JayLDD

Mind bending result. Some top angles would be nice though.

I wouldn't say they're "top" surgeons, just fairly well known Turkish surgeons with large bodies of competent work at very cheap prices ($2-3000) for a procedure. Work that fares well compared to the average FUE surgeon worldwide, including the US despite the price.

That's not a cop out in any sense, as an example there are at three times that amount of Bisanga cases available for viewing online and coming in at a more regular basis, and ten times the amount of Erdogan and Lorenzo cases available to look, and again on a far more regular basis. The Farjo results are also typically smaller cases that don't have the wow effect some some utilising higher graft numbers are getting (not that that's a problem, but certainly there are others getting larger cosmetic improvements via FUE in single procedures that tend to stand out more). Over a hundred cases on this website when he's been around for over a decade in my opinion isn't a huge number. The majority of those results posted are quite conservative in regards to density, coverage and design in comparison to other doctors who post here regularly. That suits a certain type of patient without specific wants and possibilities, personally I prefer work of other surgeons. Again I'm not spending my days looking for Farjo results so its just an opinion, but I've seen a number of poor Farjo results including one on Youtube where the patient claimed not to have been compensated. Of course I don't know the details but for myself there are other surgeons I would recommend and prefer over Farjo for a myself and those in a similar situation from what I've seen. I'm not going to wildly endorse him just because you ask me too. I did change my post to mention that Farjo is worth considering, I'm not going further than that. I also didn't specifically criticise him to begin with, I simply omitted his name so I'm not sure what the problem is. If a surgeon requires moderators to back them up this strongly to what wasn't a clear criticism that's a look worse than if you said nothing at all in my opinion in regards to their reputation. I know the website is endorsing all of these surgeons, but I think its fair to have preferences among them, and recommend some over others based on research. It's not a be all and end all opinion, so don't take it as one.

Still considering the regulatory and economic issues the price doesn't seem too low just based on the numbers, its a similar price to others like Cinic, Acar, Demisroy etc. The average American salary is about $25 per hour, in Turkey its about $2. There's nothing suspicious going on here as to why procedures can be offered so cheap. The sample size problem you mention is a much more valid reason.

This isn't a defense of Aygin I don't know his work, but your analogy shows a lack of understanding of the underlying economics here. Wages and rent in Turkey are a tenth of what they are in New York for example, and on top of that from a regulatory perspective for FUE the surgeon doesn't have to be involved in extractions as in the US. All of a sudden providing a transplant at a tenth of the cost of a US surgeon is possible in USD terms, and they also don't have to deal with a significantly slowed procedure due to larger surgeon involvement and fatigue. To be honest I see better work from a lot of these budget Turkish FUE surgeons than the vast majority of US surgeons doing FUE. There's no magical secret sauce that Western surgeons have that cheaper Indian or Turkish options can't provide at a cheaper price. Not recommending anyone go to them and they should do their own research, but this has nothing to do with the analogy of selling a Ferrari for the price of a Ford. Its just basic economics. I don't think most US surgeons are overcharging necessarily, but they're influenced by their location in how cheaply they can provide adequate service and the price that consumers are willing to pay, and that makes them charge comparatively high globally. The fact is that a Turkish surgeon can provide equal service for substantially cheaper costs for economic reasons.

Visible improvement up until about month 10. It's less instantaneous past the 6 month mark but looking at my photos in retrospect it didn't look that great at that stage compared to now which is 12 months. That said, the small problem spots didn't get much better, but the hairs themselves improved in quality, probably a few doubles and tripples sprouted etc and a few stray grafts popped. I'd expect a sizeable improvement beyond 6 months, albeit a slower one.

I think he's certainly worth researching and consulting, but to be honest I don't see a lot of Farjo results posted to begin with, and those that are available typically smaller cases. On this and other related forums the magnitude of results from the Belgians in particular available to look at online is significantly larger. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've seen I don't think that's disputable, I personally wouldn't go with a surgeon who doesn't have viewable cases from patients and the clinic coming out non-stop.

"but I wouldn’t dream of hiring one of them until I’d met them and felt confident that they would deliver what they’d quoted for to a professional standard. " If they had the best credentials, experience and reputation of any plumber in the world (lol), it's going to have to be a pretty horrific interview for them not to get the job. Patients also have all the time in the world to research, for an interview candidate it's a much more rapid process. "Clearly you’re a belligerent guy with a single minded attitude and that’s fine but you shouldn’t assume that your view is any more correct than mine or anyone else’s. " One is more correct than the other, and yours is the kind of attitude that gets people suckered into marketing and butchered. You went to a very good clinic and I'm glad it worked out for you, but particularly in a marketing heavy industry looking to get people in the door a face to face consult means a hell of a lot less than extensive research into experiences of other patients. And hey, I'd rather be belligerent than a moron like yourself who hypocritically uses the term single minded to describe my critique of your approach by insulting me and pretending that we should agree to disagree when you clearly haven't. I also didn't say that there was nothing to be gained like you took completely out of context, I said for most situations they will not get anything more out of an in person consult than online consults and research that will aid in the decision making process. I agree the "masturbatory" comment was silly, but there are a lot of people on here who wait 3 years, have a procedure with a top surgeon and have things go very poorly in terms of growth. Thinking of Dutchie, KO etc. Most people end up opting for a touch up too, 12 months of research, 12 months of waiting for consults, 6 months for the procedure, waiting 6 months for growth and repeating for a touch up is a very long time waiting for something that isn't a sure bet regardless. It's a relevant concern. It may bring peace of mind, but its not going to improve probability of a good result.

