James Spader from 34 to 54

[Spanker]

He is a really good example of later hair loss and what can happen. Here he is around 33/34 and again at 53/54.

 

I doubt he was on finasteride.

[Sean]

That's quite a change. Really makes you question the question of when a persons level of hairloss considered stable. From mid 30's to mid 50's, tge loss is drastic. Do you think he couldve been wearing a wig even in his 30s or this is pure loss?

[Spanker]

I'm fairly certain that's his natural hair.

[TakingThePlunge]

He still has a very boyish face. He's look years younger if he hadn't lost his hair but you don't get the impression from him that he's the least bit affected by his hair loss. Great actor!

[humble1]

Yes - GREAT actor, GREAT show! The Elizabeth Keen actress - is dead weight - IMO.

[RG71]

He had a mop of hair well into his 30's. Nobody is safe at any age!

[thatoldchestnut]

So true Spanker

 

Always makes me balk when people talk about stable hair loss in people who are not on meds.

[voxman]

I need to have a talk with that boy when I see him.

[Melvin- Admin]

It's not that bad socially 100x more acceptable to be bald in your 50's than bald in your 20's, does it still suck, yea I'm sure it does, but in his age range most men are experiencing some form of hairloss anyways.

 

Matt Lauer is another example of someone who went bald in his 50's, as someone who went bald in his 20's I'll switch places with those guys any day. If my transplants should fail at age 50 I'll proudly rock a Matt lauer hair style.

 

[giantanddwarf]

Below is a link to an interview conducted when he was 30. His hair looks thicker in the pic of him when he was 34 than it does in the interview, suggesting that he was either: 1. On fin or 2. Using a product in the 34 y/o pic. Regardless, to the trained eye it's still clear that he was thinning @ 34, even though it didn't matter because his hair characteristics were excellent. It's less detectable in the pic Spanker posted, but other pics do bear it out (while still looking thicker than him @ 30 in my opinion).

 

Watch Entertainment Tonight: Flashback: 30-Year-Old James Spader and His Head Full of Hair Online | Hulu

Edited February 9, 2016 by giantanddwarf

[Spanker]

Below is a link to an interview conducted when he was 30. His hair looks thicker in the pic of him when he was 34 than it does in the interview, suggesting that he was either: 1. On fin or 2. Using a product in the 34 y/o pic. Regardless, to the trained eye it's still clear that he was thinning @ 34, even though it didn't matter because his hair characteristics were excellent. It's less detectable in the pic Spanker posted, but other pics do bear it out (while still looking thicker than him @ 30 in my opinion).

 

Watch Entertainment Tonight: Flashback: 30-Year-Old James Spader and His Head Full of Hair Online | Hulu

 

 

It doesn't look thin at all to me in that video.

[giantanddwarf]

Really? To me there's obvious right temple thinning and a less than full forelock. Can't see the left temple b/c of combover, but I would assume it was similar to the right temple, as is roughly the case, usually. In the shots from movies that intersperse the video, it doesn't look thin at all. But I would assume that's due to whatever hair products he had in while filming (or maybe he was just younger in some of them). He did have a great looking head of hair that for relevant purposes was "full". But NW zero or merely non-MPB "maturation"? Don't think so. In my opinion he was experiencing MPB then.

Edited February 9, 2016 by giantanddwarf