I don't think I agree with our thickness classification system.

[SpeakingEZ]

There is a considerable difference in thickness between a ii in the 2-3" range and a ii in the 3-4" range. I'm in the 2-3" range and there are plenty of ii's that look like they have twice as much hair as I do. They can do much different hairstyles than I can and hemlines look different. One braid on me looks dinky, let alone double braids that I've seen some ii's pull of looking just fantastic!

In short, I am in favor of further distinction.

[Debra83]

I'm a little confused by it myself. I have fine hair, but LOTS of it, but my ponytail is thin when I squish it all together!

[NouvelleNymphe2]

I totally agree with what OP is saying. That is why I label myself a i/ii. The last time I measure my pony it was a 2.5,'' which I believe is on the low end of ii. But then I see other iis who seem to have a massive amount of hair! I feel like I would be ridiculous to put a ii distinction if this person's hair type is a ii thickness distinction. I think i ii iii and iv might be more accurate. Or perhaps a iia and iib?

[pepperminttea]

I must admit, it would seem more logical just to be able to type the ponytail circumference measurement, rather than the category it fits into.

[MoonlightShadow]

can anyone explain the thickness classification system? please :)

[jaine]

I totally agree with what OP is saying. That is why I label myself a i/ii. The last time I measure my pony it was a 2.5,'' which I believe is on the low end of ii. But then I see other iis who seem to have a massive amount of hair! I feel like I would be ridiculous to put a ii distinction if this person's hair type is a ii thickness distinction. I think i ii iii and iv might be more accurate. Or perhaps a iia and iib?

I wonder if some of it is just wave-related volume? For example my hair looks huge in this pic but it's actually just waves poofing it up. My ponytail circumference was 2.75" when I took this picture.
Someone with straight hair might appear to have less volume even if our ponytail circumferences are very similar.http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5242233827_9556e4cdc4_m.jpg

[jaine]

I must admit, it would seem more logical just to be able to type the ponytail circumference measurement, rather than the category it fits into.

I like that idea. There's a huuuuuge difference between 2" and 4" even though they fall into the same category.

You can calculate circle area based on circumference: http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/circle.php
a 2" circumference is 0.32 inches squared.
a 4" circumference is 1.27 inches squared.

So a 4" circumference is 4 times more hair than 2" circumference!!

[spidermom]

I agree. I'm right at the edge of ii/iii in thickness (3.8 at last measurement). But I put iii because of the appearance and because I don't want the 2-inch ii to compare his/her hair to mine. ("What? Spidey's a ii? What's wrong with my ii hair?!")

[ericthegreat]

I think that the ii category should definitely be subdivided further. There is definitely a huge difference in both the appearance and actual feel of hair that is say 3.9 inches of circumference to hair that is only right on the dot of 2 inches in circumference. Also, the criteria for thin/medium/thick hair should also be revised. To say that only people who are a solid iii can be considered to have thick hair is really very limiting. I definitely think that people on the higher side of ii with say 3.8 or 3.9 inches of circumference should also be included in the thick hair category.

[princessp]

I'm a solid iii (4.5" measure last year) so my hair is thick, but I'm in there with people who have crazy thick hair (in a good way). First person I can think of is Ultrabella. My hair is definitely not as thick as theirs. I think if you have 5"+ your hair should be called crazy thick (lol just kidding) it really is very different than a 4"-4.5" though. SO the same is true on the other end of the spectrum. I'm wondering does thickness appear differently on different heights? Maybe there should be a height to thickness ratio ((okay that is maybe going a little too far).

With all that said thanks to this post I re-measured and my hair and it has somehow thickened since last year it is now closer to 5" (about 4.8"). So I guess this number can change.

[Annalouise]

My hair is 2.5" in ponytail circumference and I did two braids the other day and they were sooooo skinny I couldn't believe it.:(

I think 2.5" should be in the 'i' category.

I wish I had Spidermom's thickness! I wouldn't be tempted to chop my hair off it I had more of it.

Jaine - your hair looks lovely in that picture.

[Becky Safari]

I'm always surprised when I put my very voluminous hair into a style and it all disappears! Such is the life of a fine hair head!

[SpeakingEZ]

I must admit, it would seem more logical just to be able to type the ponytail circumference measurement, rather than the category it fits into.

I really like this idea, too! This makes more sense than trying to put such a wide variation into 3 catagories, anyway. Jaine, that was a great math-ing you did there, I would have never thought of that!

On a side, I love how receptive LHC'ers are to change.

[LisaMonster]

I agree with knocking out the "i/ii/iii" and just including actual measurement in the classification.

[telegraph64]

Another vote for typing the actual measurement, as i/ii/iii is too much of a blanket classification! :flower:

[selderon]

I wouldn't be opposed to the option to type actual measurements. It might not be a bad thing to keep the current i/ii/iii classifications as an alternative for those who wish to estimate.

[xoxophelia]

According to what a lot of the people here have been posting I guess I am a iii because I am just under 5". I also agree with typing in the actual number because there is also a big difference between myself (somebody who is maybe barely a iii) and somebody with over 6".

[ooo]

I wouldn't be opposed to the option to type actual measurements. It might not be a bad thing to keep the current i/ii/iii classifications as an alternative for those who wish to estimate.

Or for those, who have huge difficulties figuring out the whole inch-system. It's just not that self-explanatory. Sine I've got a second measuring tape with inch on the backside, it's ok, but the converters on the internet can be really tricky.

[vanity_acefake]

I think that there should also be the option to specify if you have a fringe as this makes an enormous difference to our measurement. I have a fringe and shorter layers round my face which makes a difference to my ponytail measurement and I wish that I could add it to my statistics.

[ingvild]

ooo, if you don't trust the interwebz, divide by 2.54! But I agree about inches. They're weird.

And about thickness and classifying, my ponytail is 9.5 cm (3.75") and I wasn't sure to put myself as ii or ii/iii. When does one classify as ii/iii? I guess it's all subjective. :p

[Springlets]

I agree with typing the actual number down. I just measured and it was above 5" but when I look in the mirror, it doesn't seem thatthick to me. Then again, I've always had Asian friends and they would love to play with my hair and comment on how they wish their hair was "so thin!" Perhaps it's because it's fine so it isn't as heavy as theirs, because apparently it is thick.

