JayLDD

Because the reasoning behind the doctors response is a standardised system that applies generally to all patients, but CLEARLY IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE it doesn't make logical sense. They're a clinic with a one year + waiting list and a huge reputation, they're not going to back and forth through emails about it and will move onto the next patient. If understanding how a business operates in this sense, or thinking that lying about not taking finasteride without a history of hairloss in the family, no hairloss and virtually no other surgeon forcing you to take finasteride is somehow immoral or bad for you, then you're probably not cognitively equipped to have a transplant in the first place. The reaction is fair to make, but give it a second thought. Like I said, "just say it" is probably not an option when the clinic has a year + waiting list and no desire to cater to someone who isn't willing to give them an answer they like. I don't know exactly what OP wants to hear, if lying about something in THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT concerns you, then go to another surgeon. Don't understand the kneejerk reactions, think it through clearly and it becomes much simpler.

Care to explain what difference exactly that would make? He isn't going to take finasteride either way, a top-tier surgeon like Freitas won't operate solely due to this, but another likely will. So please, go ahead and bullshit your way through an explanation as to why it would be a problem. If you can't logically grasp why this is an instance where lying doesn't make a difference, you need your head checked. Spend less time looking for comments to criticise and more time thinking through what you're typing. Context clearly matters.

Already really impressive and its probably got at least another 2-3 months of solid improvements. Up to expectation for Konior. Also shows that people often overstate how difficult it is to achieve good crown coverage with a small amount of grafts, the difference between a top-tier surgeon in this regard and a mediocre one is immense.

There's no law against lying to your hair transplant doctor. If you don't have hairloss but want to change your hairline, finding that your doctor of choice won't operate unless you take finasteride just tell him you're taking finasteride. In saying that, do you have photos of what your hair looks like after the transplant with Keser? I mean Jesus Christ, you're way over-complicating things. Don't argue the point, say you'll take it and beyond that its your responsibility to do what you want. The logic is that he wants to maximise the appearance of his results and get patients who don't own thinking caps out of his clinic to avoid any patients with illogical expectations. Your outlook sounds reasonable, your response to their clinic however was very silly.

Really, really dumb post. There are many surgeons with eyesight problems, that is why they wear glasses and almost certainly utilize them or magnification gear used during the procedure with corrective lenses. This isn’t the year 1200. It looks like many of the multi hairs didn’t survive, but the overall hairline and density isn’t horrible by any means. Youre judging the density of a hair transplant by looking at his hair when buzzed to a zero guard. Yes, spoiler alert: transplanted hair from ANYONE looked at from a top angle and at a zero grade does not blend, have identical density or physically look the same as native hair. Hair transplants at a zero guard show flaws in full view, you making a judgement about it looking “very off” is idiotic and shows a lack of understanding about what hair transplants can actually achieve. My result after my first procedure didn’t look that much better at the same length but at a reasonable length had no density issues. When people talk about illusion of density, of course you’re not going to get that when the hair is basically shaved. Yes I believe OP deserved a touchup and probably yielded about 70%, but judging a hairline with zero length is laughable.

Not the correct way to think about it. The total area across both the donor and recipient will be smaller, however the grafts themselves aren't necessarily smaller. Assuming the grafts/hairs are the same size, you end up with a smaller amount of grafts covering a larger percentage of a recipient, as the recipient area is smaller. Obviously specific norwood for everyone is slightly different, graft quality, hair size etc all effect results, but there are definitely occasionally instances in which someone clearly has a smaller, often thinner head and the NW5 area is much smaller on average. Yes your total donor might be smaller, but that doesn't matter in the sense that virtually no one uses up their entire donor regardless, the main consideration is what can be achieved in a single procedure and how many grafts to cover the balding area, and a smaller head can often mean less grafts to achieve broader coverage.

In general European surgeons tend to be significantly more skilled at FUE, particularly larger FUE cases, but the appearance of that is definitely hugely accentuated by this.

