohns issue...now I have ii hair? =( I 've been too scared to measure. But like Squiggly said, if I'm in my full curls, my hair is much thicker than straightened out.

[Denebi]

I really like the idea of five categories! Makes much more sense.... (And it's somehow more obvious to match 2" to ii and 3" to iii and so on...)

[Speedbump]

Norwegian_Metal, the two classifiers mean totally different things, and taken together, they pretty much paint the picture that you want to paint. For instance, your info says you have fine hair and a ii thickness on your ponytail circumference. That likely means you have lots of individual hairs because it takes a lot more fine hair to make that thickness than coarse ones. As a previous poster says, it's not really about "counting hairs" as much as it is a practical measurement to help people with updos and finding other members with similar overall hair thickness.

I also agree with other posters that the system needs to have more "degrees" in it to be more meaningful. We have had entire threads based on members with superthick (what would be iv) hair asking for other superthicks to come out of the woodwork so they can ask them questions.

It might be worth asking in site support to have a redesign of that system so that more people could "find" each other. :)

[Just_Isabel]

Another vote for the 5 categories. :D

[wintersun99]

Another vote for the 5 categories. :D

If it's changeable, these categories would be fabulous! :D

[Aisha25]

Yeah I like that idea. I hope the mods can change it:pray:

[JamieLeigh]

Pretty much every system of measurement hair-wise will have to be flawed, because there are so many types of hair in the world. There is no way to exactly document each and every type, so we just have to do the best with what we're given. I've also got fine hair, but I have enough of it that it looks thick when loose, so I'm a "ii".

[Just_Isabel]

Pretty much every system of measurement hair-wise will have to be flawed, because there are so many types of hair in the world.

Yes, but the thickness system would be more helpful if it had more categories.

Typing in the actual number instead of using thickness categories could also be an option - in this case a member could search, for example, for other members with the same hair type and +/- 0.5 inches or something, but I don't think that this would be needed. Having 5 categories instead of 3 would help a lot and hopefully not make things too complicated.

[Darkhorse1]

Ursula, you didn't read my whole post--I said that I agree that the circumfrence measurement was not flawed if it was strictly for styling purposes. However, if people were using it to gage how much hair they had, it's flawed if you have bangs or layers that don't go to the nape of your neck.

[JamieLeigh]

Maybe a thickness-by-inches category would be better, I agree. :)

[Just_Isabel]

It might be worth asking in site support to have a redesign of that system so that more people could "find" each other. :)

I started a thread in Site Support, it's here (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?p=459242#post459242). :)

[Oskimosa]

I so would appreciate this change, because I notice the same problem. Even though that means I'll be pretty lonely on a "v"...

[Aisha25]

I so would appreciate this change, because I notice the same problem. Even though that means I'll be pretty lonely on a "v"...
Dont worry i'll be there with you:)

[Ursula]

Ursula, you didn't read my whole post--I said that I agree that the circumfrence measurement was not flawed if it was strictly for styling purposes. However, if people were using it to gage how much hair they had, it's flawed if you have bangs or layers that don't go to the nape of your neck.

Which is why I pointed out that, unless you're right on the boarder between categories, and your bangs are quite thick, you're unlikely to loose enough hair to bangs to move from one category to the next. And if you are in that position, there is the option of doing a "slashed" category, to show you're on the margins between categories.

It's a potential concern, but one that (I think) is adequately addressed by having the option of showing that your hair is on the boarder between thickness categories.

[Calista]

I always thought that if you have bangs or layers you are supposed to estimate your potential circumference?

[Denebi]

Hmm, when fringes or bangs are too short to be gathered in a pony tail, they will most probably not be part of any updos. So it perfectly makes sense to not count them in when using the thickness measure as intended. At least that was my understanding of it. Everything which is not part in an updo will also not help in comparing my hair with others to find out what kind of updos I can do with my hair.

As already mentioned: I don't see why it should be used for any other purpose. I do not have any value of this categorization, if people are not using it accurately.

No offense meant to anyone... just my two cents ;)

[jivete]

I think thickness indicator also helps with hair care routines. Thicker and thinner hair reacts and looks different. I firmly believe hair type (fineness, etc) is probalby the most important indicator, but circumference does matter. If you have fine hair, but are a iii, your hair will probably not behave like mine or respond to the same treatments. And your issues will probalby be different.

[purplebubba]

Here are links to when the new system was made at the old LHL

I think this is where it started
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1008156846/A+suggestion+for+a+new+hair+classification+system.