Oh yes and hair texture does make quite a difference. My friend has 3b/3c curly hair and it looked so thick, but when she straightened it you saw immediately that she had probably around 1" circumference.

[SpeakingEZ]

I think that there should also be the option to specify if you have a fringe as this makes an enormous difference to our measurement. I have a fringe and shorter layers round my face which makes a difference to my ponytail measurement and I wish that I could add it to my statistics.

I always assumed that people with fringe put their measuring ponytail on their forhead! I didn't consider people with hair not long enough yet to make it all the way around their heads, though.

DF is right about to hit the point where he can put everything in the pony, but for the life of me, he won't let me just gather all the hair up on the top of his head to measure. It would all fit, then!

[teela1978]

I think that there should also be the option to specify if you have a fringe as this makes an enormous difference to our measurement. I have a fringe and shorter layers round my face which makes a difference to my ponytail measurement and I wish that I could add it to my statistics.

But the point of ponytail circumference is to help figure out what types of hairstyles you can do... how would bangs add anything to that information?

[littlenvy]

My hair is 2.5" in ponytail circumference and I did two braids the other day and they were sooooo skinny I couldn't believe it.:(

I think 2.5" should be in the 'i' category.

I wish I had Spidermom's thickness! I wouldn't be tempted to chop my hair off it I had more of it.

Jaine - your hair looks lovely in that picture.
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!
LOL. I'm almost at 2" and doing everything and anything to bring my hair back from 1" to 2" and thus to ii.

But I do agree with the original poster, there are huge differences between thickness within the ii type.
I think the idea of devision by 2" made sense since it seemed equal ... BUT ...
While there are for sure lots of people with in 2-4 inch type, there is hardly any with .5" or even under 1" so in reality the i type has only 1 inch of play. I would even say that the same goes for iii type too. While there is a wide range of people with 4 to 5 inch thinckness but there aren't that many with 6 or more. Although, there ARE out there :) and they are my total hair heroes that I dream of being every night.

[vanity_acefake]

I didn't know that the point of the measurement was to do with what kinds of hairstyles you could do I thought it was just so we all knew what amount of hair we each had. I have a 5" measurement with a very short u shaped fringe and shorter layers round my face that i cannot put up in a ponytail so I guess i would have a much bigger ponytail if I grew them out. Either way I cannot do many styles at this length (2" off waist) as my hair is thick.
None of the hairstyles mention thickness of ponytail just length of hair.
:)

[MissCoco]

I think an iii/iv and iv category should definitely be included. However, as it's already been mentioned, texture changes ponytail circumference a lot (ex= I get maybe about 3.5-4" when my hair is straightened to the max, over 6" when it's air-dried and natural, like in my avatar :afro:) So in the end, it's hard to classify hair correctly; do you measure when your hair is clarified/air-dried/poofy (unless you have straight Caucasian/Asian, obviously) or well-conditioned? Combed, brushed or nothing? Personally, I only count the measurement I get when my hair is air-dried and clean, but not right after it's washed and dried, because it's not like that all the time. I also think it's trickier for people who use the CO method because the hair might be flatter than it actually is.

All rambling aside, the iv category stuff should be added in the near future! :D

[christine1989]

I rather like the i,ii,iii classification system but seeing as some people have REALLY thick hair I think maybe an iiii is in order. I know what you mean about hair looking much thicker than it is though. I get quite a few comments on my album pics about my hair looking really thick despite the fact that it is ii.

[teela1978]

I didn't know that the point of the measurement was to do with what kinds of hairstyles you could do I thought it was just so we all knew what amount of hair we each had. I have a 5" measurement with a very short u shaped fringe and shorter layers round my face that i cannot put up in a ponytail so I guess i would have a much bigger ponytail if I grew them out. Either way I cannot do many styles at this length (2" off waist) as my hair is thick.
None of the hairstyles mention thickness of ponytail just length of hair.
:)
Exactly :) iii's need a lot more length than ii's and i's to do the same styles. That's always been my understanding of the system. Its not a competition for who has the thickest hair (what would be the point of that?), its so you know not to bother trying a bun if you see someone doing an awesome style with hair about your length but half as thick... or at least to have a feeling of why it didn't work! I could be wrong... but I can't see why else we'd bother :shrug:

[littlenvy]

Exactly :) iii's need a lot more length than ii's and i's to do the same styles. That's always been my understanding of the system. Its not a competition for who has the thickest hair (what would be the point of that?), its so you know not to bother trying a bun if you see someone doing an awesome style with hair about your length but half as thick... or at least to have a feeling of why it didn't work! I could be wrong... but I can't see why else we'd bother :shrug:
This goes for everyone, not only iii.
While I'm able to do a lot of buns that iii at the same lenght are unable too, I always check the poster's (bun maker's) type only because a small compact bun on someone with ii/iii type would look REALLY small and laughable on someone like me.
For example, I'm not even BSL yet but I can do a braided chinese bun no problem. The problem is that you can hardly see it from under my hairstick.

[teela1978]

This goes for everyone, not only iii.
While I'm able to do a lot of buns that iii at the same lenght are unable too, I always check the poster's (bun maker's) type only because a small compact bun on someone with ii/iii type would look REALLY small and laughable on someone like me.
For example, I'm not even BSL yet but I can do a braided chinese bun no problem. The problem is that you can hardly see it from under my hairstick.
Yup. Kinda sucks when you see a big thick beautiful bun, then try it, complete it successfully and end up with a little golf-ball of hair on your head. Noticing that iii before trying lessens the shock :)

[vanity_acefake]

Wow Teela1978 and littleenvy I never thought of that. I always look at the length of hair not the thickness then blame my failure on how inept I am. I know I have thick hair but the pictures I follow always look like they have loads of hair too and when I fail to do a style I assume it's me. I never thought to compare their thickness.
Doh!
Never thought it was a competition either. I always think everyone's hair is nicer than mine!

