PDA

View Full Version : Ponytail circumference and curl or lack thereof.



Venefica
May 15th, 2012, 08:52 PM
On the forum I see allot of people with really thick hair categorizing themselves as ii when they do look to be a iii, and very often they seam to be very straight hair people. Now I think you should remember when measuring that if your hair is pin straight you are getting nothing free when it come to thickness. Now curly hair girls is at a disadvantage when measuring length because curls eat allot of length while we can measure every inch of growth, meaning that a curly haired girl, or boy for that matter, who have hair to their butt might in actuality have longer hair strands than a straight haired person who are at classic or even beyond.

Now on the same principle we straight haired folks are at a disadvantage when measuring thickness because curls add grit to a ponytail, meaning that a straight haired person with a ii/iii ponytail might have a higher number of hairs then a curly haired girl at iii.

Now the reason I am making this post is to urge you guys to stop being so modest. If your hair is pin straight and is a cm or so away from iii that is a iii and not a ii/iii for as my mother say we are getting no grit for free just like when measuring length curly haired people are getting nothing for free. Now I do not want anything to misunderstand, I am not saying the grit of you curly haired girl's ponytails are not impressive, far from it, your hair is awesome, I am just saying that I think many straight haired people forget that we need greater numbers of hairs to get the same grit as a curly haired person and that to many are to modest.

Personally I am at exactly 4 inches, 10 cm, which is the lower limit for iii. I was 4,3 inches, 11 cm, but I had a mega tangle that had to be cut out so I lost 1 cm :( though off course that will grow back. Anyway what I am saying is that I think many are like me and then put ii/iii because they are just at the limit, but I am saying that for someone with pin straight hair to be just at the limit to iii means that they should definitely be allowed to say iii and not ii/iii for you are getting nothing for free. Stop being so modest.

To probe my point, when I measure my ponytail when my hair is wet, for I have a little bit of curl when my hair is wet, not allot just a hint then my ponytail circumference is 4,5, that is half an inch thicker with just a bit of curl compared to my dry hair which is pin straight. What I recommend is that you make a ponytail one day when you have braid waves in your hair and measure then, see how much of a difference a hint of waves do, and then reconsider if you might be a iii after all.

Hollyfire3
May 15th, 2012, 09:02 PM
This is very nice to say, I agree completly. I actually am not yet curly enough (damage) to gain any thickness from the curls, but they eat up length anyway...its not fair! I think that once I get ALL my curl back, I'll have an even more ridiculous circumfrance thna I aready do, its an intresting point really. Also, I would like to point out that as of now, my hair is the same circumfrence straight as it is curly, but that might be due to my lack of curl but even straight, I'm an iii so its all very confusing lol...

C.H.
May 15th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Yeah, I only ever measure pony circumference when my hair is straight for that reason. I want the real number. However disappointing it might be. Hah.

Silverbrumby
May 15th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Yeah, I only ever measure pony circumference when my hair is straight for that reason. I want the real number. However disappointing it might be. Hah.

I think I might have been measuring wrong. Can someone put up the list of actual inches and how they correspond to the i/ii/iii measurements?

My ponytail is 2.75 inches. I think that makes me a i/ii?

C.H.
May 15th, 2012, 10:24 PM
I think I might have been measuring wrong. Can someone put up the list of actual inches and how they correspond to the i/ii/iii measurements?

My ponytail is 2.75 inches. I think that makes me a i/ii?

Less than 2 inches is i. 2-4 inches is ii (that's you). More than 4 inches is iii.

ravenheather
May 15th, 2012, 10:24 PM
I think I might have been measuring wrong. Can someone put up the list of actual inches and how they correspond to the i/ii/iii measurements?

My ponytail is 2.75 inches. I think that makes me a i/ii?

2 inches is the cutoff for i to ii. So in my book that makes you a ii.

Vanilla
May 15th, 2012, 10:32 PM
Omg, this is so what I was thinking every time that I measure. When dry (and straight) right after I wash, I measure 3.5 inches ponytail circumference every time. If my hair is wet, I measure 4.2 inches, and I almost always have more of a wave when wet.

Venefica, so should I be upgraded to a iii thickness then? What do you think?

Silverbrumby
May 15th, 2012, 10:36 PM
Thank you for the information.

Silverbrumby
May 15th, 2012, 10:37 PM
Omg, this is so what I was thinking every time that I measure. When dry (and straight) right after I wash, I measure 3.5 inches ponytail circumference every time. If my hair is wet, I measure 4.2 inches, and I almost always have more of a wave when wet.

Venefica, so should I be upgraded to a iii thickness then? What do you think?

You look a solid iii to me... Lovely hair to btw

Vanilla
May 15th, 2012, 10:46 PM
You look a solid iii to me... Lovely hair to btw

Thank you! I've been trying to justify having iii thickness to myself since I've been on this site. :)

CurlyCap
May 15th, 2012, 10:48 PM
I don't count my curls in my ponytail circumference. I have very little hair on my hair, but since my curls corkscrew so much, it translates into a lot of bulk. I frequently use headbands to hold ponytails together, but it seems absurd for me to report that as a 20 inch circumference!

So I always translate it to when I have straight hair. Because, truth be told, as a straighty, I'm very firmly a i with a mix of fine and coarse hair. All the apparent thickness is just being a 3b/3c. :D

luxepiggy
May 15th, 2012, 10:59 PM
To probe my point, when I measure my ponytail when my hair is wet, for I have a little bit of curl when my hair is wet, not allot just a hint then my ponytail circumference is 4,5, that is half an inch thicker with just a bit of curl compared to my dry hair which is pin straight.


Omg, this is so what I was thinking every time that I measure. When dry (and straight) right after I wash, I measure 3.5 inches ponytail circumference every time. If my hair is wet, I measure 4.2 inches, and I almost always have more of a wave when wet.


While I agree that straight hair tends to bundle together more compactly than curly hair, damp/wet hair measurements shouldn't be compared to those taken on dry hair. When hair is wet, it swells up, and its diameter increases an average of 14-16%. So the increases you're both seeing in circumference are likely due to this swelling rather than any change in curl pattern between the wet & dry states.

kme81
May 15th, 2012, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure if this is where the tread is going, but I'm going to put in my two cents about hair typing.

IMO the most accurate typing is done when the hair is at it's most "normal." For me that is, say, a day or two after wash day. My waves have stretched as straight as they want, and the thickness has settled--no extra moisture or fluff.

*By normal I suppose I mean to express what hair is like most often. If I did my typing while wet or just after dying, measurements would be crazy different than the next day. At the same time, my day two and three measurements would be very similar to each other. In my mind, it only makes sense to consider the day two/three measurements as accurate.

sycamoreboutiqu
May 15th, 2012, 11:36 PM
I guess I don't get the question here.

I don't think the thickness designations i, ii, iii refer to the actual number of hairs on your head, but rather the working "thickness" that you have to deal with. Yes, curl and wave increase the diameter while not increasing the actual strand count, but what difference does it make ?

