thatoldchestnut

Nicely done, doc.

Nicely done. Excellent change for a modest graft count

Wow, that's amazing. That must be some kind of record for total grafts no? All the best for the result though it seems H&W very rarely disappoint!

Agreed!

Looks pretty great and the guy very obviously has great density and probably an abundance of donor. He's 30, not 22. Yes, you could argue that he "didn't need" this work done but that rhetoric is pretty unpersuasive and very tiresome. If he's on meds, wouldn't research seem to indicate that he's likely to maintain this result and all of his native hair for a good many years to come? Anyway, not trying to stir the pot just for the sake of stirring it. It's something I'm having to consider myself.

Not going to comment on the approach of this particular surgery. All hair transplants are performed for "psychological reasons". There is nothing wrong with being bald, no matter how young you are. It might make you (more) unhappy, but it's no less natural. Being "more bald" doesn't somehow make you more deserving/in need of a transplant, it's elective cosmetic surgery. Nobody needs a hair transplant. I think the only case I've ever seen where one could argue the patient came close to "needing" one was a pro bono case Feriduni did on a child who'd suffered serious burns,

Agree with John tbh, you're 27 with relatively advanced hairloss. In all likelihood you're going to need future procedures and it'd be in your best interest to maximise your potential donor. I would probably give some serious thought to FUT/FIN. Just my opinion though, all the best with whatever you decide

Just curious, is this general advice or particularly aimed at this case? Because as much as someone may say the OP "didn't need" to do anything, don't you think that at 33 years old with mild frontal loss this result (assuming/hoping it's a good one! ) has every chance of standing the test of time? Provided it's supplemented by Fin/Min, ofc. Naturally, none of us has a crystal ball and it's no sure thing but I would think that these are the types of procedures that are more likely to last. Maybe I'm completely wrong about that, I don't claim to be an expert. I definitely balk at some of the surgeries that are done on here with 3-4k graft counts on people in their 20's and agree with your general sentiment but I would have thought this case was far more likely than average to last a good, long time? As an aside (and certainly by no means addressing what you said Home) there seems to be a curious logic applied by some forum members as far as what is appropriate and what is not. I frequently see people cheer results/procedures that use very significant amounts of donor where the patient has pronounced loss AND is unwilling/unable to take medication. No doubt these cases often provide dramatic transformations but surely they are every bit as crazy (if indeed they are crazy) as the younger patients (there are myriad other examples of odd judgement but i won't list them all for the sake of everyone's eyes!). Anyway I don't want to hijack this thread and perhaps this is a discussion best had elsewhere but there is so much confirmation bias on this site that it becomes extremely difficult to sift a grain of truth from it all.

Wow. Stunning stuff, no wonder buzzcut hasn't been posting!

Me too bud! Will probably be seeking one myself when i eventually take ze plunge

Very nice. Why not just specify the patient's actual age though?

To be honest I would think the scars are visible to most patrons of this forum but the casual observer, not so much.

Agree that the work is good but this hairline is not to my taste. Looks like a female hairline, it's too rounded imo. Temple closure is one thing but this looks a little daft in my opinion. Edit: May be that the hairstyle/natural angle of the hair is contributing significantly to this impression.

Exciting stuff - as others have noted this looks like it's headed for home run status! Kick back and enjoy

Definitely gives me faith, I have straight/fine hair myself and might like some hairline work done in the future but don't want it to look "off" since my native hair is pretty dense. Good to know that such results are at least possible! All the best.

File this one under: Holy crap! Absolutely stunning transformation. This basically looks like natural density. I'd be curious to know what the caliber/characteristics of your hair are? It looks straight and medium/fine but it's not easy for an amateur like myself to tell. Enjoy that mop, sir! (The good kind of mop) Edit: Hah, I see you went against the cries of the mob on here and went back to touch it up one last time Well I think we can safely say you've reached your goal now!

Looks superb man! What caliber was your hair out of interest? The density is some of the best I've ever seen from any result on this forum, regardless of FUT/FUE.

Sweet, not always a fan of Lorenzo's hairline aesthetics but that looks a belter Johnny!

Might just as well say nothing as say this. Having looked through the locally hosted hair restoration websites (and these only represent a fraction of the results posted online, I'm sure) there are definitely some distinctly underwhelming Rahal results, to be fair though, that's true of pretty much every doctor. None of them are batting 1.000. There are routinely (what i would deem) average results posted in the results from leading clinics section. Unless you experienced some sort of terrible protocol occurring or were horribly mistreated by the clinic after a poor result, I'm not really sure why you'd insinuate that a poor result in isolation would somehow mark Rahal out as a bad choice. This is not said in defence of Rahal because frankly that's none of my business but I'd be very curious to know what you experienced that was so bad. A result that didn't match your expectations or was poor (as you seem to be implying) isn't necessarily all that damning in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure this post is demonstrating what you explained (though it's possible i'm misunderstanding too haha!). That being : homogenisation of donor/recipient. Doesn't seem to be about preservation of donor, it's about advocating FUE megasessions that fulfil the aforementioned brief.

I think as noted numerous times, most people don't place as much stock in it as the person who worries about it incessantly. If your transformation was dramatic they almost certainly notice but likely don't feel the need to comment, or don't want to risk making you uncomfortable etc. As for the people who criticise, there is no shortage of bitterness when it comes to hair loss. One need only look at the forums (gladly, not this one) where someone with minor hairloss is openly mocked and belittled by those with a greater degree of loss, told not to worry and that they would be happy with their hair, as is. This seems not dissimilar, like a sort of covetousness exhibited through denial. Ultimately none of this matters imo, do it for yourself. If someone else gives you a compliment, great. If not, who cares? Self-perception is key. Great post Can't_Decide.

Is there a particular reason you aren't on meds? I would think that any surgeon who was remotely ethical would at least be given pause by the fact you're not taking meds, before considering transplanting an aggressive hairline.

Already looking fantastic Matt, huge difference from pre-op (duh ). Another 1500 would make it out of this world Congratulations, bud.

Fair enough, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant. Forgive me

Define "age-appropriate" as it pertains to hairlines. That's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot on this site and is essentially a euphemism for conservative, or a hairline with noticeable recession. It may be less common to see an older guy with a straight(ish) hairline but when I see one I don't think "damn, bet he wishes he had a more age-appropriate hairline". Granted, i'm sure that assessment is tinged with more than a hint of my own bias, but that phrase and the idea that only hairlines with a certain amount of recession are suitable for candidates past a particular age threshold irks me. Consider guys like Jeff Bridges (perhaps not the ideal example since Bridges does have the elusive "mature" hairline, but it's still distinctly straight and youthful given his age), Richard Gere, or George Clooney. Do you think their hair is somehow inappropriate? Or are they just lucky to have fantastic hair? In my view it's definitely the latter.