[Rocket22]

Yeah I always wondered why some people would put two numbers in there. I know I'm at the bottom of the ii but I'm still a ii. It is kinda strange to be in the same category as someone with a 4" ponytail not the same look at all. I find 4" very thick, but of course I would I'm only 2.5" I could only dream to be that thick :)

[jeanniet]

Wow Teela1978 and littleenvy I never thought of that. I always look at the length of hair not the thickness then blame my failure on how inept I am. I know I have thick hair but the pictures I follow always look like they have loads of hair too and when I fail to do a style I assume it's me. I never thought to compare their thickness.
Doh!
Never thought it was a competition either. I always think everyone's hair is nicer than mine!
Thickness has a huge effect on the buns you can do. I'm nearly at waist and still very limited because my hair is too thick.

I just think of my hair as "thick," lol, but I can see if you had hair at the thicker end of ii you might want to be classified as a iii. Maybe there should be an adjustment and a iv added for hair over 5" or 6".

[rena]

I admit that it doesn't seem to really fit, especially when you see people with the same same thickness who look quite different. I also think porosity should be apart of the classification system as well because thats an important trait of hair I think deserves attention.

[McFearless]

Who here has iv thickness? I've been trying to compare my thickness solely to put an accurate thickness in my profile but I've never seen anyone with hair like mine. Sigh.

[virgo75]

I have to agree with all that has been said so far.

In my humble opinion there's a difference between 2 inches of fine hair and 2 inches of coarse hair.
For someone with very coarse hair 2 inches could be very thin.
For someone with very fine hair 2 inches could be medium or even thick(having a lot of strands) depending on just how fine the individual hairs are.

I've often compared my hair to others of the same measurement but mine seemed thicker because of how fine and fluffy it is.

[monsterna]

Not to derail, but when we measure over the ponytail, are we actually measuring over the actual band or over the hair that is coming right out of the band next to it? I always figured it was the former, which is what I've been doing.

I ask because if I measure over the band, I'm at 3", and if I measure right next to it, over the hair itself, I'm at 2.5" (and probably pulling it tighter as I measure, so it comes out as less).

And yeah, I would say if I was 2.5", I'd be a i/ii, and if a 3" I'd say a straight ii. That's why I figured others did it that way. I believe there should be even more thickness levels than iii, and maybe even spread out over one inch for each up to a point.

[xoxophelia]

If we make iv over 5" then I would possibly fit in that category now or soon O.o (I lost hair after long illness and haven't measured for awhile). I would think maybe over 6" should be iv.

I'm not sure if people would think I should be classified as a iii but since I still have taper in the ends.. :shrug:

I will say this though.. I am happy my thickness has been coming back but I am already tired of it. It takes far too long to dry, is somewhat smothering, and I have too much body in my hair unless it is days after washing -_-'

The hair thickness classification really helps most in dealing with the different issues that come with thin/medium/thick hair.

[virgo75]

Not to derail, but when we measure over the ponytail, are we actually measuring over the actual band or over the hair that is coming right out of the band next to it? I always figured it was the former, which is what I've been doing.

I ask because if I measure over the band, I'm at 3", and if I measure right next to it, over the hair itself, I'm at 2.5" (and probably pulling it tighter as I measure, so it comes out as less).

And yeah, I would say if I was 2.5", I'd be a i/ii, and if a 3" I'd say a straight ii. That's why I figured others did it that way. I believe there should be even more thickness levels than iii, and maybe even spread out over one inch for each up to a point.


I was under the impression that you measure what comes out of the band - right next to it over the hair itself.

[annsue83]

yeah....i agree with you ladies too. there is such a difference within the classification itself. i myself am almost a 3.9 and according to the classification i fall in the ii category but then that makes some of the ii's feel like their hair doesnt compare!

[Mesmerise]

I totally agree with what OP is saying. That is why I label myself a i/ii. The last time I measure my pony it was a 2.5,'' which I believe is on the low end of ii. But then I see other iis who seem to have a massive amount of hair! I feel like I would be ridiculous to put a ii distinction if this person's hair type is a ii thickness distinction. I think i ii iii and iv might be more accurate. Or perhaps a iia and iib?

This is the same as me, I also get about 2.5", but honestly I've seen people who describe themselves as a i who seem to have thicker hair than me (at least from pics). To be fair, I did a WHOLE lot of shedding last year, which means that I probably am a ii, I just don't look like it right now. I think at the upper end of the iis, those with 3.5" or so, have what I'd call reasonably thick hair, whereas those around the 2" mark have much thinner hair... so I could see where extra classifying would really help.


I must admit, it would seem more logical just to be able to type the ponytail circumference measurement, rather than the category it fits into.

I agree with this too...

Or just have something like...

i = under 2.0"
ii = 2.0 to 3.0"
iii = 3.0 to 4.0"
iv = 4.0" +

I'm not sure how many have 5" or more of hair, but maybe if there are a few there could be an additional category there?? I wouldn't imagine there would be too many people with 5" hair or under 1" hair though... so those four classifications should just about cover it?!

I think the ii category is really the worst. As others have said, there is a HUGE difference between 2" and 4" hair, whereas in the i category you'd rarely (if ever) find anyone under 1" so most would probably be in the 1.5" to 2.0" range...

Using classifiers like i/ii and ii/iii sort of works, but then again it's more about the individual's judgement than a "real" measurement. It's just based on the "well I fit into the ii category, but I seem to have really thin hair so I'll go with i/ii" or "I'm in the ii category but my hair is really thick looking and out of control, so I'll go for the ii/iii category" sort of thinking.

So I think either change the classification system, or let people put in an actual circumference measurement?!

EDIT: Just saw ultrabella's post and she's got almost 6"... in that case I'd make a fifth category of v for those with 5+ inches of hair!

OR go with the current system and use...

i under 2.0"
i/ii 2.0 to 3.0"
ii 3.0 to 4.0"
ii/iii 4.0 to 5.0"
iii 5.0" +

I think having at least 5 categories makes a lot more sense!