Am I off base here, I just figured the thickness designation refered to "actual" thickness for whatever reasons - more strands or fatter strands - they all add up to thickness.

Obviously I am in the iii category with a 5" + diameter due to the wave factor - but wish I was in the ii sector. It would be a lot easier to deal with on a daily basis.

Literally - I can't go out in public with my hair down at this point - I look like a Lion. I would love a sleeker head of hair ... sigh.... same old story, you always want what you don't have.

Phexlyn
May 16th, 2012, 02:05 AM
Anyway what I am saying is that I think many are like me and then put ii/iii because they are just at the limit, but I am saying that for someone with pin straight hair to be just at the limit to iii means that they should definitely be allowed to say iii and not ii/iii for you are getting nothing for free. Stop being so modest.
[Warning: I may have misunderstood your point completely, but I want to state what came to my mind when I read your post. I do not wish to offend you, and I agree that curls can add more volume to a ponytail just because the hair is curly, but I don't think this should have an influence on how the straight haired people put in their circumference measurements. So, here we go...]
I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.

Just my little :twocents:

luxepiggy
May 16th, 2012, 03:00 AM
I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.

Just my little :twocents:

I agree wholeheartedly with this http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff33/shoppingpiglet/piggies/3heo131.gif

AndreaPetrea
May 16th, 2012, 03:10 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with this http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff33/shoppingpiglet/piggies/3heo131.gif

I also agree :)

pepperminttea
May 16th, 2012, 04:51 AM
I guess I don't get the question here.

I don't think the thickness designations i, ii, iii refer to the actual number of hairs on your head, but rather the working "thickness" that you have to deal with. Yes, curl and wave increase the diameter while not increasing the actual strand count, but what difference does it make ?

Am I off base here, I just figured the thickness designation refered to "actual" thickness for whatever reasons - more strands or fatter strands - they all add up to thickness.

Agreed. Texture's going to make a difference too, coarse hairs would make a thicker ponytail than the same number of fine hairs. But does it really matter? I mean, ponytail circumference is a useful tool especially at shorter lengths when you're wondering why a i-thickness can make amazing intricate buns and a iii-thickness can't when they're both at the same length. But beyond that...? I guess I'm missing the point. :o


I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.

Just my little :twocents:

Agreed. It makes me think of when I go shopping with friends. There will always be the inevitable and completely ridiculous "You're not fat!" moment. Well actually ladies, yes, I am. Very in fact! And no, it isn't a bad thing. I'm not "selling myself short" by self-identifying as fat, either. It's a positive acceptance of what I'm working with. :)

Denebi
May 16th, 2012, 05:09 AM
[Warning: I may have misunderstood your point completely, but I want to state what came to my mind when I read your post. I do not wish to offend you, and I agree that curls can add more volume to a ponytail just because the hair is curly, but I don't think this should have an influence on how the straight haired people put in their circumference measurements. So, here we go...]
I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.

Just my little :twocents:

I totally agree to that. And I also don't understand why people in a solid ii range tend to classify themselves as i/ii (seen that on more than one occasion), just because they feel it's so thin. That seems to be a bit unfair to those who really are in that category because it makes them feel they should use i then as they are thinner then those "false" i/ii types. Hair types aren't there to express your feelings, they are measurements, and the whole point of it is useless, if people categorize whatever they like. There are iii-types who feel like i. Well that's a personal problem for these people but has nothing to do with the actual measurement.

I hope I did not offend someone, but this is something that bothers me for quite some time now.

auburntressed
May 16th, 2012, 05:18 AM
Agreed. It makes me think of when I go shopping with friends. There will always be the inevitable and completely ridiculous "You're not fat!" moment. Well actually ladies, yes, I am. Very in fact! And no, it isn't a bad thing. I'm not "selling myself short" by self-identifying as fat, either. It's a positive acceptance of what I'm working with. :)

Not really on topic - BUT AMEN SISTER! I am fat. This is a statement of fact. It is really irritating to me that I cannot state a simple fact without other people trying to rush to my aid over and be all like, "Don't talk about yourself like that!?" Like what? It is what I am. I don't like being fat. I don't want to be fat. But I don't view the statement of what IS as being inherently negative. *sigh*

On topically speaking - My hair compacts down into itself tightly, even when I have a small amount of "wave" poking out. I definitely understand the, "We get nothing for free," idea.

I think that what the OP might have been getting at is that it is harder to GET curly hair to compress down into a perfectly smooth pony tale. So.. for example, let's say a 3a works as hard as she can to smooth her hair into the snuggest pony she's got. Then she measures it... it is still not as compact as it could be. If she used a flat iron to completely straighten her hair, the reading could dramatically drop. Possibly?

I am not sure there is any significance to it other than, I guess, the weight of one's hair. If someone with a smaller pony circ has pin straight hair and therefore more hairs on her head than someone with a larger circ and curly hair... It is very possible that the former's hair would be much heavier at the same length. That could affect the type of updos that are possible for that person.

Although, I suspect that hair density also affects the overall weight of one's hair... By that, I don't mean the thickness of individual strands, but rather the actual density of those strands. Just like a penny-sized feather is lighter than a penny, some peoples hair is likely lighter per strand than others of the same size.

I've thought a bit about hair density lately because so many other iii's and several ii's that I know in real life often complain about how heavy their hair is. Well... I have 5" of three-foot-long hair, and I've never felt that my hair was all that heavy. The only time it gives me problems is when it is in an updo on specific spots of my head. But then, all the weight is concentrated in one spot at those times...

Unless I have totally misunderstood, and they are talking about updos, not loose hair?

As for hair typing around here being used to discern the best ways of handling our hair: I think most people understand that curly hair is treated differently than straight hair anyways. The thick/not thick consideration has mostly to do with what sort of updos are possible, when, how to secure them effectively, and for how long.

Charybdis
May 16th, 2012, 05:22 AM
Agreed. Texture's going to make a difference too, coarse hairs would make a thicker ponytail than the same number of fine hairs. But does it really matter? I mean, ponytail circumference is a useful tool especially at shorter lengths when you're wondering why a i-thickness can make amazing intricate buns and a iii-thickness can't when they're both at the same length. But beyond that...? I guess I'm missing the point.

I always measure with my dry hair fully combed out and tightly compacted into the smallest possible ponytail for exactly that reason. Circumference of the compacted hair tells you a lot about how much hair you'll need to accomplish various styles, but very little about how voluminous the hair looks when loose. My DH's 3a/3b hair looks immense when combed out during detangling, but his pony circumference is actually a ii. If he wanted to do buns, he could do them at much shorter lengths than I because of that.

