Having a particularly short foreskin myself I have always been very much aware of how much foreskins vary between individuals. I have often wondered what the distribution of foreskin length over the whole male population is like (what percent with overhangs, what percent just covering, etc.). From this point of view it was a great discovery to find the coverage index http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm , which gives an scale to measure and compare. However the coverage index was developed for men restoring their foreskins, and it is rather too fine grained to record casual observations from dressing rooms, showers, nude beaches, etc. I suggest grouping further into half as many categories that are more easily observable to suggest what I think is the approximate distribution of foreskin length in the French population. CI1 to 3 : skin does not cover the glans at all : 12% CI4 to 5 : half the glans is exposed or more : 3% CI6 to 7 : most of the glans is covered, but still visible : 35% CI 8 to 9 : glans fully covered and/or with a slight overhang: 40% CI10 : long overhang : 10% The result is a sort of bell curve, though the left hand base is higher because a big majority of those in CI 1 to 3 would in fact be circumcised. One man in ten was the proportion claimed when I did military service, though in Paris, with its cosmopolitan population, you would see more completely exposed glans than this. Those in CI 4 and 5 may be partly circumcised, or just have a naturally short foreskin. Id say three quarters of men would have a foreskin that either just about covers the glans give or take a bit in length. How does this tally with other peoples estimations ? Has anyone seen any evidence of a clinical survey of foreskin length?