"when we compare results from different doctors we do it by comparing similar cases where same amount of grafts cover same area size, dont we?" This is most certainly how people *should* analyse results, but you can't seriously believe that people do so if you've looked on a forum like this for any length of time. People gravitate towards crazier, more substantially cosmetic results by nature, typically not "how economically have these grafts been utilised to obtain a minimum coverage". On top of this, similar cases have to involve similar donor quality. "so the question is why a non-spanish guy with same hairloss pattern would get different result with same number of gratfs?" Because their hair texture may be completely different, and on average is completely different depending on racial characteristics. Not hard to understand. Specifically regarding the characteristics mentioned by Gas. In a significant amount of cases, particularly those involving Spanish patients with incredibly donor quality there is less emphasis by the doctor on maintaining a minimum coverage because there is less need, it also doesn't alter time constraints of extracting grafts so often the average hairline case will end up with 3k grafts regardless of the patient. That of course means incredible results for the average Couto or Freitas patient. " But honestly I dont see something special in the hair of those guys." If you don't see anything special among most Couto patients compared to surgeons in the US for example, you need to look at more cases and pay close attention to lighting, resolution, distance from camera etc, because you're clearly missing something. "posted has kinda similar hair to mine, a dark wavy hair." Darker, wavy hair, particularly of those like Spaniards tends to be much thicker than average among whites and wavy hair naturally gives good coverage. So when you say nothing special and specifically point to that video, is clearly means you're indeed missing something in your observations because his donor quality is well above average, even from a basic glance.

Right, lets look at my result then: The reality is there isn't a single person on the forum or on the planet with my previous hair situation who wouldn't be happy with these results. To add to that, Erdogan has and continues to have among the most impressive high norwood results on this and the international forum. Certainly the most impressive of FUE. You're obsessing over Couto purely off the basis of Youtube videos, I doubt you've seen a single patient posted result from him. You literally were praising an Erdogan result as "One of the best jobs I've ever seen." a few days ago. "Of course obtuse and uneducated guys like jayldd dont know hair while stuck with shitty transplants." You know as well as I do that this comment is false so why say it? I've had multiple transplants, I've seen multiple people with transplants in person including people who had previously been to American and Canadian clinics at ASMED and I've been on this forum for longer than you have and engaged more significantly. Same situation with Gas and same situation with Melvin who has been here for years and years. You've never had surgery, the current state of your hair is terrible and you're jerking over a surgeon who again, I am 99% sure you've never seen a patient posted result from. You refuse to understand that it is impossible to achieve natural density on the top of the head by taking from a donor with less hair than ever originally existed on top. Its the equivalent of a child believing in magic. I feel bad for you in a way because its clear your own hair situation is terrible and you're looking for a magic bullet so badly you've decided wizardry is a real thing. Wake up and stop acting like a child. "Dude youre overreaching and getting angry af. Its not that serious if youre wrong. Take a water break you need it" Proof you're deluded? I strongly recommend you read and reflect on this comment you wrote, specifically how hypocritical it is and the projection involved in case you're beyond figuring that out.

Its physically impossible to achieve. Simply put, how the fuck do you expect that the top of the head which is of similar size to the donor to achieve density at the same level that the the donor is to begin with? Its common sense. You may as well be believing in magic. At best most people can get 40%ish on average of original density across the entire NW5 area if they've lost it to begin with. Hasson is the surgeon I've seen that is closest to achieving natural density, but even his density is going to be significantly lower than what is natural, and even if it is possible to get close in the hairline it is an impossibility across the whole scalp. The entire premise of hair transplants is that you are able to extract from a donor without making a significant negative cosmetic impact while transferring to the front, only an idiot can look at that situation and not understand that there is an illusion going on in comparison to nature. Couto has many stunning results, but it should absolutely be considered that 95% of the results on his channel have incredible hair quality. Hugely above average. Even with 100% yields which many of his results appear to achieve they are significantly less dense than pre-hairloss. He's one of the best FUE surgeons in the world, but not a magician.