OP had specific circumstances to consider because he's not on medication, but for most people there's nothing specifically that an in person consult ought to give you to alter the decision making process that you couldn't have researched online or done on an online consult. I've had multiple people actually message me regarding consults with prominent US surgeons listed on this forum saying that they got nothing out of them and asking if this is normal. These are top notch surgeons who have been on this forum long term as well with huge reputations. The truth is that the thousands of available results and patient experiences available online for many surgeons tell you a lot more about your needs and expectations than what a doctor or their patient advisers can offer, which of course in all cases is going to be biased to some degree. Good research doesn't rely on someones words but rather their results and historical conduct.

I understand the point, I've had a transplant and have experienced the feeling of looking virtually completely bald for a few months before I had enough coverage on top to give the illusion of a full head of hair, but this guy is virtually bald on top. The point that a comparison with direct post op pics would be nice, but realistically most aren't getting a transplant to buzz it down again. Patients don't have transplants as a model for you to judge results. Again look at the length and compare the sides to the top, this guy is virtually completely bald. I have post-buzz photos after a transplant with huge diffusion, a NW3A, looks nowhere near as bad as this. Miniaturised hair is still easily visible with a buzz even if grown out a bit it looks bad. This guy no longer even has visible miniaturised hairs on top. When people talk about someone being slick bald, this patient is the definition. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you. That said, Doctor Wesley please hire someone who knows what they're doing when you post these results photos and put them together, consistently graft numbers are mixed up (half on this result say 4080 the others 1839), this is happening in almost every post you make that graft numbers aren't correct. Also post-ops with grafts implanted would be nice, and use a DSLR in decent lighting. This is 2001 stuff. Typically very strong results, but why would people trust a clinic that can't get graft numbers consistent in the same freakin post almost every single time.

Get a better monitor or maybe glasses. Compare to the sides, this guy was a genuine baldite if there ever was one. That is nowhere near enough for the kind of coverage in the post-ops.

He's virtually slick bald on top pre-op, what in the world are you guys talking about.

He's using a punch size at more than double the diameter of what most FUE surgeons do. His results in the recipient are consistently top notch but I don't see how it's not totally reckless to opt for a surgeon without the same level of care for the donor.

Second procedure is end of the month, overall very happy but want a slightly less receeded hairline, the crown which was untouched needed work and on one side the density going back into the midscalp is lacking. Couldn't have achieved what I wanted in a single procedure.

Can you buy food at the hotel with euros or do they only take lira, if paid in cash?

PRP is proven to aid in healing but I've yet to see genuine evidence it does anything at all in preventing hairloss issues on its own, minox studies usually show it keeping you above baseline for around 2-3 years at which point loss will continue in a linear fashion, it doesn't stop the causal issue like finasteride. Nizoral is worthwhile as an adjunct treatment with fin but on its own is unlikely to help much. " from looking at your story you had the same reservations as me before starting finasteride - what was it ultimately that made you take the plunge and start treatment?" Consider also that I was 21 at the time, there was a while I still thought maybe it would stop at just a receded hairline, but at the point where there was clear diffusing throughout the whole scalp and a major thin patch in the crown (which filled in mostly after I got on fin) I realised I would genuinely be completely bald by the time I was 23 at the rate I was losing hair. I can tell you've not come to that realisation yet, but the fact is you will go completely bald, and when it hits you you're likely to do so I think you'll do a complete 180 on the drug like I did. The other thing that came to mind was that the scaremongers telling you to never try finasteride are all completely bald or going to lose their hair, while those on finasteride are likely to halt their hairloss issues for close to a decade in most cases. An army of unattractive, angry bald men afraid to deal with their problems, vs the people who took the plunge on a drug with a 2-5% chance of short term side effects, and a thousand or so globally with permanent issues out of millions of users. I took the plunge in part because quite frankly I think the former group are pathetic and didn't want to be that kind of person, and knew the latter was being more logical. Small chance of sides vs guarantee of going bald. Hmm. "Do you not have any fears yourself about the long term use of the drug?" No, because I haven't seen any viable evidence that they can occur through long term use of the drug if they didn't happen at all in the short term. There seem to be too many cases to ignore where people who have used the drug for years stop cold turkey for whatever reason and have major endoctrine system issues from doing getting off it after long term use, but I have no plans to ever get off it. Also again it's back to the issue I put forth above, in terms of probabilities I have reason to be far more scared of going bald (which is guaranteed if I get off fin) than I am of risking finasteride sides. On your issue of not trusting the medical system, I would just use brand name propecia. Personally I quarter 1mg propecia pills.

