TedGroves

Dermatch can work to conceal a scar. Try it.

It would be nice to think so, and in exceptions it certainly happens, but it is not the norm. I was as confident as it gets even while losing hair, but it still did little good. Sure, any confident guy will eventually land a woman because it's a numbers game. If he's confident enough to hit on 50 women, chances are he'll end up getting something off one or two. That's where the confidence factor comes in -- simply having the willingness to persevere. THere are plenty of bald/balding men who simply don't have the energy or the confidence to even try, so their chances of success are nil. And it's not their fault, that's just what hair loss does to you, much the same as being overweight, having bad teeth, etc. affects someone. The old adage that women smell confidence and react positively to it is just a load of crap. Women SEE first and worry about the inner stuff later.

This is a very interesting thread. Yes, names like Bruce Willis, Andre Agassi, Sean Connery, Patrick Stewart always come up -- but of course they are the exception rather than the rule. Just like people say "Oh, lots of women are gorgeous in their 50's, just look at Cheryl Ladd, Jacklyn Smith, Diane Keaton, etc. And of course most women don't look like them, either, just as most bald men don't have the fortune to look like Agassi or Willis. Indeed, women will date anyone famous. I've seen some of the ugliest pro athletes have hot women and eventually hot wives, a combo which never would have happened if they worked at a bank instead. Okay, Wayne Gretzky is a nice looking man. But would he have ended up with a megababe like Janet Jones if he wasn't a famous hockey player? Of course not. I can say from experience, both my own and that of friends of mine who do have their full head of hair -- women always go for the guys with hair. Sure, bald/balding men do get women, it's actually fairly common. And I think it is more common as people get older when the looks don't matter as much. Women who say looks don't matter are simply lying. You don't see guys beating each other up to see who gets to go out with the fat chick, just like you don't see women clawing each other to see who gets to go out with the bald guy. I had a nice 20-something girl come up to me at at a bar a few years back, pre-HT, and start a conversation. Nice girl. But the odd thing is, she said she had seen me across the room, thought I was cute, told her friends she wanted to talk to me, and they responded by saying "To the bald guy?" And the ironic thing is I wasn't bald; I was receding, probably a Norwood 3-4, but by no means bald. But my big forehead stood out. I went out with her a couple times, but nothing materialized, not due to lack of interest on her end, but just because we were different people. I dated when I was receding and I did get girls, but the difference after a HT compared to before is like night and day. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble who thinks bald is sexier, but it's just not, unless you do happen to be one of those rare guys who looks good bald. Then they indeed are sexy. Also . . . women do love a sense of humor, fit body, brains, all that stuff. But you have to be able to break their perimeter first, and that takes at least some degree of looks. Years ago an average looking woman wasn't able to break my perimeter because I was too stupid and immature to give her a chance. Then as I got older, I realized that once I started talking to her, even an average looking women could suddenly become very beautiful. So I got wise. Some women are that wise, too, and they don't hesitate to go out with a bald man. But the biggest share are not. I also agree with the post who stated that often when you see a bald man with a hot woman, indeed he did have hair when they got married 15-20 years before. Think about it, a guy who got married at 23 could not be 38 and significantly balding. But of course his wife isn't going to leave him, just as a husband isn't going to leave his wife just because she puts on weight. Having hair is better than being bald. End of story.

Yes, sit back and take a breath, then assess your situation. There is always light at the end of the tunnel! Keep your chin up, you have a lot going for you. And there are options and good people out there who can help!

I just saw the Stepford Wives and noticed that Jon Lovitz obviously has improved his hair situation between 2000 and the present. I was unable to download the photos from the site where I saw the photos, but you can go to it for yourself using the link below. Compare the premiere photos from stepford wives and 50 first dates (2004) with those from other films prior to 2001 or so. In 2000 he obviously had a receding hairline; now his hairline looks super. http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001484/photogallery No idea who the surgeon was, but it looks great.

Aykroyd hasn't had any work done. I've seen him on many shows and in person a year ago, and his hairline is receding, plus he has a good sized bald spot. He's getting older now and relies on being funny, not good looking, so I suppose the hair isn't that big of an issue for him.

Instead of spending all that money on a HT, it sounds like you should have moved into a better neighborhood. My condolences on your loss, but that really is no reason to not be able to post further photos. Surely you must know someone who will take photos for you or let you borrow their camera. I'm sure for a couple of bucks any photo store, Kinko's, etc. will take some photos and email them to you. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Here are links to photos of KSTP (minneapolis) sports anchor Joe Schmit. He used to have a receding hairline, but now it is restored. I've seen him in person multiple times recently and the hair looks great. It is dense and very natural and appears to be that way on its own, without the help of concealers. I don't know who did the work, but will have to ask him if I get the chance. You can see the difference in the before photos taken in late 2000 and the current photo. http://www.battlewagon.net/photo_tail2000110618.htm http://www.battlewagon.net/photo_tail2000110617.htm http://www.minnesotascore.com/writersbios.html

Here are links to photos of KSTP (minneapolis) sports anchor Joe Schmit. He used to have a receding hairline, but now it is restored. I've seen him in person multiple times recently and the hair looks great. It is dense and very natural and appears to be that way on its own, without the help of concealers. I don't know who did the work, but will have to ask him if I get the chance. You can see the difference in the before photos taken in late 2000 and the current photo. http://www.battlewagon.net/photo_tail2000110618.htm http://www.battlewagon.net/photo_tail2000110617.htm http://www.minnesotascore.com/writersbios.html

What makes Cage's HT bad? Please be specific instead of just saying it is bad. For the record, I have seen Tom arnold in person, who supposedly has a HT. And if he does have one, it truly does look sensational.