"pseudo wet hair" This is underestimated and not well considered enough. In Couto's case (and I'm not bashing him as a surgeon) there is a conscious decision to mislead. The damp hair in his cases will show virtually no more information than dry hair and they clearly aren't stupid enough to not understand this. 90% of even top surgeons do similar things but inexperienced noobs like Wally (which is the vast majority of those who haven't had transplants) can't understand this sort of thing.

I agree with Konior, also Nadimi who works at his clinic. I know you mention that HnW as using large graft numbers which is true, but Wong in particular is extremely impressive in terms of his ability to create coverage with a lesser amount of grafts. Their ability to extract a greater number of grafts than average via FUT and their success with high norwood cases also worth considering and they have ample to view, as well as very few cases with below par scarring. Hattingen in Europe another clinic that are very proficient with high norwood cases and often more conservative hairline design. In terms of clinics that achieve the best results with high norwood patients these are the three I'd consider most, all being FUT also. If you're particularly concerned with your donor in the long run FUT is the best option.

The size of her forehead is significantly smaller and more feminine, the temple areas which before appeared masculine and recessed are visibly filled in. The contours more symmetrical, in the before photo the forehead virtually looks like a mans that is being slowly eaten by hairloss and lacks the pristine quality of the after. The afters look like a models hairline. Yes perhaps if the hair was pulled right back to expose the entire hairline (some of it is CLEARLY already exposed regardless) you might get a more complete picture but that isn't how the hair naturally sits, you can still see the central hairline and the style looks normal. You also see the transplanted density at the part-line to compare behind in native areas. Long story short, this is a very strong result and if you can't see that from the photos you have poor aesthetic judgement. Sorry.

If you particularly like the work of Bisanga, I don't see how it makes sense to consider the Athens clinic when you could simply see Bisanga himself in Belgium, especially when cost isn't a large issue. The doctors are trained by Bisanga himself and likely highly skilled along with using very similar protocol, but again you're going to find much more specific information and before/afters etc on the Brussels clinic, so stick to that.

Look for yourself on the international forum where most of the results are, and where his reputation is still huge. I’ve had personal experience with the clinic and therefore did huge amounts of research, and continued to do so up until mid last year. A recent look at the international forum suggests the vast majority of his results are still at a very high standard. There are at least 30 from the last 12 months Rather than deny off the basis of a shock loss case where the poster is complaining after 4 months, take a look at *all* of his results from recently rather than finding a result where someone complained and jumping on the negative bandwagon. I have sympathy for and empathize with anyone that doesn’t receive the results they wanted, I also support touch ups or refunds for those that genuinely have issues. 4 months in and complaining about shock loss is not a realistic scenario for these sort of complaints. If at 8 months it is still very noticeable I’ll post on this thread that he ought to be fully refunded for the second procedure. stop ignoring statistics and focusing on a select few cases. He has more patient posted cases than any other doctor in the world. If you looked with a statistical mindset at virtually any other surgeon you’d conclude that apart from 18-6 months ago he is among the most consistent in the world, and for FUE megasessions he is one of the most successful.

Nonsense post by someone who doesn't understand how hair transplants work. The same you suggest here could be said of Rahal, Lorenzo, Hasson/Wong, Freitas and Feriduni, all of those are very high level surgeons that perform FUE, some of them at the very peak level. None of them perform extractions or implantations, so by time spent performing the surgery they also do "less than half the work". Yet no one makes this argument for these surgeons. The product he sells is one that anyone who chooses him knows they are receiving. If you have a problem with that, especially considering its industry standard you are thinking with bias and not rationality. I prefer surgeons that do the entire procedure themselves and use stick and place particularly for smaller hairline cases, but this is not one of them. The expense of surgeons that perform FUE extractions and implantations is typically drastically higher than those that do not, and the speed and amount of grafts they can do in a session is significantly lower. Do I think that people would likely get optimal going to a doctor like Konior that has full involvement? Yes I do, but he does significantly lower graft numbers in a session and is four times the price. You can look yourself on the International forum which has more cases than here, the vast majority of ASMED procedures are very positive at the moment and some of them outright spectacular. There are many surgeons performing FUE including extractions that get significantly worse results than ASMED and clinics like Hasson/Wong who also leave extractions and implantations to technicians.