CurlyMopTop
May 16th, 2012, 07:11 AM
I kind of giggled when I read the op's post (no disrespect intended). I measured my pony only after drying in a bun (or braid). That is as straight as it gets for me. I believe that's how most curly's measure (otherwise you're just measuring air). I measure length damp stretched, otherwise I can't get an accurate growth measurement. When it comes to body markers, I measure by where my hair lays after bunning or braiding because that's how I wear my hair the most. I don't feel that I get any extra benefit from measuring this way, nor do I loose anything. I know how long and how thick my hair is and that's all that matters. I don't care if anyone else can see it or knows it. All hairtypes are beautiful to me! I came to the LHC for inspiration, advice, and support.....and I've found it. :D

torrilin
May 16th, 2012, 07:39 AM
It makes me think of when I go shopping with friends. There will always be the inevitable and completely ridiculous "You're not fat!" moment. Well actually ladies, yes, I am. Very in fact! And no, it isn't a bad thing. I'm not "selling myself short" by self-identifying as fat, either. It's a positive acceptance of what I'm working with. :)

My mom is very fat. When I go shopping with her, very often salespeople will ignore her and talk to me. While I'm not skinny or even particularly small, I look like a fairly normal size. The part I find annoying is they do this quite often even when we're in a store like Lane Bryant.

This kind of bigotry makes me pretty furious. My sister reports the same thing. So when we catch stores doing it (mom doesn't notice) we try to make her not go back to them. We push her to shop at stores where she gets taken seriously.

And yeah, I agree that reality is good. Mom is not ever going to be skinny. But she can look pretty and elegant when she's in clothes that suit her. And she's much happier in clothes where she doesn't feel like a stuffed sausage.

And on circumference I quite agree with you too. I *like* my 2.5-3" ponytail. My sister's is more like 4", and she has a hell of a time with updos. She prefers her hair short because the thickness means she'd need to be past waist to do the sorts of simple updos that make my hair tolerable at BSL.

Laur
May 16th, 2012, 07:59 AM
I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.:

I agree pretty strongly with this. My hair chameleons between straight ish and wavy and curly ish, depending on how I handle it. I could measure my hair when it's curly to make the number closer to a III (I have no idea if it actually would be a III or not, since I'm at about 2.5 inches and this in the smaller side of II) but that wouldn't be an accurate measure of my hair on a normal day. Most of the time I measure when my hair is dry, usually after its been up in a bun for a day or two. Being a II doesn't mean I'm lying, even if my hair "looks" thick. How my hair "looks" to others doesn't change how much hair is on my head. (how it looks or feels to me doesn't change it either. I feel rather like my hair is kinda thin. But measuring doesn't lie (much) and a II means I'm more in the middle).

There is no hierarchy to ponytail thickness. Hair is hair, and all of it can be lovely.

maria_asa
May 16th, 2012, 08:01 AM
[Warning: I may have misunderstood your point completely, but I want to state what came to my mind when I read your post. I do not wish to offend you, and I agree that curls can add more volume to a ponytail just because the hair is curly, but I don't think this should have an influence on how the straight haired people put in their circumference measurements. So, here we go...]
I can't help but feel that being "modest" about your thickness in the sense of "not showing how great you are" only makes sense if a thicker ponytail is considered better than a thinner ponytail. I cannot agree with that at all, although this sadly seems to be a trend on here as well as in the real world. I think the measurements are supposed to be accurate, so you know a little bit about the hair of a person who is seeking help, or so you can compare if their methods might work for you as well. I know the system has its flaws and can be inaccurate especially in the ii range, but if people start to "upgrade" their ponytail circumference it is going to be even more inaccurate.

Just my little :twocents:


I totally agree to that. And I also don't understand why people in a solid ii range tend to classify themselves as i/ii (seen that on more than one occasion), just because they feel it's so thin. That seems to be a bit unfair to those who really are in that category because it makes them feel they should use i then as they are thinner then those "false" i/ii types. Hair types aren't there to express your feelings, they are measurements, and the whole point of it is useless, if people categorize whatever they like. There are iii-types who feel like i. Well that's a personal problem for these people but has nothing to do with the actual measurement.

I hope I did not offend someone, but this is something that bothers me for quite some time now.

Totally agree with both

QMacrocarpa
May 16th, 2012, 08:14 AM
Hair types aren't there to express your feelings, they are measurements, and the whole point of it is useless, if people categorize whatever they like.

Agreed.

I don't understand the thickness codes with slashes (i/ii, ii/iii). They represent non-overlapping ranges, so it seems to me one is in one or another, not two.

unknown
May 16th, 2012, 08:28 AM
Thank you for posting this!

My hair is at 10 cm once dry/dead straight but it does look super thick and heavy. My hair curls a bit when it's wet, the circumference is then 14-15 cm. A friend of mine has curly iii hair, and once she straightens it, it will go down to a solid ii.

torrilin
May 16th, 2012, 08:38 AM
Agreed.

I don't understand the thickness codes with slashes (i/ii, ii/iii). They represent non-overlapping ranges, so it seems to me one is in one or another, not two.

Ah, no.

We actually use a double system. The simple version is just using i, ii and iii, with the cutoffs in the usual places. The complex version is more precise, so a i would be 1.5" and under, a i/ii is 1.5-2.5", a ii becomes 2.5-3.5", a ii/iii is 3.5 to 4.5 and a iii is 4.5 on up.

In either system, I'm a plain ii because my ponytail measures between 2.5 and 3". Some days it's closer to the lower number, other days it's closer to the higher one. If I'm giving a short answer on my thickness, I give 3" because this gives a more accurate picture of what my hair is like for styling purposes. My hair is kind of persnickety and it tends to take longer to properly fit in buns than for the ladies who are more in the i/ii range and might have ponytails ranging from 2-2.5".

To me the important bit is the styling information. If someone's a ii/iii and has more hair than me, I know her hair is not going to easily fit in a bun under a bicycle helmet... so while *I* can wear buns under my helmet, it's useless for me to tell her that. My hair's thinner and can be made to sit flatter to my head. And honestly, a lot of the time mine still doesn't sit close enough to my head to suit me!

Arya
May 16th, 2012, 08:50 AM
Agreed.

I don't understand the thickness codes with slashes (i/ii, ii/iii). They represent non-overlapping ranges, so it seems to me one is in one or another, not two.

I list myself as ii/iii because I'm usually about 3.8 inches, which is pretty close to iii. 2-4 inches is a pretty big range, and since I have fine hair, it sorts me into a subcategory that more accurately describes how my hair behaves. My hair is very slippery because it's straight, and very heavy because I have a LOT of fine hair. I have more difficulty keeping it attached to the back of my head than someone closer to the i/ii end of ii.

lapushka
May 16th, 2012, 08:51 AM
I don't understand the thickness codes with slashes (i/ii, ii/iii). They represent non-overlapping ranges, so it seems to me one is in one or another, not two.

