PrtScrn

Actually, the blurry focus makes it hard to discern anything. What sort of camera did you use in this day & age that made them that blurry? Dim light? On this general topic, I've had hairs pull out cleanly with little effort at 10 days post-op FUE, and the tiny bulb indicated that the actual papilla was probably OK (the part that will later regrow a new hair). Shock-loss has also been used to describe those hairs coming out easily while the productive base cells stay intact.

I'll resist replying to you again, but not because you've made any real points, having ignored the obvious photos of lossy donor areas twice now. A sure mark of someone who's inventing reality is simplistic one-line replies to detailed questions. Online you have the option of simply ignoring points, but they still exist. In person I'd keep asking you to look at those photos and explain what "EXACTLY" the same before & after means. Get real. I'm not going to spend big money knowing I'll potentially lose more hair than I'll gain in a cosmetically acceptable way. I think people are wise to proceed with caution unless their hair loss is so debilitating that nothing else could be worse.

That would be my next step if other avenues don't stop the loss. I can find no complaints about Dr. G. so far. Dr. F. has a number of 5-star reviews that look questionable, considering that results can take many months. He's only been in official business for about a year. Might be a good doctor but time is proof.

I'm a douche for siding with logic and evidence? I didn't expect that reaction! If you hadn't used the word "EXACTLY" I'd give you credibility. Those removed hairs took up volume which is now filled by nothing but air. Unless one applies a volumizing agent, the hair will inevitably look thinner or lay flatter in the donor region. It may be acceptable to some but can't look "exactly" the same, especially when close-cropped where the gaps have less to hide them. You have nothing to say about the photo links I posted. Why is that? It's obviously a lossy process. Even with the FUT (strip) method you risk compromising the hair direction or having a tight scalp, let alone a nasty scar if the healing isn't ideal or you shave your head later. The same concept applies to a forest of trees: http://www.teagasc.ie/forestry/images/before_after_thin.gif I think you're in a manic positive state about the potential of hair restoration and have decided to ignore the downsides. The industry milks that sort of thing, which is why I am reconsidering the whole concept.

Look at these clearings in the "forest." Even fully grown out that's got to be less dense. I am a critical thinker and can't be fooled with anecdotes. http://www.vinciscalppigmentation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/fue-scarring.jpg http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5243dccde4b08fd9e4fc92ef/t/54b935c4e4b06e38ad5dbdde/1421424091475/ http://www.hairtransplantnetwork.com/hair_transplant_photos/Dr_Rahal/hair-transplantation-photo-impo-donor-172682_1.jpg (2617 donor sites, similar to yours)

I find "EXACTLY" to be illogical. I've seen photos of FUE voids and scars. Unless hair magically takes up no space there has to be some density loss. There are about 90k-140k hairs on the typical human head, depending on color and ethnicity. You had maybe 3% of them removed from a significantly smaller area than the whole scalp, making it a larger percentage loss relative to the donor area. If you have before/after photos, let's see them.

I had a limited consultation with Fallon and found him personable and apparently competent, but somehow a little hasty to pluck and tuck. Just a bit on the slick side but not in an untrustworthy way. He may undercut Gabel by 10%-20% depending on the procedure. I called Gabel's office and talked to a vivacious woman who seemed genuinely enthused about the practice but also a bit of an over-talker. I know he has a good rep. but there always seems to be a sales component. Gabel himself seems hard to reach on purpose or just overly busy. It makes me wonder how many of these decisions are based on fleeting impulses with visions of hot females running their fingers through your fuller head of hair? After that, I did more research and decided to postpone the whole thing. I keep coming back to the fact that it's a lossy process where you don't get something for nothing. Guys who get 500+ hairs removed from their scalps and relocated elsewhere can't possibly not notice something different from the donor area, be it strip or FUE. Strip aka FUT makes me nervous that hairs might stick out randomly or create a flap in the scar zone. FUE makes me think my hair will be flattened in that location due to loss of bulk. I don't feel right about it but might change my mind later. I don't have serious enough loss to sweat over it now. I doubt most transplants turn out quite as advertised. Lack of easy recourse for disappointments seems unethical since these are life-altering procedures and come down to fine placements. Artistic skills seem like a must. I read about many guys needing repair work and not trusting the original doctor. If it was a mechanic you might do the same thing, but at least you know it can get fixed at whatever cost. With hair lost from one zone and put in another, I see too much potential for worsening the original look. A different mental outlook might just tell me it's part of nature. I'm not the sort who'd ever shave his head. Too much effort and it seems insecure in its own right. It takes a certain head shape to pull that off without looking weird. Hair still serves as a natural insulator, even if there's less of it! But I'm also considering Finasteride in the smallest effective dose. Minoxidil seems too labor intensive and messy.

Good luck with the outcome. I was going to quote some very true Tom Petty lyrics about waiting.

Taking one's own pre-op photos seems like a good defense against malpractice, though this industry is oddly unregulated. I think unsatisfied transplantees should at least get partial if not full refunds. This is major stuff. A common issue seems to be that patients assume doctors aesthetically see the same thing they do, when "taste" may vary unexpectedly. I plan to have everything replicated on paper or screen first.

Part of me wants to give the new kid on the block a fair chance (while saving money) though that might be a big gamble. I guess no doctor gets a reputation without a number of years passing and a few guinea pigs. This seems like a field where the skill difference could be stark. This forum seems to mainly acknowledge world famous ones who merit plane trips.I just wonder if time in practice matters as much as inborn artistic skill - and good techs, also. Does anyone know how long a HT doctor can last if they bungle X percent of cases? Would a mediocre one be history in just a few years? I might wait on my procedure to see if my temple thinning stabilizes, and spend that time researching off and on.

It looks like the intent could have been to mimic naturally thinner hair in those zones. Did the doctor say something? If you keep your hair that short it might look abrupt but it might blend well with longer growth. Patience seems to be the key to these recoveries, though I don't know the science behind waiting "6 months" as is often suggested. Is that based on waiting out all possible follicle resting phases?

I've yet to have any transplants and this came to mind early on. I could see myself as an old man being very annoyed by unnatural coloration. Nature would have hair grafts taken from nearly the same place, but of course that's impossible in practice. The directional changes associated with strip scars also concern me. I'd worry about a tuft sticking out or a flap that can't be combed down. The whole concept is a battle against nature, really. I see hair transplantation as a painting that can never be made quite perfect, including shades of gray. If there's a mistake it's no simple matter to paint over it because you lose something elsewhere. A good surgeon has to have special instincts and the best ones must have innate drawing or painting talent.

True, no doubt, but the newer doc is less costly, at least for some procedures, and that's significant for me. I'm not getting a major enough procedure to warrant over $3k (ballpark). If anyone tried Fallon long enough ago to post conclusions, please do. I understand a year is adequate for some cases to see full results.

Gabel must not make significant mistakes, as he does have a solid rep. Fallon seems competent in consultation but it's hard to find a track record as the practice only began last July. Something about his demeanor seemed a little rushed but I don't have much to compare to and it could have been a busy day. I want someone who's all about the details. Another concern is that "techs" do most of the actual implanting. If a doctor is good and the techs aren't, it puts you at risk. I've yet to see reviews of techs by name and don't know how often they come and go.

I get your angst over the whole concept, though in my case it's just the upper forehead and (if my father is a good indicator) I may never reach the point where I'd need/want to shave my head. I am definitely not diving into any procedure after reading a lot of regret rants. This isn't something to do on a wave of positive hype, like falling for an expensive car sales pitch.