So you want hair like Jared Leto's, but aren't prepared to take a drug that costs under $100 a year for which only 2-5% have any experience with side effects? Your hair will almost definitely progress at least to a Norwood 5 level, a 1500 graft transplant isn't going to age well without finasteride. Typically if you go past a mildly receded mature hairline and have visible miniaturisation at the front you will lose everything on top. Honestly you have fairly extensive frontal balding, in my opinion anything under 2000 grafts is unrealistic unless you have extremely conservative expectations, which by the sounds of things you don't. So what should you do? If you're interested in maintaining healthy looking hair in the medium and long term, then finasteride is a must, and far more worthwhile than a transplant. In fact don't even consider a transplant if you're not prepared to get on finasteride. If you do get on the fina, realistically 1500 grafts for a hairline in front of a drastically thinning and receded forelock isn't going to do a whole lot, for coverage and density comparable to what you reference you're looking to at least 2500 grafts, and the Erdogan quote sounds more realistic. Keser does the best hairline work of any of the surgeons you mentioned in my opinion. Quite frankly the 1500 graft quoted from Bisanga seems downright idiotic considering you're not even on finasteride. You'd likely look worse by the time the transplant grew grew from further loss. For a believable hairline I think you would need to lower the centre very slightly at least. The traction issue would likely be the same as for regular hair, although its typically considered to be problematic in general and could lead to more hairloss issues. The required density and perfection in design to get away with a transplant man bun on top of the potential traction hairloss issue makes this goal unrealistic. But if there's one thing to take away, it's that you should reconsider your thoughts on medication. I think that when you lose your hairline completely and look five to ten years older as a man who is virtually bald in a few years you would regret not risking the very low chance of side effects.

I've looked at probably a thousand of his results and only seen two or three that have been solely on the crown, these are usually supplementary procedures after a first for the hairline with Erdogan. HTfanboy on Youtube is one. But the fact that they are hard to find and there are hundreds of Lorenzo crown specific results to look at in comparison is probably worth considering in itself.

Totally get what you're saying, but considering I booked a second procedure at ASMED about 4 months ago they will get done at the 12 month mark regardless in a professional setup. Deb1982, Hamburger and Yaz 's experiences were especially worthwhile.

Flick through Lorenzos Youtube page of crown results,those on his website and on here. It might be fair to say he's the best crown surgeon in the world, period. I do think Erdogan's crown work is underrated though and he gets good results out of low graft numbers.

I was the same in that from close to three months and onwards I found very stressful, but realistically those you're looking at who had good growth at around 3 months are outliers. It happens, but it isn't the norm and its easy but unrealistic to focus on the lucky ones who have early growth. Up until four months very little is conclusive. In my case I'd say there was clear movement about a week before the 4 month mark. But it didn't look good by any means. I felt in the clear at around the 6 month mark, but looking back on those photos it doesn't look too good at that point either, 8-9 was close to a final result with minor improvement trickling in from beyond that point. So don't worry AT ALL about growth until 4 months, and if it looks like shit right up to 7 months but at least has reasonable growth, that isn't a problem either.

You're lucky that despite your clear lack of research you still ended up with a top-end surgeon. For the vast majority at 2 months and 25 days they can expect absolutely no visible change. A substantial number have virtually no growth until late in the third month. Absolutely no worries four months if you have no cosmetic improvement.

I like your username

"My frontal area has no softness to it. Hair grafts are uniformly placed with 2's and 3's with not many 1's, " You've posted photos of your hairline and this is outright false. As in 100% a blatant lie. Maybe you don't understand exactly what that means, but considering in your own thread you said you were happy overall and then changed your mind back so drastically I think you're being willfully irrational. Your hairline clearly was not consistent 2s and 3s, this can't be made any more clear. Ever since Joe put out his video on microscopes a lot of thoughtless plebs making silly comments on this issue, thinking they're saying something smart. Just because you don't find it "soft" looking or soft regarding texture of the hairs in comparison to native hairline hairs doesn't necessarily have anything to do with multi hair grafts in the hairline. Feriduni, Freitas, Couto and Keser are undoubtably cream of the crop hairline surgeons; none of them use microscopes for FUE, none of them have issues with multis in the hairline. Neither does Erdogan quite frankly.

Do Brad Pitt and Clooney's juvenile hairlines (pretty sure Clooney's is a piece as chops and changes) look strange in their 50s? Reagan's? It's a thoughtless comment. There are risks in terms of progressive loss, but not in terms of it "looking weird" as you get older. Looks terrific today, and will in three decades. No one in the world is going to have an issue with or laugh at the seventy year old with the perfect hairline. Just think for three seconds about how silly the comment is. A significant proportion of the male population don't have any hereditary balding issues or ever reach a "mature" hairline, how can it not look natural when it is occurs in nature?