giantanddwarf

Any updates here? Assuming she's a budding Konior/quasi-Konior, going with her now before her prices rise could be a good deal (I don't actually know her current prices). I doubt she does not at least have potential with Konior backing her. I have a consultation set up with her in the near future.

You think adding grafts to a 'too good' hairline is the solution? I could be wrong obviously and I think OP looks good as is, but I don't think that's a good idea. Generally friends don't make comments and the transplantee doesn't have the impression OP does if the result looks natural. I'm not saying it looks bad, I think it looks fine overall.

I see what you mean. The hairline should be more acute with more skin showing at the temples. I don't see anything that bad from the pics but in person I guess it could be different. I'm willing to bet you/other people just need to get used to it and that you're looking swell compared to pre-procedure - that'd be my overall two cents.

It's pretty well documented (anecdotally but nonetheless with the support of convincing before/after photos) on propeciahelp.com, a site for chronic PFS sufferers. You wouldn't find anyone there who doesn't believe that it's a possible side effect of fin. I believe it's what happened in my case because my skull felt smaller, I experienced bone density reduction elsewhere and I can't think of a more plausible explanation for why my scalp skin slid so easily over my skull, as opposed to before this most recent stint on fin, when I could hardly move it over the skull. Again though, obviously not everyone experiences similar side effects, so it's nothing to worry about for the vast majority of fin users.

Pretty sure I rooted out the cause. Reduced skull density from fin. Reduction in bone density is a common complaint among those who suffer from PFS, so this isn't me imagining things. My facial bone density is reduced too. Good news is it restored on previous occasions after quitting fin (looking back at pics, it had definitely reduced while I was on it). A few days ago, ~ a week after quitting fin, my T levels totally bottomed out. They are on the rise again though and fast, which is a huge relief. Clearly not everyone experiences these side effects (though I think reduction in bone density might be a bit more common than one thinks). But just something for fin users who think something is "just not right", as I did, to keep in mind.

I comb my hair from left to right and my left temple is weaker than my right temple. I have come to realize this is likely from traction loss. I usually comb it several times throughout the day and I've got to stop this. Americans (or Westerners maybe) tend to comb from left to right, patients are typically weaker in the left temple, and there's a decent possibility that traction loss from combing is the cause. Something for everyone who combs their hair a bunch to keep in mind.

Rug is a possibility. Be pretty easy to tell by doing some google investigations. Not sure of his "hair arc" though so I couldn't say.

I am going to buckle down and research this extensively. Would definitely prefer a topical remedy (that's better than Minox) to oral fin. 38/45 with satisfactory results in the study - not bad at all. Is it possible or will it ever be possible to make a fin shampoo? I am assuming it is not at the moment since I have not heard of it being in development or being discussed, while you would expect it to be owing to its much greater appeal/marketability than that of a non-shampoo remedy.

People are so cavalier about others "not needing" a transplant. Matters change or would change, of course, when it comes/came to their own hair. OP's hair does seem to have looked fine before. But he styles it backward, necessitating more coverage, and was also experiencing enough recession to where regardless of hairstyle, his thinning would probably show a bit. Nothing unusual about wanting to do something about it.

Yeah, I can see the difference. The photo quality of some of the "afters" is less than desirable though, and each set of photos was taken in different lighting. So it's hard to get a better sense of things. Do you have more photos? I do see a difference though.

Good thread. The expectation that men "tough it out" in the face of problems/disappointment, particularly when the interests of women are involved, is deeply ingrained. Progress has been/is being made on this front but it's hard to see things changing dramatically. Consequently, a man who wears a hair-system will potentially be at a disadvantage (if it becomes known) in the sexual marketplace. Just the way it is and the only thing to do is hope for big advancements in hair restoration (follicle cloning, genetically engineered hair follicles) that would offer an option to all hair loss sufferers. Or in the best case, a cure. I agree that she's flipping out too much though. Wearing a hair-system says one thing about the person who wears it: that they suffer from advanced MPB and they took advantage of the only solution that was available to them. Obviously absurd to infer anything sinister from it. And it's a shame she (from your description, at least) seems to have limited sympathy for him. Even if a hair system reduces a male's smv in a particular woman's eyes, she should still retain a degree of sympathy for him in what is a very difficult situation. As to the double-standard being reflected in the greater acceptability of women wearing makeup, I don't think makeup and hair-systems are comparable. Having one's attractiveness depend on makeup seems like less of a secret, less of an obfuscation, than wearing a hair-system. What women thought of toppik would make for a better comparison (toppik is quite comparable to makeup in my opinion). But the double-standard would still be present. A man's whose attractiveness depended to a siginficant degree on toppik would be viewed less favorably and have a greater reduction in smv than a comparably "done up" woman. I do think a decent portion of women would be accommodating though. As far as hair restoration being looked down upon, that's just so ridiculous. It's your own hair, it looks natural, it doesn't change the appearance of your donor area (which is not important to begin with), and it requires no special maintenance. And I love how so many people still call it "plugs", thinking they're clever or something. Memo to those people: you are a bunch of laughably ignorant douches.

Really? To me there's obvious right temple thinning and a less than full forelock. Can't see the left temple b/c of combover, but I would assume it was similar to the right temple, as is roughly the case, usually. In the shots from movies that intersperse the video, it doesn't look thin at all. But I would assume that's due to whatever hair products he had in while filming (or maybe he was just younger in some of them). He did have a great looking head of hair that for relevant purposes was "full". But NW zero or merely non-MPB "maturation"? Don't think so. In my opinion he was experiencing MPB then.

