TheEmperor

I dont know. . .Why dont you send your pics to H&W for a consult. You have alot of loss, but you may have good characteristics. im sure they can do something, but not sure if you would be happy with it.

I think you are (or will be) a great candidate for Hair Transplant. The reson I say this is because the pattern of your loss -- it looks like while there is a little loss in the crown, most of the hair is strong. Also, sine most of the hair in front is gone, you are far enough along that HT will not have negative effert on native hair. I would go to a clinic that can do mega sessions like H&W. I bet they coiuld dense pack the front with 3500-4000 grafts and give you a very full look. They might even sprinkle some in your crown. That would cost around 15K.

I dont know if its any different. There are still some "hype" products in the mix. Have you been following acell's use in HTs? Or all the adds for lasercomb which are "FDA approved" and litter many sites. And what about BHT? About a year ago, people were talking like FUE would replace strip, and then we find the yield is not so great. I think maybe YOU have changed, having followed things so long are now savvy to the industry, and now you are here at the only site to provide a proven cure. . hair transplants. The docs shapiro, H&W, feller, and others have now been doing mega sessions for the better part of a decade. The excitement is over. Session maximum size seems to have been reached, and survival rates are high. We have seen the home runs and realize that not everyone can get those results.

I think what is happening is that after month 6, the majority of grafts have sprouted, but there is continusous thickening. When hairs first come in, they are very fine, and they gradually thicken. It may take three fine/new hairs to equal one thick healthy hair, so do not underestmate the effect that thickening has. I believe the typical variation ocurs because the follicles heal at differnt rates. As they are established their hair get more significant. After 18 months, we do not expect to see any more imporovement. I think it may be more correct to say that 85-90% of growth is achieved by 12 months. From what I am seeing in myself, the changes after 12 months are not insignificant, probably more than 2%.

1. Pain 3 days post-op is not bad. You could sit through an exam; the problem will be sleeping in the week after the operation. You will feel run down due to lack of sleep and general discomfort. This may impact your test performance. 2) There is not good way to hide the artifacts of the HT. You will absolutely not want to advertise the scar! That will stand out in peoples mind's and be remembered. The scalp redness and roughness may persist for 4-5 months and you will look awkward, but that can be explained away as sunburn, acne, allergic reaction. The way the HT will be most obvious is if you have native hair (combover or other) that is shaved and/or shocked from the procedure. The best way to "hide" the HT, would be to clip your hair short 1-2 months before the procedure, and remove any top hair so that people get used to seeing you bald. You do not want any sudden changes to your appearance.

Its interesting, but wavy/curly hair is often touted as the best for HT. My hair is straight, and I would say I have about the same density, although a larger area was covered with 4500. However, all of my hair is growing the same direction and layers on top of one another, so that from the top, the majority is not se through, except the area of the part. His hair is cut kinda short and is growing every which way, which means it is going to be see through. I bet from the front and sides, it is a different story. Unfortunately, being young means guys have higher expectations. This guy looks like he needs 6-7K grafts to be "finished".

I disagree. To me, what is important, is how well your scar heals (and fades) with time. Then how short you can cut your hair to hide the ever fading scar. Fades? Lol, you havent had a HT.

I dont think a matchstick is a quarter inch. Maybe an eigth of an inch. Now I'm looking at a ruler and Im not sure if it is an eith of an inch. . .I really need to figure out a way to acurately measure it. The point is that it doesnt matter how "wide" the scar is in an absolute sense. What is more important is how short you can cut your hair without seeing the scar.

Emperor, 4-5mm is very large for a surgical scar! Are you sure? No, Im not sure. It looks the width of a matchstick. I cant figure out a good way to measure it while holding a mirror in my hand so I can see the side/back.

There is no significant hair growing in my tricho scar which is proably 4-5mm. It may work for some, it didnt work for me. They did explain the variable nature of scars, but I was led to believe a high % are pencil thin. Going in, I would EXPECT a visible scar and be pleasantly surprised if you done get one. I guess the really shitty cases are where the scar stretches WIDE. There is alwasy a chance, even from the best. What is unknown are the actual percentages.

The reason I called it an ethical strip clinic was because they did not promise that the scar would be pencil thin and mentioned that a wider scar is possible. I knew it was a possibility. There is evidence that he cna get pencil thin scars with tricho, I'm just not one of them. I suspect the occurence of pencil thin is less than many patients believe. Rassman said scars typically 3-4mm. I havent measured mine, but it is the width of a mtachstick. What is that 4mm? Is that good? It sounds small, but with my hair it cant be hidden unless hair is 1" or longer. I guess we shouldnt be preoccupied on actual dimensions of scar, but how long a patient needs to wear his hari to hide it. I am going to go out on a limb and say that any patient with fine hair is going to lose the ability to use clippers with strip. His scar might be 3-4mm, but that will be visible thru fine hair.

I did my research and went to an ethical strip clinic doing tricho. The scar is worse than i had hoped and is about the width of a matchstick through the length. I have to keep the hair at 1" to cover it, so I can use clippers, that sucks, but its not a deal breaker. However, most of the transplanted hair grew I believe. Its not as thick as I would hope, but it is cosmetically significant and I am not bald. Glad I didnt go FUE. Armani had just stared doing batch FUE a year ago and it wasnt proven, so I went strip. If the alternative is being bald or having a scar that can be covered by hair, I choose the hair w/ scar. I think with strip, there is a chance the scar will be pencil thin, but I wouldnt bank on it. Maybe 50%.

The new James Bond is almost bald.

Its not a very deatiled cartoon, making him bald was probbly the only way they coiuld communicate that he's old. Reading too much into this.

Your rim hair seems pretty strong. If you keep up on the meds, you may be a candidate for HT in the future, but I think most people owuld advise you to wait until your late 20s. I know it sounds crazy, but shaving your head is always something to try. There are lots of nice, attractive women who want a cute (but bald) guy, and if you find one of them, the hairloss becomes less of an issue. A hair sytem is also an option for some people if it fits your lifestyle. Sean Connery's and The Shatt's hair are pretty amazing looking dont you think?

Close-up in the mirror, I started seeing some new fine hairs growing at 7 weeks. The majority didnt kick in until later, but a small % of the hairs started growing as early as week 7. The majority didnt not kick in until later, and it was even later that the whole HT was cosmetically significant.

I hear what you are saying, about the psychological benefits of HT for the young, but what Im talking about is establishing a youthful hairline that soon after becomes disconnected from the rim hair and looks comical at the age of 35. Even if ALL remaining follicles were used to reconnect and establish the sides, the patient coiuld look comically imbalanced, with a forward-placed (yet thin) wall of hair in front, strage thinness on the sides, and a completely bald crown. A skilful NW2 hairline might be appropriate but if they embark on a NW0-1, then the paitent could be screwed before he is 40.

I just wanted to throw this out there for young (30yo) guys considering HT who are already a NW5 or more. I made the move at age 40 as a NW5, and am questioning how to best proceed. If the sides recede downward over the next 20-30 years, I will need all the remaining grafts to keep everything looking ok. I have been contemplating covering the remaining crown and thickening the front, but there is no telling what the future will hold.

Seinfeld ran from 1989-1998. Jason Alexander, was 30 years old when the show started and was roughly 40 when it ended. I was watching an early episode and thinking "Jason Alexander has his temple points, and is a NW5, he would have been a good candidate for HT." If you see him now, 20 years later, he is a NW6 going on 7. Interesting to see how baldness progresses. Now I would say he is most certainly NOT a candidate for HT. The scary thing is there are alot of 30yo NW5s getting operations. If someone is a NW5 before the age of 40, should they get a HT?

With the number of grafts and the characteristcics of your hair, you should have an impressive result. The next 6 months are not going to be a picnic, but you will eventually emerge.

Having completed the 12 motnh wiating game, I can tell you that you will be very happy at the year mark. Your growth is already very good; much of the grwoth and thickening comes later, around month 10. Guys who have more hair to begin with usually have higher expectations.

Not everyone can use clippers. I got tricho and the scar is the width of a wooden matchstick the whole way around. Hair needs to be 1" or longer to hide it.

All of these guys had amazing characteristics, either extreme laxity or excellent hair calibre. Most of these guys were a "1" on the scale, and/or were able to get 7K sessions in one pass. If H&W are suggesting 3500 grafts, then that means his laxity is probably not great. And if his hair quality is a "6", then he is not a bobman, jotronic, or london lad in the making. I think what I did not realize, is the huge differnece in hair quality between individuals. A fine hair may be 1/3rd the density of a normal hair, and a normal hair may be 1/2 the density of a thick hair. People with fine or normal hair will NEVER get results like shuffle or Bobman. I am on the fence about my procedure, please read through the forums for my comments. I was not butchered, but had greater hopes for my result and my scar. If the scar ended up pencil thin, I would feel like returning for a 2nd or 3rd pass makes sense and I could have a good 2 or 3 pass result, but am all too aware that this is surgery with risks, and if the scar got worse I would be screwed.

Hi Tree Hugger, I was/am a NW5 that got 4500 grafts in a single session. I am 10 years older than you, so my loss was a bit slower and a bit less severe. I agree that you will need 7K grafts, but that will cover the front/some of the top, and connect to the sides. I still think your crown will be thin or almost non existant coverage with only 7K. With your degree of baldness, if you only get 3500 grafts, you will need another procedure. 3500 grafts is not that much. Heck, 4500 is not that much. Two procedures represents a long time of being in transition, downtime, scars healing, redness ,etc. Its not a walk in the park If you do it, I would caution to go very conservative with hairline. 3500 grafts and a NW2-3 hairline. Everyone scars differntly, and I lost the ability to lose clippers. My scar is noticeable and the hair needs to be at least an inch long to cover it, and it is still a bit noticeable. So you may gain hair on top, but if the buzzed down/tight look is important, you may very well lose that ability, and that is a step backwards, imo. Look through all the pics and see who is trimming the sides and back short after their HT. Very few people do it, some claim they can, I think the others wont even risk it. Given your age, degree of loss, and your life comfort and relationship status, and the way you clip your hair, I would caution against doing this. It really is not right for many people. You could get lucky with uncharacteristic density, a pencil thin scar, and halting the progression of baldness. But in the next 50 years, theres a pretty good chance the sides will retreat further and you may become a nw7. I dont know man. H&W are top notch, but I would have thought they turned you away.

If you add in the supposed poorer yield from larger sessions (or excess dissection), then the gains of higher graft counts may be even less. I am starting to form the opinion that the largest sessions may not always get greatest yield. (This from my own results.) I had 3x as many grafts as those patients and my results look no better. There was a bit more native hair in those patients, but not much more. I think what it really comes down to is that not everyone gets 100% yield. Those impressive results with 1500 grafts, had they gone to H&W, would have been "home runs" and turned out like Bobman or Shuffle. With differnt physiology their results could have turned out pathetic. I think the "X factor" is more prevalent than docs admit. Those pics are outliers and represent good hair quality and 100% yield.