I don't either. To me it's either you're a i, ii or iii. The numbers count, and it's pretty simple. There's no inbetween.

schweedie
May 16th, 2012, 08:58 AM
I don't understand the thickness codes with slashes (i/ii, ii/iii). They represent non-overlapping ranges, so it seems to me one is in one or another, not two.
I don't either. To me it's either you're a i, ii or iii. The numbers count, and it's pretty simple. There's no inbetween.
Technically that's true, of course. But like Arya said, 2-4" is a pretty wide range, and there's going to be a big difference between someone who 2.2" and someone who's 3.8", even though they're both ii's according to the simple system. If someone is asking for styling ideas I think it's good to know what side of i, ii or iii they are. It's just defining it more closely.

auburntressed
May 16th, 2012, 09:10 AM
I don't either. To me it's either you're a i, ii or iii. The numbers count, and it's pretty simple. There's no inbetween.
If you measure in at 3.8 sometimes and 4.2 at other times, I'd say that's a good argument for a ii/iii classification. I think it is common for measurements to vary slightly from day to day, so that seems pretty accurate to me.

PolarCathy
May 16th, 2012, 09:14 AM
I don't either. To me it's either you're a i, ii or iii. The numbers count, and it's pretty simple. There's no inbetween.

4" means 4 times (!) more hair than 2" in terms of total cross-sectional area. How can that be considered "the same"?

elbow chic
May 16th, 2012, 09:55 AM
There is nothing better or prettier about having thick hair, so I don't see why anyone should "upgrade" necessarily. Believe me, I'm solidly iii and my hair down is more "feral" than "regal."

I often envy the more ethereal look of people with thinner hair.

As to curl pattern influencing the typing, I can't see that it matters much when it's all compressed into a ponytail. Yes the curls sproing out to take up an impressive of space when they aren't confined, but in a ponytail... I can't think it makes enough difference to matter.

Charybdis
May 16th, 2012, 10:00 AM
There is nothing better or prettier about having thick hair, so I don't see why anyone should "upgrade" necessarily. Believe me, I'm solidly iii and my hair down is more "feral" than "regal."

:lol: I can relate to this. ;)

PixxieStix
May 16th, 2012, 10:24 AM
I too have a measured circumference of 3.8-3.9, some days a little more, some days a little less, but these are the most common measurements I get, and that my hunny gets for me too. I classify as ii/iii because my hair is on the thicker side, and I feel I'd get better advice from someone whose hair is 4.2'' in thickness than 2.2'' because that's a lot of difference in hair. I'm less than an inch away from APL and even with that inch have almost no hope of a cinnabun, whereas someone who is ii but at the 2.1'' scale can get several coils. I don't however feel that I can classify myself as iii just because nothing is given to me because of my straight hair, it compacts easily for measurement and that is what I'm supposed to measure. Curlies might have a little more air space because of their individual hair strand structure, but a ponytail gets it as compact as it can get, and that's close enough. I certainly wouldn't want them to subtract from their measurements because of some possible air space, and likewise don't feel I should add anything to mine. It is what it is. From a psychological standpoint I feel like a i/ii some days, but that has nothing to do with the reality of it. And like someone else said, no thickness better than another, they all have their pros and cons, measurements are about being accurate, not modest or non-modest. :)

Hollyfire3
May 16th, 2012, 11:39 AM
I would also like to point out that flat ironed hair is different than naturally straight hair, even straight hair flat ironed will most likely be thinner in circumfrance than if left alone because the iron compresses the hair further, making it look thinner and flatter and the ponytail smaller, so maybe flat ironing is not an accurate way to "really" measure curly hair because it will be scewed also?

Hollyfire3
May 16th, 2012, 11:42 AM
I too have a measured circumference of 3.8-3.9, some days a little more, some days a little less, but these are the most common measurements I get, and that my hunny gets for me too. I classify as ii/iii because my hair is on the thicker side, and I feel I'd get better advice from someone whose hair is 4.2'' in thickness than 2.2'' because that's a lot of difference in hair. I'm less than an inch away from APL and even with that inch have almost no hope of a cinnabun, whereas someone who is ii but at the 2.1'' scale can get several coils. I don't however feel that I can classify myself as iii just because nothing is given to me because of my straight hair, it compacts easily for measurement and that is what I'm supposed to measure. Curlies might have a little more air space because of their individual hair strand structure, but a ponytail gets it as compact as it can get, and that's close enough. I certainly wouldn't want them to subtract from their measurements because of some possible air space, and likewise don't feel I should add anything to mine. It is what it is. From a psychological standpoint I feel like a i/ii some days, but that has nothing to do with the reality of it. And like someone else said, no thickness better than another, they all have their pros and cons, measurements are about being accurate, not modest or non-modest. :)

Agreed, I think discrediting curlies because of assumed air space or extra thickness is wrong, if you get a compact, tight ponytail, even as a curly you measure it as is, that is the thickness. If you alter it straight with heat, the measurmeant will still be inaccurate.

Hollyfire3
May 16th, 2012, 11:44 AM
:lol: I can relate to this. ;)

So true! Sometimes I feel like a woods animal....my hair always looks so...messy and big!

spidermom
May 16th, 2012, 11:47 AM
I measure just under 4 most of the time (sometimes a little over), but I use iii for thickness because it looks and feels pretty darn thick, and I wouldn't want to make a ii feel bad, although technically I could use ii if I wanted. I don't like the hyphenated designations, either, which is why I round up to iii rather than put ii/iii.

QMacrocarpa
May 16th, 2012, 01:50 PM
If there are two different systems in use, then it all seems even more hopeless, and I'm not going to worry about it ever again! :D

Vanilla
May 16th, 2012, 02:00 PM
While I agree that straight hair tends to bundle together more compactly than curly hair, damp/wet hair measurements shouldn't be compared to those taken on dry hair. When hair is wet, it swells up, and its diameter increases an average of 14-16%. So the increases you're both seeing in circumference are likely due to this swelling rather than any change in curl pattern between the wet & dry states.

Thanks for the clarification luxe piggy :)

cooklaezo13
May 16th, 2012, 02:18 PM
I have hair that is slightly wavy, mostly straight. I really only have waves on the first 24 hours after washing, then my hair straightens out. Everyone comments that my hair is extremely thick. It looks and feels very thick, but my ponytail circumference is only 3.5 inches, so I don't know.

Hollyfire3
May 16th, 2012, 02:23 PM
I have hair that is slightly wavy, mostly straight. I really only have waves on the first 24 hours after washing, then my hair straightens out. Everyone comments that my hair is extremely thick. It looks and feels very thick, but my ponytail circumference is only 3.5 inches, so I don't know.

Maybe because its coarse it feels thicker? Or maybe other around you have thinner hair? Besides, 3.5 is pretty thick to begin with so maybe that's it?

auburntressed
May 16th, 2012, 02:23 PM
I have hair that is slightly wavy, mostly straight. I really only have waves on the first 24 hours after washing, then my hair straightens out. Everyone comments that my hair is extremely thick. It looks and feels very thick, but my ponytail circumference is only 3.5 inches, so I don't know.