That thread is on this page so the discussion either starts there or near it.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/page-155

Here are some other threads where it was talked about after that

The first posting of the new system on December 13 2001
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1008247604/OK+-+the+new+classification+system

A final version - January 4 2002
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1010184958/Final+version+of+new+hair+classification+system

An edit - January 6 2002
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1010319763/OK+-+slightly+updated+hair+classification

A later thread where Fia tells about why she made the new system
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1011084999/As+an+alternative...

[jessie58]

I think if you use it for your own personal use, then it makes sense.

When I lost a lot of hair I lost a lot of circumference measurement. When my hair started coming back in and a year later I measured, then I could see the circumference going back up and I found it comforting to know that I was getting my old hair back.

I do know that darkwaves has fine hair but she is a iii and I'm willing to bet that she has one of the biggest circumferences around. She simply has a lot of hair. :shrug:

[Katze]

My ponytail is just under 3", but I still think of it as i thickness, because it is still i from the shoulders down(caused by cancer and subsequent treatment). But technically--it is ii!
My hair is so thin from shoulder to nearly BSL that I have a hard time claiming ii thickness.

I'm with girlcat too. I say 3'', because that's what my hair is currently measuring at the nape. I used to measure at the crown so I could get layers and bangs in, and was still i or i/ii. While that shows that my hair, at the roots, is medium thickness, it does not show that my ends are so thin that I can only hold them with mini elastics, or that I have such severe taper (see pics in album and profile pic) that I can do very little with my hair.

I really do not try to 'size myself up' for vanity. I WISH I had higher-end ii or even iii hair, but am needing so much time to get used to the current root thickness, that I would be even more clumsy and incompetent at hairdos if that were the case!

It's like length; technically, my hair is at BSL, but these thin ends make me feel like I am cheating calling my hair BSL, even though the longest bits are now an inch past BSL.

I don't use thickness to try to do updos, mostly because I just can't figure out the updos you all do, or they don't work with taper, layers, and frizz.

[Denebi]

jessie58 Do you really use i/ii/iii categories for your personal use? For my personal use its the measure in inch or cm that helps me tracking my hair volume. It's much more accurate. There can be a lot of variation before you change to a different category....

[SimplyLonghair]

I think if you use it for your own personal use, then it makes sense.

When I lost a lot of hair I lost a lot of circumference measurement. When my hair started coming back in and a year later I measured, then I could see the circumference going back up and I found it comforting to know that I was getting my old hair back.

I do know that darkwaves has fine hair but she is a iii and I'm willing to bet that she has one of the biggest circumferences around. She simply has a lot of hair. :shrug:

I also lost hair. And I am working back to where I was. Having said that, I know that for me the measurements are not indicative of my hair circumference, mainly due to that major shed and a huge amount of taper. I am 3.85inches at the roots and at about 3 to 4 inches away from the roots I am down to 2 inches and at the tips, not even 1inch. So the updos that I feel that I should be able to do I cannot. Not because I don't use the right classifier, but because I have so much lost hair that is in the process of growing back. :rolleyes:

I do wish that the classifiers had less difference between each one, that would help, but adding an additional classifier might help those of us that have a taper. Maybe just say in the classification that a taper exists or not. That might help too. But might be much to add. :shrug: Maybe just in our about ourselves or something.:rolleyes:

[sapphire-o]

Just want to say I'm Asian and I sure hope not every other Asian has iii hair, or I'd be the one with the thinnest hair among them. :D From what I observed my hair seems pretty average in thickness among Asians. I classified my hair texture as medium mostly because it's silky soft and not something I consider "coarse".

[Lady Godiva]

Yeah, in the past we've discussed the problem of the inaccuracy of the current system, especially the huge range that the ii category covers.

Just to reiterate, the circumference indicator is about general size, not about strand numbers. It's mostly for the purpose of assisting in styling. It's best to use the other indicators along with it, so F, M or C get calculated into our understanding of a person's hair type. The same goes for noticing a person's length, using the middle position for understanding the person's current hair the best.

Hmm, when fringes or bangs are too short to be gathered in a pony tail, they will most probably not be part of any updos. So it perfectly makes sense to not count them in when using the thickness measure as intended. At least that was my understanding of it. Everything which is not part in an updo will also not help in comparing my hair with others to find out what kind of updos I can do with my hair.
Exactly. Bangs are not part of the "long" hair. The nape location for measuring is a consistent place for everyone with long hair to use, as even shorter long hair passes by there.

I think adding Oily, Normal and Dry types would be helpful for product and technique recommendations. What works for dry hair often doesn't work for oily, and vice-versa. Some recommendations can result in problems or damage if this information is left out, which is common.