[telegraph64]

Even an inch of thickness, however, can make a massive difference in the size/do-ability of the bun. Trust me on this one!
I still think, even though it's a decent system, that we need more precision, because as I said a little goes a very, very long way...

[UltraBella]

I think I would be an iv.
My circumference is currently 5.8" and that is without my bangs. Before I cut my bangs I was 5.10".
I have LOADS of hair, I always have and sometimes I see others in the iii category and I think I must have twice as much hair as them. I know looks can be deceiving when it comes to hair thickness, but sometimes it is very obviously that people lumped into the same category are miles apart in reality.
Also, there is something to be said for honestly......... Sometimes on this forum someone will complain about having such thick hair, claim an over 5" circumference and then you look in their albums and you think ????????????????. Where is it ?!?!?!?
It's not a competition, someone will always have longer, thicker, curlier, straighter, whatever___ hair than you. It's about openly sharing here and gaining knowledge. I do think a more specific clasification will help members find others who truly have the same hair type, which can be very helpful.

[Mesmerise]

Or for those, who have huge difficulties figuring out the whole inch-system. It's just not that self-explanatory. Sine I've got a second measuring tape with inch on the backside, it's ok, but the converters on the internet can be really tricky.

I either use a measuring tape that has both cm and inches, or just convert cm by multiplying by 2.54 to get inches!

[SpeakingEZ]

I just found the strength to change my classification from ii to i/ii. It was very difficult. I'm mentioning it because I note being a ii earlier in the thread and I don't want to confuse anyone.

Mesmerise, I like the system you listed. Classifications are never going to be perfect, but seperating 2-3"-ers and 3-4"-ers is a good start, I think.

Another thing is sometimes I go into people's albums when they have similar hair to mine to see what my hair would look like at their length. Creepy? Perhaps. But seeing someone with similar hair to mine at TB, Class, Knee, etc., is very motivating. Then it's a little frustrating when I realize they're probably on the higher end of the ii than I am.

[RitaCeleste]

My hair measures barely a 3, maybe 3.25 if I'm not really squeezing it. I have had it thinned before, twice and that affects it lower down. The thing is my hair is coarse and wavy. If I flat ironed it, I'd think I was going bald! That was a real shock, finding out how little actual hair I had. With the old layers and the thinned hairs adding bulk to it on top of the frizzy texture, it looks like more than it is. I'm for making people measure it, sure. But people have to understand texture affects how it looks too.

[Lianna]

But the point of ponytail circumference is to help figure out what types of hairstyles you can do... how would bangs add anything to that information?

One reason would be for someone who's growing out their bangs (like me) and would like to know how the ponytail would be when all grown out. Some people have bangs growing from the middle of their head, it's quite a difference, others very short hair, why shouldn't they be classified using the two ponytail method (learned somewhere in articles), they are actually growing that much hair, it's only fair to them.



OR go with the current system and use...

i under 2.0"
i/ii 2.0 to 3.0"
ii 3.0 to 4.0"
ii/iii 4.0 to 5.0"
iii 5.0" +



Adding a iv is better because a lot of people who didn't see the new classification would still have "wrong measurements". That would disburb acurate searches. Same with adding just the number, the classification makes it easier to search members with similar thickness.

[Mesmerise]

I just found the strength to change my classification from ii to i/ii. It was very difficult. I'm mentioning it because I note being a ii earlier in the thread and I don't want to confuse anyone.

Mesmerise, I like the system you listed. Classifications are never going to be perfect, but seperating 2-3"-ers and 3-4"-ers is a good start, I think.

Another thing is sometimes I go into people's albums when they have similar hair to mine to see what my hair would look like at their length. Creepy? Perhaps. But seeing someone with similar hair to mine at TB, Class, Knee, etc., is very motivating. Then it's a little frustrating when I realize they're probably on the higher end of the ii than I am.

I quite like to see i and i/ii types with really long hair, because it gives me confidence that really fine/thin hair CAN look good long! When I first read the classification system and tried it out, I thought i hair would look really, really thin when grown say, to hip, but some of the people with it have really beautiful hair, so it gives me hope that I could also have lovely hair at that length, despite it being so thin!

[krissykins]

I think that the biggest thing is that Fia's Classification System was set in place a long time ago, and maybe it was easier to fit hair types into that system when there were fewer people to classify. Of course, not even fit perfectly, but they still found their place.

LHC is not the only online hair community that uses Fia's Classification System. I think it has its merits since we can go to other hair boards and see "2c/F/ii" in someone's signature and have an idea of what their hair is like. But maybe LHC needs to develop its own way of classifying hair.

(I was too lazy to write out "he/she" for every pronoun, so you will just have to deal with me saying "their" :p)

[DoubleCrowned]

At 1 and 3/8", I'd like to see the "i" classification divided. But what would it be called?

If classifications are changed anywhere except at the high end, all the archived posts will have inaccurate information.

Maybe we should use both the letters and a measurement.

As for using the classification system for hairstyles, it seems that the ratio of length to volume is what is important. Anyone up for figuring that out? Perhaps a chart?

[Katurday]

No hair system is perfect. I was blessed with some iii (5 inch) hair that looks like a mid ii (think Nightshade). People are like "Where IS it?" and then you feel my heavy thick braid and realize its 5 inches of slick thick wires. Similarly a ii wavy or curly can look easily like an iii.

Well, I cut to a pixie so I don't worry about this anymore. :)

[Firefox7275]

"THIRD CLASSIFIER - Your overall volume of hair
Put your hair in a ponytail with as much hair as possible in it. Don't bother with the way it looks - the goal is to have most/all of your hair in there. If it means it sits smack dab on top of your head, put it there. Measure the circumference of the ponytail. If you have bangs and/or you can't get all of your hair in there adjust according to how much of your hair you have measured."
http://archive.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=8954

Measuring thickness in inches/ centimetres is useful for anyone who has experienced accelerated shedding (stress/ illness/ diet/ chemical damage/ pregnancy) or is trying a hair growth product or routine. I had assumed that the ii classification was so broad because this fits in with researched norms and percentiles. If that is the case then we should subdivide as, say, iia and iib rather than scrapping the system.