The previous posts I responded were deleted and I explicitly posted it in reference to something the banned poster said, not your case. Of course I don't think posting a positive result has anything to do with your specific case, they were in reference to this other person saying Koray is a "scam" or not a top surgeon. However your specific case is at 4 months, shock loss often takes months improve, at 4 months to make a negative judgement is senseless. I understand that its an incredibly uncomfortable thing to have to deal with but you aren't at a point where you know whether or not the judgement is accurate. I doubt any of them said "6 months is the limit to understand the state of your donor" but that is a broad comment regardless. They're not claiming there will be no improvements, simply that before that point you can't make reasonable conclusions. If other doctors have told you 6 months, then why not wait it out? I'd be incredibly surprised if it hasn't drastically improved over your 4 month photos by 8 months.

These photos are terrible. You seem to have angled the hairs in all different directions which makes it hard to know what is going on. A distinction between native hairs and transplanted 6 months in is very typical. Especially when keeping the hair this short all flaws will show. Imo if you want it to look good you should grow it out until 10 months at least, at that point you’d be in a better position to keep it ultra short. if you want an accurate observation, brush the hair in the manner it naturally flows and take photos from straight angles that aren’t wide angle closeups. You want a natural representation of what someone around you would be looking at.

He wasn’t on fin i explicitly said that, it’s also not an “average“ result and you know it full well.

Personally I think this hairline is overly conservative. For small refined hairline work like this I would absolutely consider Nadimi in Chicago over Panine, the other posters mention of Pekiner is worth considering too along with Keser in Turkey. In terms of the binary you mentioned I would certainly choose ASMED.

I'll admit it when I cease being more impressed with the vast majority of his results than 90% of the other work I see on forums. On the International forum for example his reputation is still huge, and he is the most posted surgeon. There are probably more than 30 positive results you can see in the past 12 months. I think you should be sued for defamation if you're indeed HT014 and creating multitudes of accounts posing as different people.

I am fairly sure this guy is a poster called HT014 or something like that. He had a reasonable result from ASMED and went off the rails, he's created about 10 accounts from what I can tell and does this every time pretending it is multiple people. I don't know it for sure, but they have a specific way of writing and its the same thing every time. They did this only a few days ago with another account first time posting.

http://www.international-hairlossforum.com/ken13-5714-fue-koray-erdogan-asmed-2018-t8927.html I know we aren't meant to post other forums, but I think this is very relevant when you make claims like this. There are no FUE clinics other than Couto's that I have ever seen produce a result this impressive in a once off FUE. There are other surgeons who have preferable hairlines imo, Freitas, Konior and Keser for example although none of them are delivering huge FUE mega sessions like this. His clinic for large scale FUE cases is undeniably one of the best in the world. There are many, many other very successful cases on the International forum at the moment also that anyone who doubts ought to look at. You call it marketing, having more patient posted results than any other surgeon is absolutely not in any sense paid marketing. This case did not involve finasteride: The guy has incredible donor, but regardless 99% of people with great donor don't get results at this level. There are very few surgeons that could have achieved this.

For myself my donor improved even after the 12th month mark, although admittedly it was nowhere near as bad as OPs is currently. That among potentially at least a hundred donor shock loss cases I have seen have been similar, by 8 months you typically have a good idea of where it will end up and may have slight improvements, prior to that and at 4 months any judgement is just nonsense. I would be surprised if OPs hair doesn't look very good overall by 8 months. What I'm 100% sure of is that it will improve from here, hopefully to an extent that is satisfactory for OP. I'd have much bigger concerns if the recipient growth was poor, as at this point his only option going forward is likely FUT which will of course yield less with current depletion.