[wintersun99]

Here are links to when the new system was made at the old LHL

I think this is where it started
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1008156846/A+suggestion+for+a+new+hair+classification+system.

That thread is on this page so the discussion either starts there or near it.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/page-155

Here are some other threads where it was talked about after that

The first posting of the new system on December 13 2001
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1008247604/OK+-+the+new+classification+system

A final version - January 4 2002
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1010184958/Final+version+of+new+hair+classification+system

An edit - January 6 2002
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1010319763/OK+-+slightly+updated+hair+classification

A later thread where Fia tells about why she made the new system
http://www.network54.com/Forum/25339/message/1011084999/As+an+alternative...

This is fabulous - thank you

[UP Lisa]

It is not always true that a person with fine hair has more hairs on their head. One person's hairs may be spaced farther apart than another persons. In my case, my hair is much thinner (hairs spaced further apart) in the front than it is in the back. Also, my side and front hair doesn't grow as long as the hair in the back does. When I measure, I measure at the crown, because to me that is a more accurate description of how much hair I have on my head. Why shouldn't all the hair be counted when looking at thickness? And that is what we were told to do in Fia's directions for measuring.

[darkwaves]

I do know that darkwaves has fine hair but she is a iii and I'm willing to bet that she has one of the biggest circumferences around. She simply has a lot of hair. :shrug: Thanks, jessie58! A lot of hair, yes -- and it's likely among the biggest when the wind gets to it! But under control, it's not much over 4". (Maybe a quarter of an inch?)

[KiwiLiz]

So, KiwiLiz, you're contradicting yourself, claiming your hair isn't thin but then you have it classified as a i.

Huh? I always thought the i, i/ii, etc classifier referred to pony tail circumference? I don't have a large pony tail circumference not because I don't have many individual hairs, but because the individual hairs are very thin.

Now I'm confused.

[vindo]

Im saying there should be averages between f, f/m, m, m/c, c and then how thick they are on average if this was really to be exactly on. Then you would pick what category you fit in and measure to that average.

Not a bad thought but on the cotrary we woul loose our minds in a hair typing forest! It could be really confusing. I always keep that F/M/C in mind but thats about it.


Oh geez, oh man...I'm so sorry - it's just this pet peeve of mine. Don't everyone go and change their profile :p

Yes don't we should really all just stick to the same thing, measure the ponytail ~period. Otherwise comparisons are not possible.


My vanity went the other way. I would claim i/ii because mine was only 2.25" and felt like it belonged in the i range and shouldn't be lumped with the 3.5 inchers.

I think there should be at least 4 breakdown sizes.

i - less than 2"
ii - 2" to 3"
iii - 3" to 4"
iv - > 4"

Or, better yet, five categories..

iv - 4" to 5"
v - >5"

That is not bad but changing it after such a long time? Also we actuall DO have more than just 3 classifiers! Don't forget about i/ii and ii/iii, that makes it five. And it is not just for the borderliners..I think a good rule for this would be 1/4" below or above.


Just want to say I'm Asian and I sure hope not every other Asian has iii hair, or I'd be the one with the thinnest hair among them. :D From what I observed my hair seems pretty average in thickness among Asians. I classified my hair texture as medium mostly because it's silky soft and not something I consider "coarse".

Softness is not an indicator for M or C ;) A friend of mine had coarse hair, hence it measures above 0.08mm. She used to think she had fine hair because it is so soft.
But I agree Asians do not all have iii hair, I see many ponytails that are much thinner.

[GeoCurl]

My vanity went the other way. I would claim i/ii because mine was only 2.25" and felt like it belonged in the i range and shouldn't be lumped with the 3.5 inchers.


The exact same with me - my pony is 2.25" and I chose i/ii, as I assumed that if ii represents average, then i/ii represents the lower end of that.

[curlylocks85]

Here is the link to this forums hair classification system.

http://archive.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=8954

[MandyBeth]

Actually, I found the thickness classifier the MOST help of the 3 options.

Trial and error - if I treat my hair like a 1 - it's usually too drying. My hair wants oil, conditioner and aloe. I drench it like a 3 as I've learned. My scalp isn't as happy - but my hair is and my hair will grow out and I can keep the oils and such away from my scalp eventually. I've know I've had fine hair for many years now, so hard to say there.

But the pony tail measurement? Most help of all. I know to look up what other iii are using. I know to look for other F/iii to see what works in their hair and what falls out and what makes it break. Because that's what I don't know already. No chance for trial and error. My F hair breaks enough, I'm trying not to encourage it too much.