[julliams]

I'm going to guess that the reason for all the variables is that perhaps many people "guesstimate" what their thickness is based on what they perceive their thickness to be. Photos can be misleading anyway. But yes, going by a diameter measurement does seem like a more definitive way for comparison

[pepperminttea]

I also think porosity should be apart of the classification system as well because thats an important trait of hair I think deserves attention.

This comment got a little over-looked, but I'd like to see this too. It makes a lot of difference in how the hair reacts to different treatments.

[julliams]

Do people put their hair up with an elastic band to do the measuring?? Because depending on what type of elastic you are using, it could add to the measurement if the person were measuring over that. Just a thought.

[Cupofmilk]

What is porosity? I think I know what it means - but how do you know if you hair is porous or not?

[littlenvy]

To me porosity is a very important factor ... BUT... just by my hair alone porosity can change or be influanced by outside forces. For example, right now I have almost 3 different levels of porosity because of the old bleach, dye and virgin hair on my head. If we get into details like that then we will have to follow with protein like/dislike, elasticity and even % of gray since it does behave differently as well. Just my thought.

[morecowbell]

I agree, OP! I think we need to just use the actual measurements, with the old ones on standby for those who prefer to use them.

[lapushka]

Would something like this help?

i- i+
ii- ii+
iii- iii+

[elbow chic]

I'm going to guess that the reason for all the variables is that perhaps many people "guesstimate" what their thickness is based on what they perceive their thickness to be.

Guilty. Mine seems neither thin nor thick to me, so originally I put ii just so there wouldn't be a blank space there. Not till someone asked if my hair was REALLY ii did I dig out a tape measure.

I guess I think there is such a thing as making things too complicated?

[DoubleCrowned]

Would something like this help?

i- i+
ii- ii+
iii- iii+

I think it would help. For one thing, making it from i- to i is a pretty big deal to t thin-hair person.

[MonaLisa]

Lepushka i think its same as i, i/ii, ii, ii/iii, iii...perhaps only iii+ would actually be different.

[princessp]

Do people put their hair up with an elastic band to do the measuring?? Because depending on what type of elastic you are using, it could add to the measurement if the person were measuring over that. Just a thought.

I don't use an elastic band for this reason, I hold my hair with my hands and pull the measuring tape really tight (I am a little over 5" when I don't pull the tape tight, so this part is super important).

I agree with the person who said this is not a competition. It helped me tremendously when I was trying to determine what updos I could do (virtually none before I was waist-lol). Thicker is not better, straighter is not better, curlier is not better, knee is not better than waist.....these are all just different and the main point is: beautiful hair comes in all "flavors". The reason for the classification is not to make people feel bad or inept, rather it is to help us manage our own hair better. In a way I almost wish it wasn't visible for everyone to see all the time. Perhaps it simply exists as a thread we could subscribe to (calling all i...etc). I think it is human nature to compare, but sometimes this can be destructive. At the same time I don't think we should assume folks are lying about their classifiers because hair can appear very different in photograph than in reality. And then hair can change and specifically it can thin for all kinds of reasons (stress, sickness...) and so I guess the summation is I hate to think people might feel bad about their own gorgeous hair simply because of these classifiers.

[Cinnamoon]

To me it would seem to make sense to have:
ia: <1.5
ib: 1.5-2
iia: 2-3
iib: 3-4
iiia: 4-5
iiib: >5

If we made those an option but left just plain i, ii, iii without the letters as well, people could choose whether to specify more, or just leave it as i, ii, iii. That way, old posts won't be messed up - the hairtype used will just be more broad.
I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not. I'll give an example. If someone had 3.5 inch hair, they could classify themselves as iib - or they could simply call themselves an ii. ii would still be accurate, just not as specific as iib.

[Cinnamoon]

And just to weigh in on the whole thickness and appearance thing: Appearances really can be deceiving. My hair has just about the same ponytail measurement as princessp - but her awesomely wavy/curly hair looks like so much more than my stick straight hair.

[Valdeon]

I totally support the idea of including actual measurements in " as an option (Feye's system still stands). For now, I use ii\iii option to indicate that I am on the thicker side of ii (9,5cm). But I am against making all the stats invisible. Every time any member posts something about their experience with anything related to hair I almost automatically check their hair info. It allows me to estimate whether their experience can be compatible with my hair type etc

Sure, at some level it makes people to compare there stats, not in a good way at times :(. But to me, facing the truth about my hair helped enormously to really take it as it is and appreciate what mother nature gave me/ AT the same time I learned to admire other hair types from afar without trying to make my hair look like something it is not and will never be.

[lapushka]

I think it would help. For one thing, making it from i- to i is a pretty big deal to t thin-hair person.

Actually I meant it as i ---> i- (on the thinner end of i) and i+ (on the thicker end of i), and so forth... using ia and ib would probably be less confusing to a lot of people in that sense, though, and it was mentioned before.

[elbow chic]

To me it would seem to make sense to have:
ia: <1.5
ib: 1.5-2
iia: 2-3
iib: 3-4
iiia: 4-5
iiib: >5

If we made those an option but left just plain i, ii, iii without the letters as well, people could choose whether to specify more, or just leave it as i, ii, iii. That way, old posts won't be messed up - the hairtype used will just be more broad.
I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not. I'll give an example. If someone had 3.5 inch hair, they could classify themselves as iib - or they could simply call themselves an ii. ii would still be accurate, just not as specific as iib.

I like it! Elegant.

[selderon]

To me porosity is a very important factor ... BUT... just by my hair alone porosity can change or be influanced by outside forces. For example, right now I have almost 3 different levels of porosity because of the old bleach, dye and virgin hair on my head. If we get into details like that then we will have to follow with protein like/dislike, elasticity and even % of gray since it does behave differently as well. Just my thought.

Those are important details that would give better information about the appropriateness of a treatment. My concern is that in adding more information, we may run out of space on the left of the post. Perhaps that information could have a space in our personal information and we could copy it into posts on topics for which it is critical information.

