PDA

View Full Version : The difference betwixt ii/iii and iii?



xoxophelia
November 1st, 2011, 12:56 AM
I have some ongoing confusion in regards to this and was wondering if somebody could clear it up. I might just have a totally distorted sense of what thick vs moderately thick hair is ^_^'

In the ponytails thread I saw many people with less circumference than myself, between 4-4.5" describing their hair in the iii category. However, there are also users who have said their hair is just under 6" that use ii/iii to describe their hair. I was under the impression over 5" would be iii, 4" or so was ii/iii, and 3" something would be ii.

Is ii/iii meant to describe hair that is under 4" and iii for over 4"?

My hair seems like normalish thickness to me... I may just be nutso. :P

kme81
November 1st, 2011, 01:04 AM
I always assumed that ii/iii meant ~4"

I list myself as a ii with my ~3.5" pony.

Niphredil
November 1st, 2011, 01:19 AM
Well, I use ii/iii because my hair when freshly washed and air-dried down measures at just over 4". But when I have it contained when drying or a few days after washing my hair loses some of its volume because it straightens a bit. Then it measures just under 4".

my :twocents:

Panth
November 1st, 2011, 01:48 AM
ii = between 2" (I think) and 4"
iii = over 4"

I list as ii/iii as I'm 3 and 7/8" and it's just so close!

(Also, the whole thickness thing is supposed to be an indicator to help you find people whose hair is like yours - e.g. thickness can mean some people can't do buns (or certain buns) until they have waist length or longer hair. By that measure, I'm far more like someone who is a iii (say, 4" or 4 and 1/4") than someone who is a ii (say, 2 and 1/2" or 3"))

MonaLisa
November 1st, 2011, 02:04 AM
I'm at 10cm which is for me like a limit between ii and iii, so i say ii/iii :)
I was confused by the same thing in the ponytails thread!

Alaia
November 1st, 2011, 02:05 AM
Well, I use ii/iii because my hair when freshly washed and air-dried down measures at just over 4". But when I have it contained when drying or a few days after washing my hair loses some of its volume because it straightens a bit. Then it measures just under 4".

my :twocents:

This!

I had a brief stage of listing myself as iii when my hair was consistently over 4", but now I've shed a bit and I'm back wavering between 3.8" and 4.2" depending on the day, weather, dirtiness, and mood of my hair.

Mesmerise
November 1st, 2011, 02:05 AM
I think ii/iii is hair that's sort of on the borderline between ii and iii without actually being quite 4". So if you had 3.8 or 3.9" you might describe yourself as ii/iii.

I suppose likewise, if you're on the thinner side of iii you may describe yourself as ii/iii too...


Sooo... maybe somewhere between 3.7 and 4.3" you may describe yourself as ii/iii.

I have only just graduated myself from i/ii to a ii, and that's because my low ponytail is now 2.75" (start of the year it was 2.25"). I figure it's now enough over the 2" mark to be not truly i/ii hair!

I suppose people in the crossover between ii and iii also see their hair the same way and thus classify it so!

I do think there should be a new classification for 6"+ hair though. Probably a iv!! It's just so much thicker than 4" which is the minimum iii.

MissManda
November 1st, 2011, 02:12 AM
Here are some threads that might be helpful to you: :flower:

Where is ii/iii in Your Opinion? (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=4598)
How Thick is 'Thick?' (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=1266)

Although I'm on the low end of iii (~4.1-4.3" circumference), I consider myself to be a solid iii because a) my hair is finely-textured and straightish so it doesn't have much poof naturally and compresses into nothing, b) it takes a heck of a lot of fine hair to get a iii hair volume (if you look into my scalp, it is very densely covered in hair), c) it consistently measures over the 4" mark, and d) because although I'm at midback length, my hair practically has no taper. Overall, I consider myself to have relatively thick hair ponytail-wise, with a very thick, possibly super thick density because my hair is fine.

I generally consider ii/iii to be in the range of 3.75-3.9" while 4" or more is iii.

Niphredil
November 1st, 2011, 02:42 AM
(Also, the whole thickness thing is supposed to be an indicator to help you find people whose hair is like yours - e.g. thickness can mean some people can't do buns (or certain buns) until they have waist length or longer hair. By that measure, I'm far more like someone who is a iii (say, 4" or 4 and 1/4") than someone who is a ii (say, 2 and 1/2" or 3"))
True! Even though I'm not a full iii, I need a lot more length (or a little taper) to do updo's that regular ii's can do. I know some can manage a lazy-wrap at APL but I still struggle while I'm at waist (or used to as I'm shorter now)

alyanna
November 1st, 2011, 02:56 AM
I think ii/iii is hair that's sort of on the borderline between ii and iii without actually being quite 4". So if you had 3.8 or 3.9" you might describe yourself as ii/iii.

I suppose likewise, if you're on the thinner side of iii you may describe yourself as ii/iii too...


Sooo... maybe somewhere between 3.7 and 4.3" you may describe yourself as ii/iii.

I have only just graduated myself from i/ii to a ii, and that's because my low ponytail is now 2.75" (start of the year it was 2.25"). I figure it's now enough over the 2" mark to be not truly i/ii hair!

I suppose people in the crossover between ii and iii also see their hair the same way and thus classify it so!

I do think there should be a new classification for 6"+ hair though. Probably a iv!! It's just so much thicker than 4" which is the minimum iii.

Couldn't agree with you more. About everything!
I was also barely 2" when I started LHC back in March. My ponytail has gradually thickened as my layers and bleach have grown out. I kept my i/ii classification until last week though, when I measured at 8 cm, which is a 3.14. My hair was particularly poofy though, so in reality, it's about 2.75" in thickness.