I'd say that 3.5 IS very thick. You aren't likely to meet many people in real life with hair that thick. This is the Internet - and what's more, it is a message board specifically for hair. It is bound to attract extremes moreso than one encounters in day to day life. Part of why folks look up websites for things like long hair is not being able to find help elsewhere!

Silverbrumby
May 16th, 2012, 03:23 PM
Technically that's true, of course. But like Arya said, 2-4" is a pretty wide range, and there's going to be a big difference between someone who 2.2" and someone who's 3.8", even though they're both ii's according to the simple system. If someone is asking for styling ideas I think it's good to know what side of i, ii or iii they are. It's just defining it more closely.

I thought anyone over 3 inches was a iii??? Very confused.

lapushka
May 16th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I thought anyone over 3 inches was a iii??? Very confused.

i - thin (less than 2 inches/5 centimeters)
ii - normal (between 2-4 inches or 5-10 centimeters)
iii - thick (more than 4 inches/10 centimeters)

Source: Fia's hair typing system (http://homepage.mac.com/annsofie.henriksson/hairtyping/Personal27.html)

Silverbrumby
May 16th, 2012, 03:30 PM
i - thin (less than 2 inches/5 centimeters)
ii - normal (between 2-4 inches or 5-10 centimeters)
iii - thick (more than 4 inches/10 centimeters)

Source: Fia's hair typing system (http://homepage.mac.com/annsofie.henriksson/hairtyping/Personal27.html)

Thank you and wow!!! So all those iii I see here are over 4 inches. That's amazing but it makes sense. Their hair does look at least double mine. I'm at 2.7 at the moment. Prone to shedding so it varies.

Annibelle
May 16th, 2012, 06:14 PM
Even though my ponytail is exactly 3", it certainly looks much thinner... (not really in my LHC photos, but that's because I post only when my hair is looking its best, and on me, that's when it looks thicker-- it's different for different people, though.) But as I'm smack in the middle of ii, I definitely list myself as such. How will I get helpful advice for my hair if I'm not honest about what it's really like?

Lissandria
May 16th, 2012, 06:32 PM
For those who dont like the sitting on the fence thicknesses of i/ii or ii/iii- I can honestly say that I'm an i/ii and I feel that without this classification I would feel well, at a loss. :shrug:
My thickness is usually around 2" and other times it is a little under, and other times it is 2.25" . I definitely have more hair than an i measurement, but im definitely not a solid ii, although at times technically I would be an ii or an i I suppose. There is alot of difference betwixt my 2" and someone who is ii at 3" or 3.25" or 3.5" hence why I classify myself as an i/ii.
The ii classification is so broad which is why there are the in-between measurements- perhaps it would be better to post our ponytail circumferences in inches?

Silverbrumby
May 16th, 2012, 06:41 PM
For those who dont like the sitting on the fence thicknesses of i/ii or ii/iii- I can honestly say that I'm an i/ii and I feel that without this classification I would feel well, at a loss. :shrug:
My thickness is usually around 2" and other times it is a little under, and other times it is 2.25" . I definitely have more hair than an i measurement, but im definitely not a solid ii, although at times technically I would be an ii or an i I suppose. There is alot of difference betwixt my 2" and someone who is ii at 3" or 3.25" or 3.5" hence why I classify myself as an i/ii.
The ii classification is so broad which is why there are the in-between measurements- perhaps it would be better to post our ponytail circumferences in inches?

I must admit that if there was a redo on the categories I'd change them to this.

i - 1 to 2 inches
ii - 2 to 3 inches
iii - 3 to 4 inches
iiii - 4 to 5 inches

I see some gals with a pretty solid 3.75 ponytail and their hair looks so different to mine even though we both are in the ii category. I almost put i/ii so folks would know I'm a thin ii really compared to many others.

Just thinking out loud.

Annibelle
May 16th, 2012, 06:43 PM
One reason I think this is difficult to do is because we all have different head sizes. :o Sometimes, I see others with my thickness and it looks REAALLY thick on them. They probably just have smaller heads. And when I see someone whose hair appears no thicker than mine but she/he is a iii, that person could just have a bigger head.

But as there's really no simple way to measure hair thickness in proportion to head size... I think our system is just dandy. ;)

WaterMusic
May 16th, 2012, 07:17 PM
We have a few problems with the current typing system. Let's do a couple little thought experiments and some math to illustrate these issues. One problem, that was touched on earlier in the thread, is that we are measuring circumference, not area. So our categories are not based on the amount of hair, because the amount of hair is most likely refering to the cross-sectional area of the pony tail.

First, let's create a formula to turn circumference into area.
Area=3.14x(r)x(r)
Radius=C/(3.14x2)
Area=(CxC)/(4x3.14)

Now let's look at the difference in area between the upper and lower bounds of the ii category.

2" circumference:
Area=(2x2)/(4x3.14)
Area=0.32 square inches

4" circumference:
Area=(4x4)/(4x3.14)
Area=1.27 square inches

Now, there is obviously some rounding errors, but for the purposes of our thought experiment, let's say that the 4" circumference has roughly four times more area than the 2" circumference, as these numbers suggest.

Now, let's look at how that same 2" difference in circumference plays out at larger circumferences.

4" circumference:
Area=(4x4)/(4x3.14)
Area=1.27 square inches

6" circumference:
Area=(6x6)/(4x3.14)
Area=2.87 square inches

The larger circumference here is only 2.3 times larger. So now the same difference in circumference is translating into a smaller difference in area. Although the actual raw difference is similar, the ratio of the two areas is drastically difference from the earlier calculation. In terms of perception, we would perceive this as being a greater difference. Although I am open to people arguing with me about this. Opinions?

So it would seem that it would make sense to provide a chart of different cross-sectional areas, and divide up categories based on evenly spaced differences in area. However, it is really convenient for the average LHCer to just measure their pony tail circumference. So what would be the best solution?

Ideally, we would have a chart that was listed in circumference, but took into account the non-linear relationship with area. Do I think this is going to happen? No. But if we wanted to be accurate, this is what we should do.

Next problem. We assume that most people are ii, because that is the middle category, and that 3" is the average circumference, because that is the middle.

Is this true? Imagine, for the sake of our thought experiment, most people have hair that is 1.5" - 2.5" circumference. (Not saying this is true, but imagine). Suddenly we've got these skewed categories that make a lot of people with "normal" hair in the i range feel like their hair is really thin. When in fact it isn't.

How did these cut offs get developed? Were they arbitrarily selected? Did someone collect information on everyone's circumference and then centre the categories on the true average? What if they don't accurately capture the distribution of hair thicknesses?

Solution:

Have someone do a large survey of all LHC members, asking for their pony tail circumference. Convert all of these numbers into area, and find the average. Centre the middle category on this average. Divide up the range of areas into even quantiles. Re-calculate those averages back into circumferences, and provide a chart. For the nerds, provide a distribution graph and info on standard deviation, median, etc. Voila!

This is never going to happen, because there is no way that everyone is going to switch to a new system, but if I was starting from scratch, this is what I would do. Thank you all for indulging my little thought experiment.