[Valdeon]

To me it would seem to make sense to have:
ia: <1.5
ib: 1.5-2
iia: 2-3
iib: 3-4
iiia: 4-5
iiib: >5


I like the idea ;)

[schweedie]

To me it would seem to make sense to have:
ia: <1.5
ib: 1.5-2
iia: 2-3
iib: 3-4
iiia: 4-5
iiib: >5

If we made those an option but left just plain i, ii, iii without the letters as well, people could choose whether to specify more, or just leave it as i, ii, iii. That way, old posts won't be messed up - the hairtype used will just be more broad.
I like that suggestion! Simple and clear. And I agree that it'd be good to update the system - like others have said there's a big difference between someone on the lower end of a i/ii/iii and the higher end.

[NouvelleNymphe2]

Or just have something like...

i = under 2.0"
ii = 2.0 to 3.0"
iii = 3.0 to 4.0"
iv = 4.0" +

If we are voting, this is what I vote for. It's simple and similar enough to the current classification system. It also will seem more reasonable when looking at pics of hair with similar stats.

Also, Ultrabella is right that we need a iv distinction. I see a lot of thick iii hair, but there are a few who definitely stand apart and need a iv classification. The kind of hair where your like :blueeek: wow that's a whole nother level of thick! And yeah, it's all about learning what is best for your hair type and condition, and all hair is beautiful in it's own way :D when it is well cared for.

[Lianna]

Well this is the same, plus another option. Just adding the iv would be simpler.

ia: <1.5 -------i
ib: 1.5-2-------i/ii
iia: 2-3--------ii
iib: 3-4--------ii/iii
iiia: 4-5-------iii
iiib: >5-------here comes the new option

But this way, those with 4.8 wouldn't be so happy. :p We need iii/iv (4.5-5) and iv (5+).

Not changing the first ones won't cause harm to the old posts/searches/people who don't know about the new system, which is most important, in my opinion.

[telegraph64]

Another vote for simply adding the iii/iv - iv option. Too many options can be confusing and overwhelming.

[NouvelleNymphe2]

Another thing is sometimes I go into people's albums when they have similar hair to mine to see what my hair would look like at their length. Creepy? Perhaps. But seeing someone with similar hair to mine at TB, Class, Knee, etc., is very motivating. Then it's a little frustrating when I realize they're probably on the higher end of the ii than I am.

I do this as well and these comparisons (using current system) tend to be a off the mark when looking at pics of someone on the thicker or thinner end of the respective i/ii/iii. Honestly any of the three ideas posted are good ideas, IMHO.

(1.) Just putting down the exact measurement (without using an elastic, rather measuring right on the hair);
(2.) The i,ii,iii,iv (perhaps v for crazy thick hair:)) system;
(3.) The ia, ib, iia, iib, iiia, iiib.

Also, how does one measure porosity? I certainly understand and agree that in terms of hair care it makes a big difference. Sorry if that's a newbie question. :rolleyes:

ETA: I just saw the above post regarding Lianna's system options, and again think that is a fine idea as well. I am just all for a redivision of the distinctions so I can find people with similar hair and look at their pics and routines to get hair care and length ideas.

[Lianna]

There is a considerable difference in thickness between a ii in the 2-3" range and a ii in the 3-4" range. I'm in the 2-3" range and there are plenty of ii's that look like they have twice as much hair as I do.

I agree with the bolded, I think people just aren't using the i/ii and ii/iii much then. I used ii/iii a long time before I could add my bangs/shorter layers into my ponytail. It's not just the system's fault.

[Anje]

I don't mind the current system, and the (iia, iib, iiia, iiib) system also looks nice.

As an alternative, if we wanted to completely redo the system, we could do something with successive doublings in the actual amount of hair (that is, the area of the ponytail). Something like:
A = Less than 0.25 in^2 = Less than 1.77" circumference
B = Less than 0.5 in^2 = Less than 2.51" circumference
C = Less than 1.0 in^2 = Less than 3.54" circumference
D = Less than 2.0 in^2 = Less than 5.01" circumference
E = Less than 4.0 in^2 = Less than 7.09" circumference
F = Bigger than that!

Does that make sense to anyone else? Or is it just too convoluted?
Right now, with ii ranging from 2" to 4" of circumference, people at the top of the range have about 4x as much hair as people on the bottom.

[torrilin]

Or for those, who have huge difficulties figuring out the whole inch-system. It's just not that self-explanatory. Sine I've got a second measuring tape with inch on the backside, it's ok, but the converters on the internet can be really tricky.

I don't quite follow this. Google has a units converter built in, and it works fine. My most used conversion is cubic inches to liters, since a horrifying amount of bags and luggage in the US are sold by cubic inches instead of in nice sensible liters. And yes, this works on pretty much ANY search box that uses Google, including things like the search box in Firefox or Internet Explorer.

You'd just type in 6.7cm to in in the search box, and you'd get an answer. I don't know that all search engines have a similar feature, but at least a few do.

I definitely wouldn't mind a change to an actual circumference measurement tho, since 3" or 7.5cm sounds a lot nicer than ii.

[Lianna]

@torrilin

I'm not sure why, but a few years ago I always found two options for inches...and I was confused (I could get two conversions for the same cm), didn't know what to pick. It doesn't seem to be a problem anymore though. I'm using this (http://manuelsweb.com/in_cm.htm) for quite some time now, if anyone still has trouble.

[ooo]

I don't mind the current system, and the (iia, iib, iiia, iiib) system also looks nice.

As an alternative, if we wanted to completely redo the system, we could do something with successive doublings in the actual amount of hair (that is, the area of the ponytail). Something like:
A = Less than 0.25 in^2 = Less than 1.77" circumference
B = Less than 0.5 in^2 = Less than 2.51" circumference
C = Less than 1.0 in^2 = Less than 3.54" circumference
D = Less than 2.0 in^2 = Less than 5.01" circumference
E = Less than 4.0 in^2 = Less than 7.09" circumference
F = Bigger than that!

Does that make sense to anyone else? Or is it just too convoluted?
Right now, with ii ranging from 2" to 4" of circumference, people at the top of the range have about 4x as much hair as people on the bottom.