Still that puts me well into the ii category (happy dance!!! :cheese:)

I agree also that there should be a iv category for those exceptionally thick ponytails that exceed 6 inches.

pepperminttea
November 1st, 2011, 03:53 AM
I think of it as being around 4", maybe half an inch either side of it - I list my hair's thickness as ii/iii, last time I measured (granted, a while ago) it was 3.8".

Personally I think it'd just be easier if we could type in the ponytail circumference and get rid of the categories entirely. :shrug:

Panth
November 2nd, 2011, 01:19 AM
*twitch* And just as a little side-rant, there's no sense in writing 3.9" when inches are not metric. You can have halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, "thirty-twoths", etc. ... but you can't have tenths.

...sorry. Ignore me now. :p

xoxophelia
November 2nd, 2011, 01:59 AM
The threads helped clear it up for me. It seems the general idea is that it ii/iii is either just around 4" or from about 3.75"-4.25" ....

I also looked at some of the photos in the threads of others calling themselves ii/iii and honestly I feel like maybe it is that I still have some taper or something but my hair looks more similar to many of the ii/iii heads than many of the iii's. So.. I think I will keep it at ii/iii for now ^_^'

If the thickness grows down though perhaps I will go up to iii.

Avital88
November 2nd, 2011, 02:55 AM
hmmm,, "is off to change her stats"

dRummie
November 3rd, 2011, 02:09 PM
I always thought of it as (in inches)
i: <1.5
i/ii: 1.5-2.5
ii: 2.5-3.5
ii/iii: 3.5-4.5
iii: >4.5

... nice and regular. I just see the intermediate designations as a way of fine-tuning the system down to 1" intervals, rather than 2", i.e. when I see "ii" I would think it means hair specifically in the middle of the 2-4" range. To me that's ample precision for what's only meant to be a rough guide, anyway... I do agree that there should be a iv for ponytails substantially over 5".

xoxophelia
November 3rd, 2011, 02:12 PM
^sounds good to me

spidermom
November 3rd, 2011, 02:18 PM
My thickness ranges from slightly under 4" to slightly over, and I stick with iii rather than ii/iii because I don't want to confuse the ii people who are on the lower end of ii .

Lissandria
November 3rd, 2011, 03:37 PM
I am 2.5" circ (not including bangs) and I call myself a solid ii. Half an inch in circumference is ALOT of difference in thickness if your hair is thin.

torrilin
November 3rd, 2011, 04:05 PM
My ponytail measures between 2.5 and 3". There's always some variation, and I'm always towards the middle of the ii range, so I type myself as ii. And my hair is quite fine, so I absolutely shouldn't type myself as i or i/ii, no matter how bad I'm feeling about a 2.5" measurement. We tend to be our own worst critics, and it's clear to me that 2.5" is pretty damn average, so self abuse on the subject isn't precisely sane.

If I ever somehow started measuring above 3" on a regular basis, I'd start typing myself as ii/iii. The 2 to 4" range of ii is pretty broad, and someone even at 3.5" is going to have a wildly different experience doing buns than someone who is exactly 2". If you work out the cross section area, it is just a huge difference.


And just as a little side-rant, there's no sense in writing 3.9" when inches are not metric. You can have halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, "thirty-twoths", etc. ... but you can't have tenths.

Tell NASA then. Every single spacecraft the US owns pretty much is specified in inches, usually down to the fourth decimal place. And it is almost never a nice tidy fraction. It's also routine that for drafting work you can work in inches divided decimal fashion or divided in the more usual thirty-secondsth of an inch. A sixty-fourth is two small to use rulers for, you end up having to go to calipers or scale drawings most of the time.

If you do go tell them, please do what you can to see that they burn the damn English system rulers. Metric is so much easier...

Same goes for all the US armed forces. Bleargh. Someday we will have a sane measurement system, I swear...

Anje
November 3rd, 2011, 04:24 PM
The boundaries around ii are 2" and 4". Those who list themselves as i/ii or ii/iii are either right near that boundary or insecure that their hair is as thick as it measures.

Panth
November 3rd, 2011, 04:36 PM
The 2 to 4" range of ii is pretty broad, and someone even at 3.5" is going to have a wildly different experience doing buns than someone who is exactly 2". If you work out the cross section area, it is just a huge difference.

It is indeed. Please indulge a maths geek... :)

Area = pi (radius)^2
Circumference = pi(diameter) = pi(2 radius)

So, to rearrange to put the radius alone:

(Square root of area) / pi = radius
(Circumference) / 2 pi = radius

Thus:

(Square root of area) / pi = (Circumference) / 2 pi
(Square root of area) = (Circumference) / 2
Area = (Circumference / 2)^2
Area = (1/2 circumference)^2

The important bit being that the relationship is a squared one.

So, to put in some numbers...
For a 2" circumference: Area = (1/2 * 2)^2 = (1)^2 = 1 square inch
For a 4" circumference: Area = (1/2 * 4)^2 = (2)^2 = 4 square inches

Thus, though the circumference is only doubled, the area (which is the crucial measurement in terms of making updos) is quadrupled.

</geekiness>

Herb
November 3rd, 2011, 04:38 PM
I'm ii/iii, because my hair varies depending on the season. A good bit over 4" in the summer, and then just below 4" in the winter.

mora
November 3rd, 2011, 05:20 PM
The boundaries around ii are 2" and 4". Those who list themselves as i/ii or ii/iii are either right near that boundary or insecure that their hair is as thick as it measures.

This is me. I've measured it to be just over 4" twice and around 3.5" (3 1/2") once. I don't remember how much over 4" it was because I knew there was no category difference for anything greater than 4" and I tend to ignore most of the smaller divisions on my tape measure.