ETA: This isn't even touching on stuff like different head sizes, different strand thicknesses, different textures and compressability, different strand densities... This stuff is complicated.

pepperminttea
May 16th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Solution:

Have someone do a large survey of all LHC members, asking for their pony tail circumference. [...]

This is never going to happen

Post polls and they will come. ;)

PixxieStix
May 16th, 2012, 07:36 PM
Post polls and they will come. ;)

I'm pretty sure there is a poll already....

WaterMusic
May 16th, 2012, 09:13 PM
There are polls, but not with enough specificity. I would want to do it in centimetres, because yay metric system, and I don't think you can have enough poll options for the full range of values. To be really accurate, you can't have wide ranges.

Plus, getting the information is the easy part. It's getting everyone to adopt the new system that would be impossible.

Silverbrumby
May 16th, 2012, 09:20 PM
Have someone do a large survey of all LHC members, asking for their pony tail circumference. Convert all of these numbers into area, and find the average. Centre the middle category on this average. Divide up the range of areas into even quantiles. Re-calculate those averages back into circumferences, and provide a chart. For the nerds, provide a distribution graph and info on standard deviation, median, etc. Voila!

This is never going to happen, because there is no way that everyone is going to switch to a new system, but if I was starting from scratch, this is what I would do. Thank you all for indulging my little thought experiment.

ETA: This isn't even touching on stuff like different head sizes, different strand thicknesses, different textures and compressability, different strand densities... This stuff is complicated.[/QUOTE]

Wow... My brain just expanded lol. I must admit I'm still thinking I might list myself as a i/ii instead of ii for some of the reasons you just mentioned. When people see my hair at say 2.6 and compare it for a 3.6 we do seem to be in two very different categories. But when I compare my 2.6 to say a 2 then they might say I don't belong there.

I would prefer a i = 1 to 2 inches, ii = 2 to 3 inches and iii = 3 inches to 4 inches, iiii 4 inches up. I know we have some 5 inch people here.

One of the reasons I like the fine and thin thread is I get to see more gals who have my type of hair. Maybe that is the answer lol.

Thanks for all the math.

Faux
May 16th, 2012, 09:21 PM
Mine is just over 3" around in a ponytail and while its not super thick, I definitely have volume. I'm really happy with the thickness of my hair and I just reached 21". I love it this long!

lacefrost
May 16th, 2012, 10:46 PM
Yeah, I only ever measure pony circumference when my hair is straight for that reason. I want the real number. However disappointing it might be. Hah.

Same. Otherwise I'd have a pony circ of like 9 or 10.

lacefrost
May 16th, 2012, 10:50 PM
I would prefer a i = 1 to 2 inches, ii = 2 to 3 inches and iii = 3 inches to 4 inches, iiii 4 inches up. I know we have some 5 inch people here.


Oo! This too. I wish we could even go into v and vi. I mean if we had i-iv, we may as well include those super lucky v and vi ladies.

Servana
May 17th, 2012, 01:50 AM
I definitely think there should be an iiii! My ponytail is just over 6 inches, quite straight. I'm glad it's straight, because it's hard to manage the thickness. I wouldn't want to be a v or a vi!

C.H.
May 17th, 2012, 05:08 AM
Yeah, but I think an average of LHC members would give skewed results. As others have pointed out, a hair forum like ours is bound to attract extremes. I suspect there is a greater proportion of people here with seriously thick hair than one is likely to encounter in everyday life. I know since coming to LHC, I have come to consider my hair thin compared to other members, though no one I've met in real life has ever even hinted at such a thing. Also, since joining LHC I always check out circumference when I see a woman out in public with her hair in a pony tale, and it's rare that I spot the kind of thickness that seems common among members here.

On top of this, you have to consider that average thickness probably varies from one country/region to another and we have members from many different countries here. Complicated!

Venefica
May 17th, 2012, 05:46 AM
Omg, this is so what I was thinking every time that I measure. When dry (and straight) right after I wash, I measure 3.5 inches ponytail circumference every time. If my hair is wet, I measure 4.2 inches, and I almost always have more of a wave when wet.

Venefica, so should I be upgraded to a iii thickness then? What do you think?

Yes I think that would clearly make you a iii. I also think your hair is very pretty.

Venefica
May 17th, 2012, 05:49 AM
While I agree that straight hair tends to bundle together more compactly than curly hair, damp/wet hair measurements shouldn't be compared to those taken on dry hair. When hair is wet, it swells up, and its diameter increases an average of 14-16%. So the increases you're both seeing in circumference are likely due to this swelling rather than any change in curl pattern between the wet & dry states.

It should be mentioned that I also see an increase when I have braid waves which do give a little bit of wave to my hair.

Arya
May 17th, 2012, 07:22 AM
I thought anyone over 3 inches was a iii??? Very confused.


I'd say that 3.5 IS very thick. You aren't likely to meet many people in real life with hair that thick. This is the Internet - and what's more, it is a message board specifically for hair. It is bound to attract extremes moreso than one encounters in day to day life. Part of why folks look up websites for things like long hair is not being able to find help elsewhere!

Not necessarily. Mine clocks in as 3.8, but it doesn't look thick at all, because it's so fine. I've never had anyone look at my hair and say "wow it's so thick!". And boy, compared to my First Nations and Mayan friends, I'm practically bald.

constructamane
May 17th, 2012, 07:29 AM
I am so nervous about this, that I WILL NOT measure at all until I feel I have maxed out EVERYTHING I can do to create volume. I have fine hair, and I do not want to know if it is < 2inches!!

88Marisa
May 17th, 2012, 11:55 AM
I disagree that curly hairs should try to max out their pony circumference when taking measurements. I always brush my hair out and put it into a tight ponytail when measuring so that I get an accurate number. My hair clocks in regularly right around 3" and while some part of me wishes it was thicker, because I have a big head and relatively fine strands, I know that really thick hair can be a pain and I don't really need extra volume as my hair can easily be coaxed into big hair thanks to my texture. Even though one of my goals is to have a thick braid, I know how to "fake" it into looking thicker and on the plus side, I don't have to deal with the extra weight a truly thick braid would represent.

I'm more interested in what a slight increase in volume represents for me, in other words, am I shedding less? Fewer baby hairs? I care more about those things which have an impact on how my hair looks grown out than in gaining another .1 inch in my ponytail.

Also, I've known people with really thick hair and I didn't always think it looked that great. One girl I knew could pretty much ONLY wear her hair in a long braid because there's was no way she could rock a short haircut with that much hair and she couldn't put it in a bun either because it was simply too thick. I think a lot of people have "grass is greener" syndrome when it comes to thickness. Rock what you got! There are pluses and minuses to every thickness.

Silverbrumby
May 17th, 2012, 12:11 PM
Not necessarily. Mine clocks in as 3.8, but it doesn't look thick at all, because it's so fine. I've never had anyone look at my hair and say "wow it's so thick!". And boy, compared to my First Nations and Mayan friends, I'm practically bald.