More letters might be confusing. At least you'd have to pay more attention. like 2cFB, doesn't look that nice.


eta:

@torrilin

I'm not sure why, but a few years ago I always found two options for inches...and I was confused (I could get two conversions for the same cm), didn't know what to pick. It doesn't seem to be a problem anymore though. I'm using this for quite some time now, if anyone still has trouble.
that's the one, I used to have all the trouble with :/

[rena]

Besides porosity, I also think it might be a good idea that hair strand thickness, such as medium, fine, and coarse, should be broken down a little more, because hair does not always come in three exact catagories. There are different levels of fine, medium and coarse, like fine hair, thicker fine hair thats not quite medium, different types of medium, hair thats not exactly medium or coarse, etc.

[Anje]

Well, the lettering I've offered is the least important part of what I'm throwing out for thickness.... Could always append a T for thinkness to each. Make it TA, TB, TC, TD, TE, TF or something. Confuse the people with tailbone length hair instead?

[Marianne]

I guess I think there is such a thing as making things too complicated?

Definitely. If the classification system is changed at all, I'd suggest simply adding another category (making it i-iv) and squish the others a little closer together. So, for instance, ii would cover those with 2-3 inch thickness, instead of 2-4.

[ooo]

Well, the lettering I've offered is the least important part of what I'm throwing out for thickness.... Could always append a T for thinkness to each. Make it TA, TB, TC, TD, TE, TF or something. Confuse the people with tailbone length hair instead?

:o did not realize that, sorry.

What I forgot to add. The German classification is slightly different. Some might have a different i/ii/iii in the different boards and not notice it themselves.
It's
< 5 cm i
5 cm - 10 cm ii
10 cm > iii

[Anje]

:o did not realize that, sorry.

What I forgot to add. The German classification is slightly different. Some might have a different i/ii/iii in the different boards and not notice it themselves.
It's
< 5 cm i
5 cm - 10 cm ii
10 cm > iii
Ah, but 5 cm is about 2 inches, and 10 cm is about 4. Same as here. (Yes, I'm one of those crazy people who's nearly equally comfortable in both systems.)

[FlowerTwin]

LHC is not the only online hair community that uses Fia's Classification System. I think it has its merits since we can go to other hair boards and see "2c/F/ii" in someone's signature and have an idea of what their hair is like. But maybe LHC needs to develop its own way of classifying hair.


To me it would seem to make sense to have:
ia: <1.5
ib: 1.5-2
iia: 2-3
iib: 3-4
iiia: 4-5
iiib: >5

If we made those an option but left just plain i, ii, iii without the letters as well, people could choose whether to specify more, or just leave it as i, ii, iii. That way, old posts won't be messed up - the hairtype used will just be more broad.
I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not. I'll give an example. If someone had 3.5 inch hair, they could classify themselves as iib - or they could simply call themselves an ii. ii would still be accurate, just not as specific as iib.


Because of the international use of the system I think something like Cinnamons suggestion would be easiest. That way one can be more precise if one wants to but it would still be easy to move between boards. And, as already brought up earlier, there wouldn't be a problem with older posts.

Is there some kind of guideline on how the i/ii alternatives should be used?

[Lianna]

Is there some kind of guideline on how the i/ii alternatives should be used?

I haven't read any specific guidelines for the i/ii or ii/iii yet. I just thought who was just past ii would choose ii, and those with almost iii would pick ii/iii. And those with almost ii would choose i/ii. I don't really see a problem here, people should just be more specific, but I guess not many care that much about thickness to be really acurate.

About other boards using Fia's too...maybe we should just add another slot for specific measurements. Like others said, curls and waves can change a lot the look of a thin or thick hair. We shouldn't look at this little number (i/ii/iii) and picture how a person's hair should look like just from that.

[FlowerTwin]

I haven't read any specific guidelines for the i/ii or ii/iii yet. I just thought who was just past ii would choose ii, and those with almost iii would pick ii/iii. And those with almost ii would choose i/ii. I don't really see a problem here, people should just be more specific, but I guess not many care that much about thickness to be really acurate.

About other boards using Fia's too...maybe we should just add another slot for specific measurements. Like others said, curls and waves can change a lot the look of a thin or thick hair. We shouldn't look at this little number (i/ii/iii) and picture how a person's hair should look like just from that.

(Bold by me)

Maybe that's what the 1a-c, 2a-c, 3a-c and 4a-c as well as F-M-C are there for! *has a revelation* ;) Sort of makes sence. (Or possibly sense, my english isn't that good.) Maybe one just have to think about what that classification is really saying about a persons hair? Well, thank you for making me understand the system better any way. :D

[Lollipop]

I think it would be nice to just be able to add the measurement (like cm or in). But I think if we had the option of adding the measure and encouraged people that are on the low end of ii to put i/ii, and those on the thick end to put ii/iii it would be fine too. If you change category requirements but keep the "i"s, then that could add confusion.

[xoxophelia]

I'll just restate this if a new system is actually in the makings but I don't think my hair (somewhere between 4.5"-5") should be in the category of the highest thickness. I think the last level should start at about 6" and up or something because my hair is "thick" in a normal sense. Hair dressers may comment, it takes longer to style etc, but it is far from the thickest.

I do like how the current system has it set up so that ii is a large range because it should be the median. Being a ii means you fall in the largest part of the bell curve and do not have "thick" nor "thin" hair. People seem to mostly have seperate hair related issues outside of that norm. However, I would imagine there is a much greater issue dealing with thickness for those who are >6".

[Firefox7275]

I'll just restate this if a new system is actually in the makings but I don't think my hair (somewhere between 4.5"-5") should be in the category of the highest thickness. I think the last level should start at about 6" and up or something because my hair is "thick" in a normal sense. Hair dressers may comment, it takes longer to style etc, but it is far from the thickest.

I do like how the current system has it set up so that ii is a large range because it should be the median. Being a ii means you fall in the largest part of the bell curve and do not have "thick" nor "thin" hair. People seem to mostly have seperate hair related issues outside of that norm. However, I would imagine there is a much greater issue dealing with thickness for those who are >6".

