JayLDD

OP has had 1000 less grafts in a smaller area of the frontal third, and also had significant temple work, plus grafts in the crown. Realistically, I suspect OP would be in the same position with another 1000 grafts. How about actually make a realistic comparison instead of putting your conclusion first? People need to stop equating frontal third numbers in cases where there is temple work and those where their isn't. Tbh, OPs temples looked horrible prior to the surgery and significantly more recessed than 90% of patients, the temple result here is as good as you'll see anywhere and create a much more natural result than if they went untouched. Also actually make an effort to compare area sizes realistically. This is an area possibly less than half the size of Kraistoff's result, with MORE grafts than his entire frontal third, minus the temple points. Realistically, considering the state of Kraistoff's temples and thinning crown this wasn't an option. There are definitely some areas where it appears some grafts didn't grow as well in OPs case, however if you look at the graft placement I'd say minimum 85% grew. Behind the hairline the placement is thin, and had to be to achieve the overall coverage and hairline design, which imo was the better option. I think perhaps ASMED should offer a free touchup at some point, but I don't think they'd need to based on the growth here. No two procedures isn't optimal, but for 90% of patients aside from those like the guy above with very minor loss if you want to look like you have a full head of hair and no thinning, then for fuck sake be realistic and actually look at cases of people with similar loss. In saying this, there are clearly more than an optimal number of problem cases from ASMED over the last 12 months (like yours) but this isn't one of them.

"The tech's at H&W have massive experience; ASMED's simply don't." You flat out made this up. Ironically you also ignore that when HnW introduced FUE they went to Lorenzo and Erdogan to get a good understanding of how to perform it. They have performed the surgery for significantly less time in years, grafts and minutes than the vast majority of Erdogan's techs. If this isn't the case, then show legitimate evidence for once rather than making baseless statements. "I clearly wrote this is "almost" always the case and the surgeon should perform "most" of the work. You have proved nothing. H&W do perform most of the procedure themselves or at least present to make sure it doesn't mess up" They perform no more of the FUE surgery than Erdogan does at his clinic. This is an indisputable fact, but please explain EXACTLY what you mean by this and the SPECIFIC point where H/W is more involved? "I have had a 4600 graft HT with ASMED. The doctor was present for a matter of minutes." Again, childishly making things up. He performed the incisions on you, that takes close to an hour, and he spends at least 15-30 minutes discussing your goals and expectations, the hairline etc which he goes over twice, once prior to shaving and once after, and looks over after the surgery is complete. "He has built a reputation on using an obscene amount of grafts for even minor cases, irrespective of patient age. " Then why did you choose him? Are you a complete idiot, or just dishonest with even yourself? Cut the bullshit. Its genuinely disgusting when someone like yourself is so wedded to an idea they themselves know they're lying, yet keep repeating the same garbage over and over. The success rate has clearly dropped over the last 18 months, however you help no one by lying to the forum and lying to yourself because you're upset. I've seen your result, it actually looks very good in design and naturalness, a touchup of under 1000 grafts would make it virtually perfect.

I've virtually never seen it and I'm sure I've seen significantly more cases than you have, when I do see a legitimate FUE zero guard the scarring is apparent. Very big difference between a two or even one guard which is typically what I see at the shortest and a zero as in the above photo. Not once seen a zero guard where scarring wasn't apparent to some degree. Its plausible that at a 1 guard it won't be noticeable but I doubt it. The bigger issue between FUE and FUT is long term donor useage, 3700 grafts as in your case is relatively small and you've covered what is a very small area. For someone who is looking at full coverage for a NW5 minimum etc in the long term then you're looking at 6k grafts minimum for a conservative approach, at that level you're likely going to have more cosmetically significant scarring than you would with FUT.

NO ONE who has had FUE can shave it to a zero, or as low as this guy without the scars showing. Very silly thing to suggest.

If every time you or someone else is called out with specific evidence and detail for making a stupid comment but you ignore the substance entirely and simply make a personal attack, maybe the problem is on your end.