Interesting, my son who has just turned 13 has shoulder length hair which is 3.2 and his hair looks so thick. It's got wave, curl and very course like his dad.

Vanilla
May 17th, 2012, 01:24 PM
Yes I think that would clearly make you a iii. I also think your hair is very pretty.

Thank you :). I appreciate it :)

constructamane
May 18th, 2012, 07:08 AM
I kind of agree with Omacrocarpa and Lissandria....These measurements, I feel, are suppose to be guideposts, and they are changable and fluid, at their best. Wet, dry, damage, no damage, oiled etc. I think it can be used for the individual to gauge hair loss or gains, but you can't fool mother nature...at some point your genetics are going to be maxed out!

Thank God we are all not alike! We came from different places on the map....colder/warmer climates, and our genetic makeup followed its necessary path for survival.

What LHC has to offer is support for all hair types, to make them look, feel, and be healthier. I am going to be careful not to judge myself based on something I cannot change......my genetics. I just want to look my personal best with the help and support of LHC.

WaterMusic
May 18th, 2012, 10:13 AM
You know, I've been thinking a lot about this thread, and it occurred to me that it is almost a symptom of the way LHCers look at hair.

These classification systems that we have developed are to describe something, our hair, that exists in the real world. The classifications on their own mean nothing. However, we at the LHC are all so frantic to get to the next milestone, the next breakthrough, that we seem to take the numbers too seriously. The numbers reflect the hair, not the other way around. I mean, what does it matter if you start calling yourself a iii when your hair has a 3.7" circumference? Your hair hasn't changed in the slightest. If you want thicker hair, changing how you describe it will not make your hair thicker.

It is almost like someone who wants to lose weight saying that they are 10 pounds lighter than they are. I just don't get it. You still look the exact same, you are still dealing with the exact same body, why does describing it as 10 pounds lighter matter?

I just don't get why the default action is to change the number you tell other people, instead of trying to change the property that the number is supposed to reflect.

constructamane
May 20th, 2012, 06:58 AM
WaterMusic
Got it!

Silverbrumby
May 20th, 2012, 08:12 AM
You know, I've been thinking a lot about this thread, and it occurred to me that it is almost a symptom of the way LHCers look at hair.

These classification systems that we have developed are to describe something, our hair, that exists in the real world. The classifications on their own mean nothing. However, we at the LHC are all so frantic to get to the next milestone, the next breakthrough, that we seem to take the numbers too seriously. The numbers reflect the hair, not the other way around. I mean, what does it matter if you start calling yourself a iii when your hair has a 3.7" circumference? Your hair hasn't changed in the slightest. If you want thicker hair, changing how you describe it will not make your hair thicker.

It is almost like someone who wants to lose weight saying that they are 10 pounds lighter than they are. I just don't get it. You still look the exact same, you are still dealing with the exact same body, why does describing it as 10 pounds lighter matter?

I just don't get why the default action is to change the number you tell other people, instead of trying to change the property that the number is supposed to reflect.

For me the change would be welcome so that I don't see ii which are twice the thickness of mine. I know that doesn't change my hair but it helps. I'm at 2.7 right now and while I am a ii my hair really looks like a i/ii because of the fact is really tapers at shoulder.

It wouldn't change anything on my head but it would help me. It's like the size 4 gal complaining to me about weight issues. Sure, she might have them but at a good size 12 here I'd not want her in my size category on a web site for weight loss. That's kind of the reverse of this situation lol. Its 6am and I haven't had coffee.

Venefica
June 1st, 2012, 03:29 AM
The numbers do not really matter, they are measurements nothing more. However first of all many work hard on their hair and like to see those measurements change because they do represent a change in the hair quality. Another important thing is that what you do with the hair, what hair toys are recommended and so on might change depending on what category you are in, so for example someone might think they do not have enough hair to do a given hairstyle, when really they do. Mostly however the numbers are there for fun, nothing more, but I must admit I have more fun with getting as good numbers as possible, even if those numbers in an off themselves do not mean anything.

bunzfan
June 1st, 2012, 08:00 AM
I find this whole thread really interesting as a wavy when just air dried my pony measures 4.1 but the next day its 3.7 so thats why i have myself down as a ii/iii do you reckon thats about right?

Hollyfire3
June 1st, 2012, 08:28 AM
I find this whole thread really interesting as a wavy when just air dried my pony measures 4.1 but the next day its 3.7 so thats why i have myself down as a ii/iii do you reckon thats about right?

Yes, that is right. Just out of curiosity, does anyone get a higher measurment above the ponytail holder than below it? it might be just because I'm growing out heat damage and the non-damaged hair is much thicker? I get 4.25 pretty much all the time bunzfan, so I say I'm well enough a iii, so your categorizing for yourself sounds perfect! I think it is normal to measure less the days after washing as oil takes over.

bunzfan
June 1st, 2012, 08:39 AM
Yes, that is right. Just out of curiosity, does anyone get a higher measurment above the ponytail holder than below it? it might be just because I'm growing out heat damage and the non-damaged hair is much thicker? I get 4.25 pretty much all the time bunzfan, so I say I'm well enough a iii, so your categorizing for yourself sounds perfect! I think it is normal to measure less the days after washing as oil takes over.

Ah maybe one day i may get up to a iii when i joined 2 years ago next month i start out at a 3 inch pony and its gone up a lot so you never know ;)

Hollyfire3
June 1st, 2012, 08:50 AM
Ah maybe one day i may get up to a iii when i joined 2 years ago next month i start out at a 3 inch pony and its gone up a lot so you never know ;)

Thats the way to think! I still am in shock that my hair, which I thought was THIN is 4.25 in circumfrance....just, wow! Not that I don't like thin hair, I just prefer mine to be thick. The thickest is up by the roots of course, and i have past breakage taking thickness away from the lengths because of old heat damage, but I swear, it grows in any thicker, I'll want it thinned by HL...lol

pepperminttea
June 1st, 2012, 11:11 AM
many work hard on their hair and like to see those measurements change because they do represent a change in the hair quality.

Thin hair is not lower quality.

heidi w.
June 1st, 2012, 12:38 PM
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post a tad, but you can take curly hair and pull it straighter to measure. Curly hair mostly takes up space and can appear more thick than it is. Straight hair doesn't have that luxury of appearing like a lot of thickness. One either has it or doesn't.

The official way to measure hair length, is to measure from the forehead hairline, pull the measuring tape over the head and down the back the entire length. Then curly headed folks can pull the furls straight to get the full length measure.

Measuring wet, actually produces a bit of a false number, because hair, when it is wet, is fully expanded in diameter, and fully stretched in length. So you may get a tidbit of extra point for length, etc.

Measure hair when it's dry is he official way to measure hair, as explained above. Whatever the hair type texture.

heidi w.

heidi w.
June 1st, 2012, 12:42 PM
Thin hair is not lower quality.

