Haircut Help?

[nuranar]

I'm thinking about getting my hair cut pretty short (at least for me). Opinions?

This is my hair right now. It's probably as long as it's been in five or six years, since before I really tried to do vintage hairstyles.


No curling; just air-dried overnight.


Rag curlers, after letting it out and finger-combing. Length really isn't visible from the front.

But when I was organizing some of the pictures on my computer this week, I was struck by how cute my hair looked in some of them. These were from the summer/fall of 2010, and I think the shortest my hair has ever been. And I thought it looked really, really cute.








Whatever cut I have, it...
* Must be long enough to pull back off my ears.
* Doesn't have to be styled daily. (Like long side-swept bangs that need ironed every day.)
* Needs to frame my face and allow for height at the top/sides to balance my very square jaw.

My hair is mostly coarse, just wavy enough to be frizzy, fairly strong, and medium in thickness. It holds most curl well, except for heat now that it's so long.


Longer/ish Hair (bra strap or longer, minimal shaping)



Pros
* I like the feel of it on my back/arms.
* I like the pride (yes, pride) of knowing it's long.
* More visual impact (for others).
* Having the length for (occasional) experimentation, as at the Georgian picnic.
* Making a real bun with it.
* Long braids.

Cons
* It's too long to really style. It's been too long for hot rollers for a year; they only straighten it. Rag curls are okay, but when they work my hair doesn't look long anymore, and when they don't work it's just strange.
* It's not long enough to be awesome. My hair was 2" below my waist until I was a sophomore in college. If I'm going to have long hair, I want LONG hair.
* It's very hard to do vintage styles that aren't updos. And updos aren't the most flattering for me, besides making me look older.
* It's not necessary for historical hair, with the possible exception of blending into tall Georgian hair.
* Most of these days I'm just twisting it up, and that's not particularly interesting.


Shorter Hair (below shoulders in back, shaped to or above the shoulders in the front/sides)

(sewing picture, but it shows the length in back)

Pros
* More face framing/feels cuter
* Easier to curl, whether wet or heat
* Vintage hair
* Less to hide when using hairpieces for historical

Cons
* Loss of the "long hair" pride
* No real braids or buns
* No going back if I regret it. It's taken 2.5 years to get my hair back to where it is now.


Obviously I'm really leaning toward the shorter cut. I would get it in the same vintage-shape I have now, basically an elongated U with short sides, and very little layer.

But I'm willing to listen to arguments either way! What do you think? Cut it or keep growing?

Comments

[pearl_smithers]

Gosh--this is a tough one. I cut my hair drastically short this New Year's, and so far I don't regret it!

I think the question is if you can imagine yourself for the next year or so, getting up in the morning and braiding and coiling your hair up into a bun--or brushing and styling it so that it frames your face. Both styles above look cute on you--and I think either choice could work out.

If you're most concerned about it being low maintenance, then, depending on your hair texture, shorter is usually the way to go. But if you like playing around with styles, then longer's usually better, once it gets long enough you can dispense with hairpieces while reenacting, and do most 20th century vintage styles. (with the exception of really short '20s bobs)

[nuranar]

I'm glad you like your cut!

I've done the inching-shorter thing before; that's how it ended up at its "short" 2010 length. The thing is, it's harder to get a truly flattering look with the longer hair. It depends more on what my hair wants to do that day - and it can be very unpredictable and stubborn. Shorter hair just needs some curl and it's happy. I only wash about every 4 days, then curl once (either wet or heat), and enough curl/wave lasts until I wash again. So it really is pretty low maintenance.

I've had super-long hair for a long time, and I've done 1860s hair for over 15 years. I've almost always used an extra braid to make my bun bigger, and always used rats in the front. So length really isn't an issue there. And the more I look into it, the more I realize that *they* used tons of hairpieces to achieve fashionable styles. So I feel better about it. And it saves time, especially at costume events, when I'd rather be with my friends instead of curling or teasing or drying my hair for a couple of hours every day. ;)

Hey, do you know I found a period way to fake a 20s bob with long hair? It works really well!

[jordannamorgan]

You probably know I'm an extremely devout believer in Long Hair Pride. *g* (But then, I was subjected to Forcible Haircut Trauma as a child, so I'm not unbiased.)

Anyway, in your case, your hair looks good in all of the examples you posted. :)

(Why is my Aline MacMahon icon not one of the hundred I posted? Aline = most awesome hair ever...)

[nuranar]

Oh yes, I know where you're coming from! I once had one not-my-idea haircut, and it was after warnings when I was not keeping it brushed. Even then, it was only to mid-back and grew again quickly.

That said, *thank you* for the input. It's very reassuring, really.

(Gah, I know! If my face looked like hers it would be a different ballgame.)

[jordannamorgan]

The problem is that my hair seems to have never fully recovered from that incident. Excepting my bangs, it hasn't been touched by scissors ever since--but it utterly refuses grow any longer than it is now, just past my waist. (And that's aside from the problem of it being terribly thin.)