Below is a link to an interview conducted when he was 30. His hair looks thicker in the pic of him when he was 34 than it does in the interview, suggesting that he was either: 1. On fin or 2. Using a product in the 34 y/o pic. Regardless, to the trained eye it's still clear that he was thinning @ 34, even though it didn't matter because his hair characteristics were excellent. It's less detectable in the pic Spanker posted, but other pics do bear it out (while still looking thicker than him @ 30 in my opinion). Watch Entertainment Tonight: Flashback: 30-Year-Old James Spader and His Head Full of Hair Online | Hulu

It depends on facial, hair and scalp characteristics. That dude's hair is physically and aesthetically amenable to hair spray, gel, or whatever it is he uses to give his hair more vitality than it would have without the aid of products. Also his beard, at least in my opinion, helps quite a bit. One likely needs these kinds of advantages to pull off a recessed hairline if one's forehead is as prominent as his is.

I think it's an important distinction to keep in mind. By "visual turning point" I mean a point in one's hair loss progression after which the loss of a given number of hairs makes a noticeably greater aesthetic difference than it did before. Put differently, a significant increase in the slope of an aesthetic effect (y) vs. hairs lost (x) curve. So if you're all of a sudden looking frightfully thin in the frontal region, it may just be that you're passing a turning point, instead of experiencing accelerated loss. I am 6 months into fin and have been struggling to make sense of how much worse (to me at least) my hair has gotten over the past 2 months, considering the minimal shedding I have experienced over that time period. I believe this is the explanation and I'd be willing to bet fin users not grasping the distinction is a significant cause of "shed" anxiety.

I've been on fin for 6 months now and my temples are significantly thinned and slightly receded. My forelock probably has more volume and more robust hair than before, though it's hard to say for sure on either count. Ditto my crown. Certainly neither region (crown/forelock) has gotten worse. Maybe the forelock has receded ever so slightly but the other improvements would trump that. Two questions: 1. Does fin accelerate the loss of hair that were 'on the way out', maybe speeding it up by a cycle or two? and 2. Does fin work slower/faster on different parts of the scalp? Any thoughts/input would be appreciated.

Not properly taking care of crusting/scabbing is also a possibility. That's why I am going to go into the clinic for post-op care as many times as need be after getting my procedure. Not taking any risks.

A HT candidate's greatest fear is poor growth. This rarely happens but given the stakes, it's hard not to fret over. But the reasons for it are elusive. Far as I can see, 'physiology', poor post-op care and clinic error are proposed leading causes. My (admittedly lay) opinion is that clinics pull the 'physiology' card to protect their interests, knowing they either screwed it up or speculating that the patient executed post-op care instructions poorly, with no way to prove the latter and hence opting for the less "personal" explanation of 'physiology'. No satisfactory explanation has been put forth to explain what constitutes poor HT 'physiology', in my opinion evidence that it's BS. This leaves poor post-op care and clinic error. Assuming you don't buy the 'physiology' explanation, which of these predominates? Or is there another possible cause or set of causes? My lay suspicion is that hair follicles are extraordinarily temperamental and the margin for error when handling them outside the body is low :eek:.

Started using it several days ago. Prior to doing so I pretty reliably had a zit or two or three somewhere on my scalp, though luckily not in the front. Now they're all gone, which is really nice. I don't like how "sturdy" or "stubborn" it makes the hair though...to me it's difficult to manage/style now. Tradeoffs, I suppose. HT and it won't matter

Toppik should take care of that no problem. One thing to keep in mind though is that it's important to apply it very carefully to the front of the hairline, since it can collect on the scalp (as opposed to just on the hairs) and the color-contrast between your Toppik and your skin is relatively high.

To make a fully accurate evaluation, more detailed photos would be necessary. OP, when I responded initially, I did agree with you that it looked a little sparse, but I think in general it looks just fine. You have plenty of hair and a respectable frontal-region. Sounds like you have high expectations though and there's nothing wrong with that, provided it is possible to meet them (and it seems like it is possible). Also, echoing what I/others have said in this thread, Toppik will probably make you more than happy with what you've got for the time being.

Don't think you need the qualifier "at least". A well-crafted transplant hairline is for the most part and in many cases just as desirable as a natural hairline with the same number of hairs. There are obviously differences, but they are largely undetected or are irrelevant. And even if there's visible evidence of the scar or bald patches/spots from FUE, how the back of the head looks at the end of the day doesn't matter (I've seen horrible strip/FUE photos, so there are exceptions, but in the main it's true). HT does cost time and money, but if you get your confidence back, it's hard to consider those things true "costs" that weigh in the "was this worth it" calculus.

The two leftmost pics are 2003 and 2005, respectively. I really don't think even the best Fin + HT's scenario gives him the density he has today. Looks like he was at least a mid-level NW4 in 2003.

Seriously, someone explain the man's hair arc. Makes little sense to me. I think the Bieber hair was a wig to cover up a then-recent procedure. The faux-hawk pic, taken only a few months after the Bieber pic, makes his hair look extremely thin. A year after that and he's back to very nice looking density. Is he getting his follicles cloned? Benefitting from some other advanced technology? Something is afoot in the dude's hair loss arsenal. I wonder what.

Also how many grafts did you get? Pre-op photos?