All a measurement means is that increased hair growth has occurred or not. That's it. It doesn't say anything regarding hair quality; type of hair, nothing else. It's a measurement, like the measurement of one wall in your house. It says nothing else about hair. It's just a plain ole number.

heidi w.

jaine
June 1st, 2012, 01:12 PM
I have 2c or 3a hair depending on the day. My curls increase my volume when my hair is loose, but they don't increase my ponytail circumference. I don't have ANY empty air spaces inside the elastic.

I don't think that straight-haired people should add anything to their ponytail circumference measurement - that would make the measurement inaccurate.

If your hair fully compresses inside the elastic then you already have an accurate measurement.

If your hair doesn't fully compress (type 4 hair for example?) then you don't have an accurate circumference measurement.

lapushka
June 1st, 2012, 02:42 PM
If your hair fully compresses inside the elastic then you already have an accurate measurement.

This. ^^ Wavy or curly hair may look more voluminous, but inside of an elastic all hair is created equal.

julierockhead
June 1st, 2012, 05:35 PM
This thread is very interesting to read, I didn't really connect hair thickness to ability to do styles. D'oh! No wonder my hair is BSL and I still have trouble keeping it up with a stick.

prosperina
June 1st, 2012, 06:42 PM
I find this whole thread really interesting as a wavy when just air dried my pony measures 4.1 but the next day its 3.7 so thats why i have myself down as a ii/iii do you reckon thats about right?

This is about what I measure, so I put down ii/iii.

When I was taking bc continuously (no periods, so body thought it was pregnant) I had a 4.25 circumference, a good solid iii. So for the people who are just rounding up to iii or say there's no need for the ii/iii measurement, I disagree. The difference between 3.75 and 4.5 ( and remember iii is over four inches) feels substantial to me. I can now comfortably use a medium ficcare, whereas before I could not.

firegypsy
June 1st, 2012, 06:49 PM
I'm finding I range between 2 and 2.5 inches. So am I simply an ii?

Arya
June 2nd, 2012, 12:53 AM
wouldn't it just make more sense to do away with this classification and just write down our actual circumference?
This is about what I measure, so I put down ii/iii.

When I was taking bc continuously (no periods, so body thought it was pregnant) I had a 4.25 circumference, a good solid iii. So for the people who are just rounding up to iii or say there's no need for the ii/iii measurement, I disagree. The difference between 3.75 and 4.5 ( and remember iii is over four inches) feels substantial to me. I can now comfortably use a medium ficcare, whereas before I could not.

ohmygackt
June 2nd, 2012, 01:15 AM
My hair is annoying, when its dry right after a shower its in curly ringlets, and the circumference is 4 3/16" after i brush it out and take it down from being up for a long time, its only kinda wavy, and the circumference will be 4 2/8". -.- so I'm not sure which one to trust.

Silverbrumby
June 2nd, 2012, 01:46 AM
I now put down in my signature my actual measurements which are currently 2.7 after a recent shed.

Venefica
June 2nd, 2012, 10:06 AM
Yes, that is right. Just out of curiosity, does anyone get a higher measurment above the ponytail holder than below it? it might be just because I'm growing out heat damage and the non-damaged hair is much thicker? I get 4.25 pretty much all the time bunzfan, so I say I'm well enough a iii, so your categorizing for yourself sounds perfect! I think it is normal to measure less the days after washing as oil takes over.

I have a little thicker over the hair elastic then under, this I think is mostly due to me having allot of short name hairs, I have always had them, they make a M down my neck and they never grow long but they are long enough to barley join a ponytail. I am also growing out 1 cm of hair I had to cut due to a very, very bad tangle I got during a depressive period.

Now as for thin hair being bad quality, it can be, but basically thin hair do not mean the hair is damaged or unhealthy, it just mean not that many hairs have grown out of a person's scalp, or that the strands of hair themselves are very fine or both.


The official way to measure hair length, is to measure from the forehead hairline, pull the measuring tape over the head and down the back the entire length. Then curly headed folks can pull the furls straight to get the full length measure.

Off course you can do that if you are going to putt the hair straight and measure the length, but I was talking about what the hair look like and curly hair at waist might very well actually be classic.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post a tad, but you can take curly hair and pull it straighter to measure. Curly hair mostly takes up space and can appear more thick than it is. Straight hair doesn't have that luxury of appearing like a lot of thickness. One either has it or doesn't.

I at least when I have braid waves is not able to push that hair completely flat no matter what I do, and I imagine that it would be harder for anyone with real curls. Try this with yarn, curly yearn will bulge more than straight yarn, off course this is an illusion, it do not change the number of hairs on your head, however curly hair do bulge more than straight hair.

pepperminttea
June 2nd, 2012, 11:41 AM
wouldn't it just make more sense to do away with this classification and just write down our actual circumference?

Agreed, I'd love if we could do that.

MinderMutsig
June 2nd, 2012, 03:44 PM
I don't either. To me it's either you're a i, ii or iii. The numbers count, and it's pretty simple. There's no inbetween. But there is. My hair measures around 4". Sometimes it's 3.something, sometimes it's 4.something. I also have a pretty substantial yearly shed pattern where I shed a lot in the spring and then gain a lot of thickness back during autumn/winter.

When I'm an ii for a couple of months I am at the higher range of ii and when I'm an iii I am at the lower range of iii so the ii/iii is the most accurate for me. The alternative is changing my classification every couple of months and I'm not doing that.

ETA: oh wait. I see that at some point I did change it to iii. Now I'll have to measure again to see if it still fits. Spring shed is in progress over here. :o

Raponsje
June 3rd, 2012, 01:55 AM
I agree with arya just putting your actual circumference would provide the most information.

Silverbrumby
June 3rd, 2012, 02:42 AM
2.70 here lol.

MinderMutsig
June 3rd, 2012, 04:27 AM
Agreed, I'd love if we could do that.
Just an FYI, if we had to put an actual number there I would leave that part of the classification blank. Mine changes too much during the course of a year. The lowest I've ever measured was after a spring shed when I measured 8 cm. The highest I've ever measured was during winter, right before my spring shed when I measured 13 cm. That's a huge difference! I'm not changing my classifiers that often and leaving one number all year round is just not representative of what my hair is really like.

pepperminttea
June 3rd, 2012, 06:57 AM
Just an FYI, if we had to put an actual number there I would leave that part of the classification blank. Mine changes too much during the course of a year. The lowest I've ever measured was after a spring shed when I measured 8 cm. The highest I've ever measured was during winter, right before my spring shed when I measured 13 cm. That's a huge difference! I'm not changing my classifiers that often and leaving one number all year round is just not representative of what my hair is really like.

If we could type it in rather than use a drop-down with fixed choices, you could put 8cm-13cm? :)

firegypsy
June 3rd, 2012, 08:10 AM
If we could type it in rather than use a drop-down with fixed choices, you could put 8cm-13cm? :)

that's what I was thinking. I'd just put 2-2.5 inches. :)