If a professional passes comment that suggests to me the thickness of your hair is not average. :confused: Your hair has to be completely different to style from someone whose pony circumference is two inches, not easier or more difficult just different. If a low ii newbie was to identify with you then try to emulate your routine or styles they are bound to be disappointed, as others have calculated you to have at least four times as much hair. Plus if you change the percentile at one end of the scale you have to do the same at the other - so people with 1.5 inch circumferences suddenly become ii and the entire system becomes meaningless. :(

"First, you want to figure out who here has hair like yours and what works for them. If your hair is poker straight, you’re going to have very different needs from someone who has massively curly hair. If you want to increase your curl or wave, you’ll have different needs than someone who wants to make their hair straighter."
Ursula's Newbie Advice (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/vbjournal.php?do=article&articleid=39)

[UltraBella]

I'll just restate this if a new system is actually in the makings but I don't think my hair (somewhere between 4.5"-5") should be in the category of the highest thickness. I think the last level should start at about 6" and up or something because my hair is "thick" in a normal sense. Hair dressers may comment, it takes longer to style etc, but it is far from the thickest.

I do like how the current system has it set up so that ii is a large range because it should be the median. Being a ii means you fall in the largest part of the bell curve and do not have "thick" nor "thin" hair. People seem to mostly have seperate hair related issues outside of that norm. However, I would imagine there is a much greater issue dealing with thickness for those who are >6".

If it started at 6" there would be very few people in that category. I wouldn't qualify, and I think I should. Not trying to be difficult or anything, but I often feel like I have more hair than everyone else around me and I would like to be able to find those with similar hair on this forum easier.

[Justy]

I'm very new here and trying to get a handle on the classifications. I find myself looking at the classifications all the time to get a feel for how close the posters hair is to mine. I just changed my classification to i/ii because I am on the low end of ii, just above 2" and feel that this gives a better idea of what my hair is really like.

Hopefully I did this right. I would be happy with a iia classifier too, but it might get confusing with all the letters. :)

[teela1978]

One reason would be for someone who's growing out their bangs (like me) and would like to know how the ponytail would be when all grown out. Some people have bangs growing from the middle of their head, it's quite a difference, others very short hair, why shouldn't they be classified using the two ponytail method (learned somewhere in articles), they are actually growing that much hair, it's only fair to them.
Wouldn't that be very confusing to others? If your length is technically a ii, but you count your bangs and therefore report a iii, people with length of iii would look at your updo's and wonder why your iii hair can do that at x lenght when theirs can't.

[Lianna]

Wouldn't that be very confusing to others? If your length is technically a ii, but you count your bangs and therefore report a iii, people with length of iii would look at your updo's and wonder why your iii hair can do that at x lenght when theirs can't.

I used the ii/iii option for a long time (almost all 2010) measuring just my ponytail (which was at the time 3.7 inches) while leaving my bangs out...I still have bangs, and a ponytail of 4 now because some layers have grown (that's why I use iii now).

I don't think the thin/thick classifier is just about hairstyles...I think people should have the right to measure all the hair they're growing. Should those with short hair that can't ponytail stay without a classifier for a year or should they be able to measure in several ponytails? I think the latter...I think it's about "knowing" if your hair is thin or thick too. When I did the math with 2 ponytails I didn't display it here, I just wanted to know, before any ponytail could be done I just eyeballed it to ii/iii, LOL (because I know I have more hair than average).

ETA: I think I could do an "early cinnabun" because my hair is layered. Other than that I can't do any fancy stuff...

[Loviatar]

I'd just add a ponytail circumference box to the hairtypes.

For example I have classified myself as ii/iii and as iii in the past:

Dry Pony circ without bangs in mid autumn, when using henna: 4 inches.
Dry Pony circ without bangs right now, when bleaching and hennaing over the top: almost 4 inches but not quite. More like 3.75 inches.
Damp pony circ, or pony circ in the immediate week after hennaing: 4 inches.
Pony circ when I was chemical dyeing: just under 3.25 inches.
Pony circ when dyeing and using 'cones: 2.5 inches.

Cones make a ridiculous difference for me. My pony circ when 'coned AND flat-ironed is only 2.25 inches. Compare that with air dried and hennaed. I always use the same tape and always measure above where I've secured my hair elastic, not over the elastic itself.

[Mesmerise]

I'll just restate this if a new system is actually in the makings but I don't think my hair (somewhere between 4.5"-5") should be in the category of the highest thickness. I think the last level should start at about 6" and up or something because my hair is "thick" in a normal sense. Hair dressers may comment, it takes longer to style etc, but it is far from the thickest.

I do like how the current system has it set up so that ii is a large range because it should be the median. Being a ii means you fall in the largest part of the bell curve and do not have "thick" nor "thin" hair. People seem to mostly have seperate hair related issues outside of that norm. However, I would imagine there is a much greater issue dealing with thickness for those who are >6".

I think 4.5 to 5" is quite thick! I would imagine very, very few people would have thicker hair than that (percentage wise less than 10&#37; would probably be 5" plus), and those with 6+ would be even fewer. That's why you sort of have to lump that group altogether!

My challenge is that after lots of hair shedding, my hair is abnormally thin... so I call it i/ii, but if it was back to its normal self (which it will be, in time), it's going to be a solid ii (I think it will hit at least 3" although I never measured before hair shedding so I don't know what its maximum will actually be...and I'm sort of excited to find out lol). However at the moment it's going to look thin and stringy (particularly at the ends... as the new hair grows I think it will poof out the top hair more making the ends look even thinner :()

[xoxophelia]

If it started at 6" there would be very few people in that category. I wouldn't qualify, and I think I should. Not trying to be difficult or anything, but I often feel like I have more hair than everyone else around me and I would like to be able to find those with similar hair on this forum easier.

Ah, see I thought you had said your hair was about 6" and I have seen others with possibly thicker hair than your own. And to clarify, I wasn't saying I should be in the ii category currently but in the iii and then an even higher range for iv (kind of instead of the ii/iii which is a bit confusing).

I meant to say that my hair is thicker than average but not "gasp" thick and hence a category above myself for those with even greater thickness.