"Pretty bizarre how you concluded that from my entire post... why do you think I just had surgery with Keser?" This was what you said and I replied to: "Nebulosity, what I will say is, a patient of whom I just had my second HT with, Dr Keser, was absolutely fuming and criticizing the doctor on every HT forum on the internet, " Read what you wrote before criticising me for not mind reading due to your lack of writing skills, I thought you had surgery with him because that's what you wrote, moron. On the other point, I appreciate that you're not a particularly observant person, but lets compare post ops of Bhatti and a Keser case, because if you think the precision or density is similar your intelligence and understanding is two low to bother arguing with. Once the hairs are implanted you don't magically increase density from directly after post-op. What is done is done and in the case of much of Bhatti's work there is a lack of refinement and density from day one. Are the hairs going to duplicate themselves? Some kind of sorcery going on we aren't aware of? If a surgeon implant 100 hairs across an entire balding head, are you going to meme "Wait 12 months"? Or more realistically in terms of Bhatti's work, maybe 70% the density what top surgeons are typically doing. We can't pretend this is going to magically look good after 12 months if it doesn't on day one. Here is a Keser case of 1700 grafts Here is the Bhatti case Level of precision and density not even in the same league. Cut the "Wait 12 months" bullshit, looks like a child's work in comparison, the gaps are gigantic.

Everything Neb has brought up and expressed dissatisfaction about he has done so based on facts, that is key. There's a major difference between someone talking about growth issues at 4 months when the day 1 photos look perfect, compared to this case where the day 1s look around 50% of typical density from top surgeons. Someone complaining or getting angry isn't what is relevant, its whether or not the concerns are legitimate, in this case they are and the complaints should be taken seriously. The density was clearly implanted well below acceptable levels, particularly with that ridiculously low hairline and the pushed forward temples. Absurd to consider this acceptable. On the donor issues, I think its plausible that it will improve, on whether or not the work is refined, thought through and an acceptable density for natural results, absolutely fucking not and its visible from the post ops.

Compare a post-op of ANY Bhatti case with ANY Keser case, if you think they're in the same league, or even on the same planet you need your eyes checked.

Your concerns aren't misguided and you will be proved absolutely correct by twelve months, as will I and those that asserted these various issues again. You're correct at 4 months, you were correct at 1 month, and you'll be right at a year. The problems are visible in the photos from day 1, anyone who has looked at a reasonable amount of transplants can see them.

Hattingen in Europe stack up to any FUT clinic in NA, but as a generalisation you're right.

"can I ask why you didn't just stick with shaved though? Really suited you" I know some people love to try and be nice/positive in all circumstances, but do you really believe this? The reality is that most people (importantly women) would look at the before shot and think he looks below average, potentially even somewhat creepy and a decade older than his age. For a guy in their late twenties the before shot looks outright terrible, no one in the world would be happy looking like this with the choice. Looks aren't everything and one can have a decent life as a bald guy but lets be real about what people find attractive. In the after shot he looks well above average for his age and significantly younger than the before's. You'd be hard pressed to find better hair transplant advertisement than this pairing. If you feel that you'd worry over it being picked out as a transplant and can't see the reason to get one in these photos (plus by the sounds of it the money might not be justified".

Going to be an absolute home run. Top-tier result.

Or back in the real world, 3. not everyone has the same amount of money to spend but there is still demand in the market for a slightly lower tier of service. It really is ridiculous to pretend not to understand this, its complain for the sake of complaining. If money allows I'd certainly be recommending an option with more doctor participation, but its not realistic below a certain price point. The fact is that even if you have the best surgeon in the world located in India they cannot charge the same rates as a top surgeon surgeon in the United States can because of demand and their potential customers willingness to spend, so they ought to act accordingly to market demand. If people want the service and results are good enough to keep customers happy and coming back, there's zero reason to criticise beyond elitism. If the demand exists and they think they can still provide a reasonable service to more people and make more money, only a complete idiot would pretend there is something wrong with this. Based on results these surgeons easily do the best work in India on top of that, its not even close.

Typically I think Cooley does extremely natural work, but I honestly don't see how anyone can think this looks natural without kidding themselves. This patient would have NEVER had is temple regions that squared off, and there's a very obvious distinction in texture between the recipient in front of the native temple hair and the natives. The frontal hairline also looks somewhat artifical in shape and very, very clearly lacks the softness of the hairline in the preops. I don't think most people have very good observational or aesthetic judgement skills especially looking at this thread of people who have likely seen a lot themselves and don't see any issues, but this is a result I would easily pick on the street as a hair transplant. Especially with this thick, curly hair i'd be cautious with minor adjustments like this especially in the temples when considering naturalness.

I find it so intriguing that your temples grew immediately and seemingly with a higher growth rate than behind the hairline, same with the forelock perhaps also. Honestly some of the best temple work I've seen anywhere which is strange considering the lesser growth areas. At least that's the impression I get from these photos. Realistically, I think you'll get slight improvement to 12 months from here but will likely need another 1500ish grafts to fill in those problem areas.

Imo the majority of cases I see this either its a few strays in extreme closeups that in the real world no one would notice but shown in a manner that makes it look far worse, or the more fragile singles at the very front didn't grow leaving the appearance that they didn't pay attention to placement. Especially considering its an FUT and microscopic dissection of the grafts would have occurred, its unlikely that it was the result of simply not paying attention or a newbie tech. Still a possibility of course, double digit numbers of multis sounds very large. Definitely need pics to get an idea either way. If overall growth is good but there's only a multigraft issue in the frontline its an easy fix. You can't expect a refund for this and I doubt there's a clinic in the world that would give one unless its a true disaster, but they should do a touchup. If I had a particularly bad issue with multis I'd ask for a refund (expecting that the answer would be a hard no), name and shame on the forums and look for a clinic that skilled with very refined hairline work. Hasson/Wong, Baubac, Freitas and Keser being a few options. Also OP you mention behind the hairline being thin, this likely has nothing to do with allocation of grafts imo especially if its only a few dozen multis at the front as you mention, its very feasible if your transplant was into areas that were completely bald to do a buzz cut and individually count grafts to check growth percentages.

I'm not going to put together a side by side myself, but if you look at where OP was at 4.5 months for example compared to now he's pretty much a textbook example of a slow grower. I wouldn't be happy with this as a final result but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if OP was happy by around 10 months. His growth seemed to all start a month after the average patient including myself. You can look at Cosmo's result to see a similar occurrence. Even if it doesn't work out, a free touchup under 1500 grafts would likely leave OP golden.

Sounds like the doctor you're considering is incompetent or misleading you. I'd recommend sending an online consult to Hasson and Wong and getting their opinion as one example of a top clinic that is skilled at high norwood cases such as 5-6. The graft numbers you're raising are miniscule for the area needing to be covered, and only an incompetent and dishonest surgeon would suggest them. Its highly likely you could get 4-5k grafts via either FUE or FUT in a single procedure if you have even an average donor area.

This is a horrible thing to say to someone considering its completely unfounded, to believe this you have to have very poor skills of observation when looking at post-op results. Surprising considering how long you've been here, this comment says more about you than it does the OP. I've had others mention the same to me about this surgeon but few seem to want to openly admit it for whatever reason. The density placed in this case and others by him is visibly significantly less than any of the top surgeons. The damage to his donor is very clear too, and placement angles of grafts do not look precise. Neb clearly has a good sense (better than most here) of observational standards, HnW certainly a top notch option for future repair work also and I'd trust them to clean up the mess.

lol. You can clearly see those same stray hairs in the same location in the pre-op and directly post-op photos, he's just done a bad job of shaving them in the one you're looking at. They also look nothing like hair fibers, and you can clearly see from the closeups in the hairline there are no fibers. Look particularly at the first photo, you see those stray long hairs quite far below where the transplanted hairline was placed.

I’m not implying anything by saying this, but I’ve never seen crusts like that.

Tbh I find it more likely that this was written by someone who dislikes the clinic considering they still have plenty of good results coming out visible on the other forums, utilising one of these fake ads with bad spelling seems unlikely. Admins should check the IP address of poster and clarify where they're from.

Mine looked awful in sunlight at 5 months, that's also the reality. Same case with most people. I'd wait until 7ish months before you have a good idea of what you're going to end up with.

I'm typically not one for scientific suggestions without scientific evidence, but I find it strange that some of the most emotional and stressed out posters that complain very early on subsequent to a procedure seem to find themselves with a self fulfilling prophecy. Seems to be a lot of this recently. Either way 5 months is still relatively early and obviously you've made a conscious effort to present your current result in the harshest condition you can.

For 2300 grafts you ought to be able to expect a lot more. The photos are admittedly poor though so hard to tell.