There were photos in a tabloid of Brendan Frasier without his system, and he's got some pretty good bald patches. Looks pretty bad, actually. I had no idea he wore one either.

I've been watching the NBA playoffs on TNT and have noticed that sideline reporter Jim Gray appears to have gotten some work done. He used to have a seriously receeded hairline, now there is a lot more there. It's still a high hairline, but looks much improved. Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this.

I've been watching the NBA playoffs on TNT and have noticed that sideline reporter Jim Gray appears to have gotten some work done. He used to have a seriously receeded hairline, now there is a lot more there. It's still a high hairline, but looks much improved. Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this.

Get off this board, retard. And keep your day job. Comedy is not your forte'.

Okay, this may sound trivial, but it's been bugging me, so I thought I'd sound off. Numerous times I have seen people refer to an HT as an "illusion", i.e. "A good HT does not give you back your old hairline, but rather creates an illusion of a full head of hair." That's a load of crap. An illusion is pretend, it means you see something that really isn't there. A good HT is there. The hair is there. Sure, it isn't your original hair, it is just replacement hair from elsewhere on your scalp, which is the same difference. A good HT is not an illusion. It is real, growing hair growing naturally on your head. I've seen some damn good HT's and to call them an illusion is a joke. The hair is either there or it isn't. If we can see it, it is there. Doesn't matter what route it took to get there. And a person either appears to have a full head of hair or he doesn't. A full head of hair is not an illusion. Is it as thick as before he lost it? No. But does it matter? No. The bottom line is the thickness can be way down from the original product and still look the same. Kind of like the difference between driving a Porsche and a Chevy. One is considered to be much more, but in reality they both peroform the same function, getting you from point A to Point B. A good HT performs a basic function: To put more hair on the top of your head and cover bald spots. End of story. If it is done properly, it is quite real, certainly not an illusion. So quit calling it a damn illusion. When my kid pulls my hair, it hurts. That ain't no illusion, folks.

Okay, this may sound trivial, but it's been bugging me, so I thought I'd sound off. Numerous times I have seen people refer to an HT as an "illusion", i.e. "A good HT does not give you back your old hairline, but rather creates an illusion of a full head of hair." That's a load of crap. An illusion is pretend, it means you see something that really isn't there. A good HT is there. The hair is there. Sure, it isn't your original hair, it is just replacement hair from elsewhere on your scalp, which is the same difference. A good HT is not an illusion. It is real, growing hair growing naturally on your head. I've seen some damn good HT's and to call them an illusion is a joke. The hair is either there or it isn't. If we can see it, it is there. Doesn't matter what route it took to get there. And a person either appears to have a full head of hair or he doesn't. A full head of hair is not an illusion. Is it as thick as before he lost it? No. But does it matter? No. The bottom line is the thickness can be way down from the original product and still look the same. Kind of like the difference between driving a Porsche and a Chevy. One is considered to be much more, but in reality they both peroform the same function, getting you from point A to Point B. A good HT performs a basic function: To put more hair on the top of your head and cover bald spots. End of story. If it is done properly, it is quite real, certainly not an illusion. So quit calling it a damn illusion. When my kid pulls my hair, it hurts. That ain't no illusion, folks.

I swear, some of the crap that gets posted on this forum. Makes a guy want to reach through the internet, grab the poster and strangle him. 3 months between transplants? Not a chance. I've never heard of that and I've discussed it with dozens of surgeons. 6 months is always the minimum, most prefer 7-8 months between sessions to ensure that the previous grafts have indeed popped. I think some people posting things misunderstand what their surgeons tell them and that complicates things, too.

It just HAS to be a hair mill. It HAS to be. Doesn't it just HAVE to be?

Is it just me, or was the pre-HT Futzyhead a dead ringer for Dr. Frasier Crane?

Is it just me, or was the pre-HT Futzyhead a dead ringer for Dr. Frasier Crane?

The May 2004 issue of Men's Health magainze features a first person account of a guy who got a hair transplant a year ago at Bauman Medical Group in Florida. Fairly interesting story, some photos, and the guy does look good a year after the surgery. It's worth checking out next time you're at the bookstore of supermarket. Page 154.

The May 2004 issue of Men's Health magainze features a first person account of a guy who got a hair transplant a year ago at Bauman Medical Group in Florida. Fairly interesting story, some photos, and the guy does look good a year after the surgery. It's worth checking out next time you're at the bookstore of supermarket. Page 154.

Barfy, along with selected other members of this forum, operate on one premise: Rip "hair mills" at all costs. MHR could give someone the best HT possible and some people will still find fault with it. Their before & after photos are fine, but Barfy still finds fault with them. If MHR has done something to screw patients up, then they deserve to be ripped. But MHR undoubtedly does thousands of HT's, yet there is really no documented evidence showing that the work was bogus. There have been some facts posted on formal complaints brought against Bosley, but never any brought against MHR. A couple members here claim to have been "butchered" by MHR or surgeons affiliated with them, but there are no photos or anything posted either. It's no different than a Republican constantly finding fault with a Democrat no matter what he does, or vice versa. It's ignorance. The photos on MHR's site are fine. I also have met several MHR patients and all looked great. That's not to say all look as good or that someone somewhere hasn't been "butchered", but to rip their web site is just plain dumb.

That's bull, Barfy. The photos are fine. Whether you like MHR or not, it's ridiculous to reach for reasons to rip them. If you've got an issue with their work, it's your right to post your opinion along with facts to back it up. But don't pull excuses our or your butt -- it only makes you look foolish.

Nice photo. Is anyone capable of using a camera? Nobody ever said getting a HT would make someone smarter.