Making sense of Hair Typing?

[aenflex]

The way hair is 'typed', (sometimes contradictingly, at various places online and other hair resources), has always rung odd to me, terminology wise. I am not always able to make the puzzle pieces fit in my mind...

Here's 'my' version:

Volume of Hairs:
Thin - less follicles, less overall strands of hair crowning.

Meduim: inbetween Thin and Full.

Full - abundance of follicles, lots of overall strands of hair crowning.


Thickness of Hairs:

Fine - Strands of hair that are quite thin in diameter. Can be smooth or coarse. Can be found on people with Thin, Meduim or Full volume.

Thick - Strands of hair that are quite thick in diameter. Can be smooth or coarse. Can be found on people with Thin, Meduim or Full volume.


Texture of Hairs:
Coarse - Strands of hair that are not smooth, don't lay well against eachother, possible cuticle damage. Can be found on people with Thin, Meduim or Full volume.

Smooth - Strands of either Fine or Thick hairs that are smooth and glassine. Can be found on people with Thin, Meduim or Full volume.


See to me this makes much more sense. Hair can be coarse and fine. It can be It can be smooth and fine. It can be thick and smooth.
I like this way of looking at it, even though it's different, it's much easier for my mind to wrap around :rolleyes:

[christine1989]

I totally agree. I thought of hair typing this way before finding LHC and it seemed to make much more sense in my mind. It provides more possibilities and description so it is more accurate.

[RoseRed27]

Don't you wish there were just one hair typing chart that accounted for everyone? :p
I guess some people have a different experience with some words and that affects how they see a chart.
For example, when you say "coarse" hair, I think of large strands with more cuticle layers and not necessarily
a "rough" feeling. But hey, that's me. ;)

[Buddaphlyy]

I'm always confused about how others are confused about hair typing. The way we do it on LHC makes a lot of sense to me and is pretty easy if you correctly answer a few questions.

What is the shape of your hair? Is is straight, wavy, curly, or kinky?
What do your hair strands look like? Are they wispy/thin, in between, or wiry/thick?
How much hair do you have? A little, some, or a lot?

Very simple to me.

Also, your analysis seems to take into account only 2 of 3 criteria you mentioned which is confusing to me. Not to mention, a lot of curly/kinky people would automatically be labeled as having coarse hair by your definition because it is the nature of those hair types to have raised cuticles even when they are completely virgin and healthy.

[aenflex]

Also, your analysis seems to take into account only 2 of 3 criteria you mentioned which is confusing to me. Not to mention, a lot of curly/kinky people would automatically be labeled as having coarse hair by your definition because it is the nature of those hair types to have raised cuticles even when they are completely virgin and healthy.

I was only really picking apart texture of strands and volume of total hair follicles, not the entire spectrum of types from sitck straight all the way to tightly coiled, or kiny.

My idea of coarse hair, as mentioned in my initial post, was not meant for only those with damaged hair. I'm sorry if I labeled it that inadequately. :( I of course meant it for anyone, as coarse strands that do not lay well together, strands that are not smooth, AND/OR damaged. I actually fit into that category myself, and I am what you would consider caucasian, and my hair really isn't curled or coiled. But it can be quite coarse, specially when damaged.
I would think those with African hair would have coarse strands due to the tight curl causing cuticle disruption, with or without added damage.

ETA - I am glad you aren't confused. I am. I certainly think hair can be coarse and fine. Traditional typing methods that I've stumbled upon anywhere don't really allow room for that.
For example 'Thick' is traditionally used here on LHC to define the number of strands, not the diameter, where in your post you are using it to define the diameter, which is the same thing I did.
So perhaps there is more confusion than we think.

[milagro]

I
For example 'Thick' is traditionally used here on LHC to define the number of strands, not the diameter, where in your post you are using it to define the diameter, which is the same thing I did.
So perhaps there is more confusion than we think.
That's true, I've found myself confused about it! F.e. My strand are medium width but there's a lot of them, so my hair could be called thick and not so much so at the same time :)
I think though the typing tips given while registration / profile input (F/M/C, i/ii/iii...) are quite explicit. The mess comes when talking :)

[Igor]

Well, if you want to re-type the hair typing system this way, I guess I would go with “Follicle count” instead of “volume of hairs” since volume is either man-made or created by waves or curls

Few-medium-many?

[luxepiggy]

Well, if you want to re-type the hair typing system this way, I guess I would go with “Follicle count” instead of “volume of hairs” since volume is either man-made or created by waves or curls

Few-medium-many?

How about follicle density? Hair follicles per square centimeter? :D

Sorry, piggy desperately needs a nap, don't mind me *yawn* (^(oo)^)

[lapushka]

I actually think the system that's in place is pretty self-explanatory. It, for one, makes it clear that there *is* a difference between F hair and amount of hair (thin or thick). Hairdressers were stumped because I have thick hair, because it was F... no, something didn't quite compute. And so I got confused because I was treated as some sort of anomaly. There were a lot of issues with my texture too, which is wavy and needed to be straight. I grew to hate going to salons because I never felt accepted. They never worked with my hair and texture, always against it, always trying to thin out, straighten, do whatever. Coming here, learning about this system did so much for me.

So no way would I like this changed. :flower: