TonyStark83

Yeah, I heard crown transplants (which is the 3rd session of FUE I'm gonna do some weeks from now on) are slower. So what has happened in your own case? Was it finished during the 12th month?

I'm asking this because rom what I've been reading and from my own case it seems that 12 months is still too early to get the final result after a FUE. I've done in 2 sessions a FUE in 20 and 21 September of 2012, 12 months in the next 21 September. However, despite of having a giant amount of new hair my 2 previous receding entrances still don't have the same amount of hair as in the middle of my head. When I use my comb my hair looks perfect, even after getting some amount of wind in my hair. However, if I stir a lot my hair there's still many spots where it's obvious the hair still hasn't grown up. Many spots are erratic, big pieces of strong and tick new hair mixed with spots of thin and sparse new hair. But this is normal, right? I remember the doctors said to me, with 10 months of post-op, that I should wait to 12 or 14 months and that my hair's growth looked normal and stable. So isn't the "12 months deadline" a bit misleading in some cases? Or is my hair's growth just a bit slow? Regards.

So it's not that amusing the prices in that clinic are so crazy.

And by reading the UK press about the procedure it's obvious they have no clue at all how the FUE procedure works.

That's what I was thinking all the time. It must be something with crazy prices some doctors may practice. However, I've read some people who alleged that have done FUEs in that same clinic in London and say the real price of Rooney's FUE was somethign like 6K. 6K is a value that makes perfect sense to me.

Dude, how can 3000 grafts cost 30K?! From my HTs I got more grafts and no way it cost as much as that. It's insane.

Wayne Rooney was not bald enough to get procedures with he cost of 30K. He made that one and recently, I think last June, he has made a second procedure. I've made two procedures last years (20 and 21 of September) and this year I'm gonna get a 3rd one.

And thinking about that if it was true that it would happen or be noticeable to most people theb hair transplants should be redundant and a charade.

From this forum what I get to understand is that it only happens to some people. And my trichologyst said it's not gonna happen.

But from what I've been reading and hearing only a small percentage of people, even older than 60 and 70 years of age, suffer from thinning in the donor area.

He has made FUE. But how can he pay a lot more than the usual client who suffers from a similar level and gets the same results?

But do you think overall it makes a lot of difference to your own hair or the differences are just tiny?

How in the bloody hell has Wayne Rooney's FUE HT cost him 30K like it has been said on news?! Sometimes they say 10K... Yet that's surreal. I've read some people claiming it really was only 6K since they made FUEs on that same London clinic as well. Why and how 30K? How is this even possible? Or because he's a celebrity he gave extra money for publicity or something? Or are these just fabricated numbers made by the press? :confused:

Don't worry. I was just curious. It's good having that spirit.

Thanks for the response! Well, so I can't post anything outside of this forum? Even articles talking about HTs or hair loss? It's more difficult to show my point then. About this: so basically NW7 is quiet unusual... But isn't this debated amoung doctors? I mean, the doctor who made my FUE sessions and my trycologyst stated I have NW 5 but I can reach NW7, however they stated my donor area is excellent. So this made me extremely nervous and I was in panic. So I asked to my trycologyst if I can reach the NW7 pictures from the NW scale or if I can turn to be like the first man I've put in this topic in my first 2 pictures. The Trycologyst said hell no, he explained to me that my hair loss pattern already has been defined (I'm 30 years old) and it's not gonna change. And my pattern is nothing like NW7, it's more like NW5-6. I have a lot of hair in my donor area and my balding pattern is similar to the one from my own father which has a lot of hair in the donor area. So then I asked to the trycologyst if NW7 means having only this amount of hair (how can I put an omage in this forum?): http://www.greathairtransplants.com/images/norwood/norwood12.jpg He said no, that NW7 is just being totally bald. So it seems that the concept of NW7 varies from doctor to doctor, right? I have A LOT of hair in my fringe, sides and in my back hair, and my crown balding pattern is way smaller than the one which is displayed in the NW7 scale images. So basically NW6 is NW7 to many doctors and people?

Hahaha what?

Thanks very much for the response (and to the others as well). Then I guess I can be happy since the doctors who made the 2 sessions of FUE on me 10 months ago (I'm gonna do a 3rd session, the last one, in September or October) didn't extract any follicule from my fringe on the safe zone. And like I've suspected it's only fro some individuals and it's not the norm, that's pretty good. Thanks!

I knew that video was fake because it made no sense at all. Why being in that position while the doctor is inserting into his scalp grafts? And how can he feel that much pain? Who made that video forgot we get injections to not feel pain. By the way: how in the bloody hell has Wayne Rooney's FUE HT cost him 30K like it has been said on news?! Sometimes they say 10K... Yet that's surreal. I've read some people claiming it really was only 6K since they made FUEs on that same London clinic as well. Why 30K???

But what you've said is not the norm, right?

When I said most people I know I was precisely talking about 60 and 70 years old guys. I only know one person with non-thick hair and he's not my relative. At least my trycologyst says that doesn't happen. But don't forget that the article i posted in this topic is talking about permanent hair falling apart, not just getting fine.

So what are the others? NW6? I'm asking this because ti seems many doctors clla to all of them NW7s.

This is something I never really get. It seems it varies from person to person whenever I talk about hair loss. What exactly means Norwood 7? So how does this exactly work? Are all of them NW7? Shouldn't exist a NW8 level? The first man I've showed is totally bald and has a very small donor area and it seems like it should be a NW8 or something. That's what I really never get: in the NW scale NW7 means the side hair and the back hair areas need to be extremely small or is it irrelevant to the NW7 level and only refers to being totally bald? :confused::confused::confused:

I thought that transplanted hair would never thin at all... I thought it was permanent. But what you're saying is the rule or is just for a very small amount of cases? Most people I know have their back hair as thick as ever.

Attention: Matt was just giving hsi own opinion based on your pictures. Only a doctor after seeing you can say if your donor area is poor, average or good. I actually think it's good but it's just an opinion.

This is a question which has been bugging me a bit sometimes. Sometimes I read that transplanted hair can fall in the future. Just check this out: " Misconceptions One common misconception regarding hair transplants is also something that potential patients ought to know. Hair that is transplanted via grafts is not, as many people believe, necessarily permanent. Transplanted hair can, and often does, thin after the procedure. The transplanted hair, however, is generally more resistant to falling out and almost always remains much thicker than the individual's natural hair. " So is this true at all or just a myth? :confused::confused::confused: