And then this happened ...

[Al - Moderator]

There is something I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you saying you had 3 procedures with over 3000 grafts total and only got that thin line of grafts along the front for all that work??

[Mike10]

10 hours ago, 1978matt said:

Worth consulting with Dr Cooley regarding this as well.  He uses electrolysis to kill off old grafts.  There may be too many to go down that route, but I'm no expert with it.

Others talk about using laser hair removal, but again, I don't really know much about it.

That should be a choice too instead of taking now all those BS meds. 

[Surfarosa]

6 hours ago, Gatsby said:

If your hair was stable after the hair transplant and you were on meds then I would first go back on the same meds as before. Forget about a hair transplant use this time to do your research from the results on this forum that are in line with the results you are after. Then I would consider having consultations with surgeons you have chosen. Brushed forward it's not that bad and at 47 you have a lot of hair. All the best!

Great advice - thanks Gatsby.

[Surfarosa]

8 hours ago, asterix0 said:

Wait, so pretty much all your transplanted hair fell out around your hairline after you quit finasteride?

I'm not quite sure what has happened TBH - I just know what I am left with today.  It was not noticable - to me - until this year - after getting a very short haircut. My wife thinks that it's only noticable when I style it to look bad for these photos.

[Surfarosa]

2 hours ago, BeHappy said:

There is something I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you saying you had 3 procedures with over 3000 grafts total and only got that thin line of grafts along the front for all that work??

Thats what it looks like in the worst photo which is styled for emphasis - but you could say that. Its actually more evenly spread but its very thin ... which is why I am not jumping back in. I think the coverage that can be achieved with HT is very sparse when photgraphed harshly. Under good lighting I can make it look like I've never lost a hair on my head but that's just lighting.

In all honesty, I think medications did more for my hair than HTs ever did if this is the end result. However, I am just not sure ... judging hair is VERY difficult.

I will say that the 10 years spent not thinking about it were great! So that is something..... just need to figure out the next phase.

Stable on meds for 6 months then FUE into the problem areas seems to be the best advice I have gotten so far.
Doing nothing and/or removing the offending hairline is second.

Appreciate the feedback and advice.
 

I might do a post to warn people who have had a HT to keep taking their meds.

[Berba11]

We don't have much context here.

First of all, do you not have any pictures of the transplanted areas from back in the day? I'm struggling to see where 3,000 grafts were implanted unless you're saying that you've somehow lost the transplanted hair. It's normal for native hair to continue to recede behind the transplanted hair, but not the transplanted hair. Without seeing any of your post-op photos, it's difficult to assess what's happened or what was done.

Secondly, you keep trashing UK clinics, most of which are indeed quite bad. But there is one very good clinic that does have some track record with repairs, including FUE extractions along the hairline. When this is done well, scarring is often not at all noticeable. So which clinics in the UK have you spoken to? If you haven't spoken to the Ed Ball at the Maitland Clinic, he might be worth a consultation. There's also a couple of cases of large scale hairline extraction on this forum by Dr Feriduni in Belgium. The extraction scars are not noticeable at all. There's several very good Dr's around the world at doing this. If it's an avenue you want to go down, it's certainly viable and doable, but you do need to go to a specialist in this area.

[Berba11]

18 hours ago, Surfarosa said:

Ordered Fin and Min today! Also, Vitamin D as having moved from Cali to London - "there ain't no sunshine" and that can have an impact on hair health - apparently.

Thanks for the confidence boost towards my preferred option - doing nothing and aging on schedule!  At least not until I have gotten to the point where it looks obvious to the untrained eye.

The HT docs here in the UK said it was really bad and needed repairing but they are very pushing here.  I had my work reviewed by top doctors in the US and they all thought it was stellar, but that was 10 years ago when I had more hair in the front. When I asked the UK doctors what would the plan be if they put 2000 more in the hairline and I lost the lot - they had no answers.

5000 in the front and nothing in reserve is this situation but much worse.

Based on the pictures you've showed, I'm not seeing 3,000 transplanted grafts at all. As for reserves after a possible HT into the frontal third... Depends on your donor area, your beard's viability as a resource and future hairloss. You're in your late 40's and have a pretty full head of hair. You're probably in a pretty decent place to transplant your way through future loss, particularly if you didn't actually have 3,000 grafts extracted for the front & your put yourself in the right hands.

[Surfarosa]

16 minutes ago, Berba11 said:

We don't have much context here.

First of all, do you not have any pictures of the transplanted areas from back in the day? I'm struggling to see where 3,000 grafts were implanted unless you're saying that you've somehow lost the transplanted hair. It's normal for native hair to continue to recede behind the transplanted hair, but not the transplanted hair. Without seeing any of your post-op photos, it's difficult to assess what's happened or what was done.

Secondly, you keep trashing UK clinics, most of which are indeed quite bad. But there is one very good clinic that does have some track record with repairs, including FUE extractions along the hairline. When this is done well, scarring is often not at all noticeable. So which clinics in the UK have you spoken to? If you haven't spoken to the Ed Ball at the Maitland Clinic, he might be worth a consultation. There's also a couple of cases of large scale hairline extraction on this forum by Dr Feriduni in Belgium. The extraction scars are not noticeable at all. There's several very good Dr's around the world at doing this. If it's an avenue you want to go down, it's certainly viable and doable, but you do need to go to a specialist in this area.

 

This is picture from before my first surgery - 500 grafts into the temples.

 

 

This is a picture from my second surgery - 1200 grafts I think

And this was one year after my final surgery in natural light.

Another 1500 grafts in the hairline.

 

[Surfarosa]

23 minutes ago, Berba11 said:

We don't have much context here.

First of all, do you not have any pictures of the transplanted areas from back in the day? I'm struggling to see where 3,000 grafts were implanted unless you're saying that you've somehow lost the transplanted hair. It's normal for native hair to continue to recede behind the transplanted hair, but not the transplanted hair. Without seeing any of your post-op photos, it's difficult to assess what's happened or what was done.

Secondly, you keep trashing UK clinics, most of which are indeed quite bad. But there is one very good clinic that does have some track record with repairs, including FUE extractions along the hairline. When this is done well, scarring is often not at all noticeable. So which clinics in the UK have you spoken to? If you haven't spoken to the Ed Ball at the Maitland Clinic, he might be worth a consultation. There's also a couple of cases of large scale hairline extraction on this forum by Dr Feriduni in Belgium. The extraction scars are not noticeable at all. There's several very good Dr's around the world at doing this. If it's an avenue you want to go down, it's certainly viable and doable, but you do need to go to a specialist in this area.

I have not heard of Ed Ball at the Maitland clinic but will look him up. I have contacted Dr. Jean Devroye in Belgium as he seems very repuatable and is not too far to travel. Thanks for the advice.

[Ryan Daniel]

Good luck for a natural result. You did the right thing going for a conservative approach

[Berba11]

49 minutes ago, Surfarosa said:

 

This is picture from before my first surgery - 500 grafts into the temples.

 

 

This is a picture from my second surgery - 1200 grafts I think

And this was one year after my final surgery in natural light.

Another 1500 grafts in the hairline.

 

Ok, that starts to tell a bit more of a story. So is that second picture supposed to show approx 500 grafts implanted in total (so roughly 250 per temple), or 500 *per* temple? If it's 500 in total, that would probably be a bit sparse, and explains why you've still got a bit of a gap in the temples behind the newer hairline.

And the last picture, which doesn't really show much, is after an additional 1200 placed into the hairline? So that's either 1,700 grafts in total or 2,300 in total, depending on whether your first surgery was 500 in total or 500 per temple.

If you've had 1,700 grafts (give or take), then that would make sense of what we're seeing. A combination of additional recession of the native hair (due probably to coming off your medical interventions), lower density behind the hairline and the shorter cut which makes it harder to create the illusion of density (which is what HT do), is probably why things can look not so great under certain conditions.

Where is the number 3,000 coming from in terms of the graft count? Was/is there an additional surgery not factored in here? Also, I'm intrigued by the fact you've had grafts put in to the temple points (not many good clinics around at this, and probably less so back when you had yours done), and the rounded shape of the temple corners in the hairline design. Who was your surgeon?

[Berba11]

Apologies, I didn't see the bit at the end about 1500 grafts.

Would be good to see where they were actually placed with post-op photos for each surgery, if you have them.

[Surfarosa]

2 hours ago, Berba11 said:

We don't have much context here.

First of all, do you not have any pictures of the transplanted areas from back in the day? I'm struggling to see where 3,000 grafts were implanted unless you're saying that you've somehow lost the transplanted hair. It's normal for native hair to continue to recede behind the transplanted hair, but not the transplanted hair. Without seeing any of your post-op photos, it's difficult to assess what's happened or what was done.

Secondly, you keep trashing UK clinics, most of which are indeed quite bad. But there is one very good clinic that does have some track record with repairs, including FUE extractions along the hairline. When this is done well, scarring is often not at all noticeable. So which clinics in the UK have you spoken to? If you haven't spoken to the Ed Ball at the Maitland Clinic, he might be worth a consultation. There's also a couple of cases of large scale hairline extraction on this forum by Dr Feriduni in Belgium. The extraction scars are not noticeable at all. There's several very good Dr's around the world at doing this. If it's an avenue you want to go down, it's certainly viable and doable, but you do need to go to a specialist in this area.

I would like to address the UK clinic trashing. And yes - I trash them.  I care about all patients & the few good doctors that serve them. I do not care one single bit about business people cashing in on the insecurities of others. What bad clinics do is VERY harsh, they deserve only the harshest of responses. They do a bad job - they get paid, YOU - live with the results for the rest of your life. I have seen these people in the face of unhappy patients and they go from sales person to robot - its chilling becuase they have gotten that way through experience. Experience of seeling one thing and then dismissing the result and the human waering it for life.

My first visit to a HT doc was in London's Harley Street in the mid 90s. They were crap then - I could feel it. The would have done surgery when I was 23. My last visit was last week, they are still crap & I'm 47.

I will say this without remorse - they should not be in business. If I come across a great UK clinic - I will be the first to say so. Selling hair to those desperate for it - is not hard FFS.

Delivering a successful hairtransplant experience (s) for life is incredibly difficult - that's why so few are great and so many are not.

Between now and then I lived in the US for 20 years and have visited - in person - probably more clinics than anyone on this site. From Hasson and Wong in Vancouver (awesome) to the OGs of HT - Bernsetin and Rassman in LA - and many, may many more. I may be out of date - but back in the day - I knew my stuff better than most. I met doctors and patients over a 10 year period like it was my job - did you? I met Jotronic in person and had great conversations with him - did you? By you I mean the world - not Berba11

1. Don't trust any clinic where you don't meet the surgeon - just run.

2. Don't trust any clinic where the surgeon simply eyeballs you. If they are not using advanced medical equipment to determine your situation - run. The density of your donor area cannot be determined by the eye. The state of your hair your in the area that you still may lose it - cannot be determined by the eye (it can to an extent but not properly). Are they even taking photos and recording them to measure against for your next visit? Are they tracking your pattern of loss? Meds use?

3. Don't trust any clinic that try to close you, make your feel bad for being usure, offer you a "deal" etc etc

I could go on but I'm winding myself up & this forum covers this well already.

I'm trasing UK docs becuase they are still doing the very things this place warns against. I don't trash anyone without thought. They suck. Even if they did good work, I would not go becuase they are not even close to the standard of patient care demonstrated by the likes of Shapiro, Reed, Rassman, Hasson, DeYarmen, Carmen and others that are just coming back to me after a 10 year hiatus from this world.

The offenders you asked for?

The Crown Clinic - Doctor was offended I was unsure and took it personally. I have had 3 surgeries and my goal is not "more hair" - it's "don't look like a HT patient". Just as we see what we want to see, they sell what pays their bills. My Doctor told me no way more that he told me yes over a 10 year period. I don't care if you did Calum Best, he is still trying for more and they were way too open with what I consider HT Gossip. Also charging for the consultation - WTF ? 2500 to sort me out.

If your doctor needs £100 that bad, you need a better doctor.

The Wimploe Clinic - 20 minutes late for the appointment. The "expert" was a patient who called in a real expert (a tech) for credibilty. They told me the hair I have left will never fall out because it "looks great". Wow. My donor area was assessed by a technician and patient who then went on to both diagnose and prescribe the course of treatment. They could not answer questions like, "what if I lose the rest of my hair?"  "how much donor will be left?" And "why are you late when I travelled 2 hours and you travelled 30ft" ? 1200 to sort me out.

To be clear - I still rate my Doctor. James DeYarmen - I know the contraversy on here - and I know the man - Jim is a great human & doctor. This is the result of me being "over it" and stopping all meds/minoxidil etc and the limitations of HT. He did very small proceedures with years in between. No one can predict the future - his canvas seemed stable and then it moved. And it took 12 years to notice the change.

That's on me not him and I think he has left enough donor to pull this off if I get a good result being back on meds.

Sorry for the rant but I'm soooo disapointed in the UK sample I took. Still open minded though....

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Surfarosa

[Surfarosa]

1 hour ago, Berba11 said:

Apologies, I didn't see the bit at the end about 1500 grafts.

Would be good to see where they were actually placed with post-op photos for each surgery, if you have them.

I am trying to get my pre-op / post op pics from the clinic.

1. The first pic is pre op for the 500 in 2003.  250 in each side. No post op picture.
2. The second picture was the 1200 in 2006 to build up the sides and strengthen the hairline. Post op / bloody.
3. The 3rd picture is the 1 year after the final surgery in 2008/9 which was 1500 into the new hair line.

All were single grafts placed.

I have added another which was taken in 2010 from the front in natural light.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Surfarosa

[Navthedon]

Got Turkey and they will fix that up no time. Im surprised you'd even wait this long. Just get it fixed. Your donor area seems ok

[Berba11]

On 4/13/2022 at 7:47 PM, Surfarosa said:

So this is the day that made me freak the F out. I had it cut way shorter than ever and was able to take this picture.

This is the absolute worst I can make it look. Be gentle 😬

Should i have them removed ?

So in light of everything you've posted so far, it's this picture above that confuses me. I can't help but wonder if this is as good as your HT has ever really been and that the reason the other pictures look better is that things are longer. You seemed to have expressed surprise at the state of your hairline having had a haircut that was shorter. I guess I'm struggling to work out how you hadn't noticed that the density was lacking prior to the cut? Or did you notice prior to the cut and that's what made you try cutting it down even shorter as a possible strategy for concealment? And if you had noticed, when did you start noticing? In 2010 things looked pretty good in one photo...

 

On 4/13/2022 at 9:38 PM, Surfarosa said:

Probably not, definately not as a bad. I am getting back on it to try and prevent anyting further. My preferred outcome is honeslty to do nothing more. But if I have to then I want the stability of meds and finding a doctor in Europe that I trust. I had my work done in the US and rate my doctor - this is not his error in my view it's just the nature of hair transplants.

This was my hairline in 2010 and people thought it was great.

Well if he did great work then its still great work, the canvas has just changed.

 

And this 2010 picture confuses me even more. This looks great. It doesn't look like a HT at all and just a natural hairline. Now, I can understand how the hairline work could become detached from the rest of the hair if you lost more native hair between 2010 & now. But from your 'bad' photo that you've posted, I'm just not seeing anywhere near 3,000 grafts worth of work from the hair transplanted hair that remains.

The possibilities as far as I can tell are as follows:

1. You never had 3,000 grafts transplanted, and you've either been mislead about the quantity or it was 3,000 hairs rather than grafts and something has been lost in translation. As you've lost more hair over time, the lack of grafts has become more evident.

2. You did have 3,000 grafts but for some reason or somehow those grafts have since depleted in combination with your native hair near the recipient area, leaving things looking more sparse that before.

3. You've posted two pictures from 2010. One front on which I've quoted above, and one close up from the top left where you're covering your face. I'm seeing two quite different things. The front-on shot looks great, as mentioned. But the other angled picture from the same year reveals a more sparse look in the temple behind the hairline. Given your ability to make the hair transplant look decent or terrible based on hair length, style and photo angle, I'm inclined to think that another possibility is that the HT was never quite as good to begin with as your 2010 frontal picture seems to suggest. We all know that HT's are an illusion of density, and that lighting, angles, hair styles, hair calibre and hair length play important roles in that illusion. So my conclusion for possibility #3 is that you had an unknown amount of grafts transplanted (maybe 3,000, maybe less), and that either way the HT wasn't successful - either due to not enough grafts to begin with, or poor survival of the grafts. But you were left with enough grafts to get decent enough coverage under favourable conditions (longer hair). But with shorter hair and some additional hair loss, the 'success' of the HT's has been exposed.

If I had to guess, I'd say option number 3 makes the most sense. I find it hard to believe that you've had 3,000 grafts full stop, and that if you did have 3,000 grafts then the survival rate must have been poor. That seems a more reasonable conclusion than to believe that you had 3,000 grafts, the survival rate was high but somehow the transplanted grafts have undergone balding in the last few years. I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but unlikely, especially given that one of your 2010 photos provides some evidence of a lack of density behind the hairline (albeit enough to create decent coverage).

Trying to work this out is important for a couple of key reasons; How many grafts were really transplanted will inform us of the state of the donor as an ongoing resource. Additionally, if 3,000 grafts were transplanted but either a) didn't survive at a higher rate, or b) began to die off over time, then that suggests there might be an underlying issue that is affecting the survival and/or longevity of your hair, and that would need investigating before possible further procedures.

[Surfarosa]

4 hours ago, Berba11 said:

So in light of everything you've posted so far, it's this picture above that confuses me. I can't help but wonder if this is as good as your HT has ever really been and that the reason the other pictures look better is that things are longer. You seemed to have expressed surprise at the state of your hairline having had a haircut that was shorter. I guess I'm struggling to work out how you hadn't noticed that the density was lacking prior to the cut? Or did you notice prior to the cut and that's what made you try cutting it down even shorter as a possible strategy for concealment? And if you had noticed, when did you start noticing? In 2010 things looked pretty good in one photo...

 

And this 2010 picture confuses me even more. This looks great. It doesn't look like a HT at all and just a natural hairline. Now, I can understand how the hairline work could become detached from the rest of the hair if you lost more native hair between 2010 & now. But from your 'bad' photo that you've posted, I'm just not seeing anywhere near 3,000 grafts worth of work from the hair transplanted hair that remains.

The possibilities as far as I can tell are as follows:

1. You never had 3,000 grafts transplanted, and you've either been mislead about the quantity or it was 3,000 hairs rather than grafts and something has been lost in translation. As you've lost more hair over time, the lack of grafts has become more evident.

2. You did have 3,000 grafts but for some reason or somehow those grafts have since depleted in combination with your native hair near the recipient area, leaving things looking more sparse that before.

3. You've posted two pictures from 2010. One front on which I've quoted above, and one close up from the top left where you're covering your face. I'm seeing two quite different things. The front-on shot looks great, as mentioned. But the other angled picture from the same year reveals a more sparse look in the temple behind the hairline. Given your ability to make the hair transplant look decent or terrible based on hair length, style and photo angle, I'm inclined to think that another possibility is that the HT was never quite as good to begin with as your 2010 frontal picture seems to suggest. We all know that HT's are an illusion of density, and that lighting, angles, hair styles, hair calibre and hair length play important roles in that illusion. So my conclusion for possibility #3 is that you had an unknown amount of grafts transplanted (maybe 3,000, maybe less), and that either way the HT wasn't successful - either due to not enough grafts to begin with, or poor survival of the grafts. But you were left with enough grafts to get decent enough coverage under favourable conditions (longer hair). But with shorter hair and some additional hair loss, the 'success' of the HT's has been exposed.

If I had to guess, I'd say option number 3 makes the most sense. I find it hard to believe that you've had 3,000 grafts full stop, and that if you did have 3,000 grafts then the survival rate must have been poor. That seems a more reasonable conclusion than to believe that you had 3,000 grafts, the survival rate was high but somehow the transplanted grafts have undergone balding in the last few years. I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but unlikely, especially given that one of your 2010 photos provides some evidence of a lack of density behind the hairline (albeit enough to create decent coverage).

Trying to work this out is important for a couple of key reasons; How many grafts were really transplanted will inform us of the state of the donor as an ongoing resource. Additionally, if 3,000 grafts were transplanted but either a) didn't survive at a higher rate, or b) began to die off over time, then that suggests there might be an underlying issue that is affecting the survival and/or longevity of your hair, and that would need investigating before possible further procedures.

I cannot thank you enough for your kind consideration and brilliant analysis. Lot's to think about but all of your thoughts echo those that have been rattling around my head.  I did not notice, my wife who cuts my hair and is a stylist did not notice. Maybe I did want the shorter haircut to address an underlying concern? I am fitness enthusiast and trained through the UK winter wearing hats all the time (every day) - no vitamin D and head rub constantly?

When I went to see the London clinic - this week - that actually had a surgeon examine my head, he said "you have not had 3000 grafts, maybe 1500 at most" which suggests haircount vs. grafts.  He also said that he could do 2 proceedures based on my donor which would support that view/possibility. I found my notes in an old e-mail account and it said 3000+ FU (all singles)?

Follicular units could mean hairs vs grafts ?

Again, thank you for your interest and advice - huge help. I will keep you posted as I learn more...




 

[Surfarosa]

I think I have enough donor for 3000 more grafts based on what I have heard. Obviously my thinking is that if I have had 3000 - and they don't do much - cut your losses.

Hence - get them removed and live with it vs. get more - is my current dillema.

My old goal was "look good" my new goal is, "don't look like a freak for your kids".

[Surfarosa]

I just had my wife examine my donor area under multiple lightings. She can only find 1 singe scar that is no more than 2 inches long.

[Surfarosa]

Both clinics last week had a hard time finding my scar.

[Surfarosa]

Photo of my scar taken this morning.

[Berba11]

Ok so your surgeries were FUT? You also mentioned "only single grafts". Something is amiss here.

Firstly, the benefit of FUT is that you'll use every last graft from the strip that's been extracted. However, that necessarily dictates that a surgeon may have to create single grafts from multi grafts for the hairline. It's not remotely likely that from a strip you'd have exclusively single graft hairs. You'll have some, but like I said, may have to "manufacture" singles from multi's by cutting them if there's not a enough singles for the hairline. Now, your hairline pics look soft and natural and with single hairs, so either enough single hairs were extracted from the strip(s) or the surgeon/techs were able to create some from multi's to make up any short fall. What confuses me here is the idea they were "all" singles? Additionally, most [good!] clinics will use singles in the hairline and then multi's behind to create density. They use or create singles for the entirety of the HT.

If somehow you have ended up with 100% singles, even behind the hairline, that would explain maybe the lack of density. If you implant 30 single graft hairs into a cm2 space, you end up with 30 hairs in that cm2 space. But if you implant 30 triple grafts hairs, you'll end up with 90 hairs in that cm2 space, and thus a greater illusion of density. It's actually slightly more complex than that due to shedding, but you get the idea.

With the above said, I suppose the opposite can be true. If for some bizarre reason there were literally only single grafts hairs on the strip of flesh removed from your head, and no thicker multi graft hairs at all, that would limit the density (as per the numbers mentioned above). I find it hard to believe though that from 3 surgeries you'd only have single graft hairs harvested. That sounds like nothing I've ever heard of before!

With FUE, a surgeon using microscopes can hand pick the grafts they extract on an individual level; thick juicy multi grafts for everything behind the hairline, and finer single grafts for the hairline and/or temple points. Likewise though, if they can't find enough singles, they may have to create some. Hence I find it highly unlikely that only single grafts were harvested. I'm wondering if whoever did your surgeries discarded the multi graft hairs. That would account for the fact you clearly have soft singles in the hairline (which is good!), it would account for the lack of density and it would account for both the appearance here and the assessment of another doctor that 3,000 grafts hadn't been implanted. 3,000-ish may have been harvested from the donor, but there's little evidence of that many in the recipient sites. But equally, if after three surgeries (I'm assuming all FUT?) you only have one single 2 inch scar, I'm inclined to think you've been absolutely had with regards the number of grafts you've been told were extracted.

I mean, it's your head... How many different strip scars were created and how long were they at the time? Is the fact you can only find a single 2 inch scar possibly due to very good healing + good hair coverage at the back that is masking much of the scarring/additional strip scars? Only you can tell us how big the scar(s) from each surgery was. Were they all FUT surgeries?

[Al - Moderator]

As Berba and yourself indicate I also think you probably had much less than 3000 grafts. In any event that's past. I don't think you are trying to deceive us, so lets just move on to the real issue which is what to do next. It looks like you still have very good donor, so I would just have one good session to fill in between the transplanted hair line and the natural hair line. It seems like that should be easy and you can probably hide the work if you don't shave your head and comb your hair to cover it, so you may not even have a noticeable ugly duckling stage. If that lasts for another 10 years then at that point you can go back for one more round to fill in a bit more and you are done.

 

[Mike10]

56 minutes ago, BeHappy said:

As Berba and yourself indicate I also think you probably had much less than 3000 grafts. In any event that's past. I don't think you are trying to deceive us, so lets just move on to the real issue which is what to do next. It looks like you still have very good donor, so I would just have one good session to fill in between the transplanted hair line and the natural hair line. It seems like that should be easy and you can probably hide the work if you don't shave your head and comb your hair to cover it, so you may not even have a noticeable ugly duckling stage. If that lasts for another 10 years then at that point you can go back for one more round to fill in a bit more and you are done.

 

So is it possible you think one does not lose hair over 60 anymore? My father was a solid NW3 until in his 60s but then still lost significantly hair. 

[Al - Moderator]

3 hours ago, Mike10 said:

So is it possible you think one does not lose hair over 60 anymore? My father was a solid NW3 until in his 60s but then still lost significantly hair. 

 

No, but if you can make it to mid 60s without ever looking like you lost much hair all your life then you pretty much beat hair loss. Basically 99% of men will have significant hair loss by that age, so it's not going to matter as much if you are thinning after that. Besides it's not like you would suddenly lose all your hair the day after you turn 60 something.