can mel gibsons hair be safed?

[mr_peanutbutter]

 

 

from 2006 (mel gibson was born 1956 so he is 50 years old there), looks like he got an hairtransplant around that age, while being around a diffuse norwood 5

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-396816/Mel-hair-lost-.html

 

 

 

10 years later…norwood 6/7…dip really goes deep, in a time spane of 10 years…

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2897420/amp/Mel-Gibson-displays-thinning-hair-bald-spot-jets-LAX-day-turning-59.html

 

 can he get some coverage there ? or is too late?

[StillAlive]

Given the fact that he's now about 70 and the first transplant & concealer work well for his movie work, I don't think that he cares all that much

[mr_peanutbutter]

3 hours ago, StillAlive said:

Given the fact that he's now about 70 and the first transplant & concealer work well for his movie work, I don't think that he cares all that much

ah people with 20 think you dont care about your hair anymore once you 40, people at 40 think people at 60 dont care anymore...i wouldnt be that sure

 

i find it remarkable that his hairstatus changed quite noticalbe between 50 and 60, solid 1-2 on the norwood scale. you would assume people at 50 already reached their final norwood status

also the shape of horseshoe is interesting, quite high at the side but the dip really goes deep

Edited August 7, 2022 by mr_peanutbutter

[GoliGoliGoli]

I posted this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating here: Mel Gibson has unlimited money and virtually unlimited beard hairs to serve in place of his donor. 

So I think StillAlive is correct. If he wanted to do something about it he could. But he looks like a million bucks from the front and is a made man so it appears he doesn't care. 

[mr_peanutbutter]

4 hours ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

I posted this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating here: Mel Gibson has unlimited money and virtually unlimited beard hairs to serve in place of his donor. 

So I think StillAlive is correct. If he wanted to do something about it he could. But he looks like a million bucks from the front and is a made man so it appears he doesn't care. 

maybe eugenix should contact him haha

[NARMAK]

I'm sure Mel Gibson cared about hos hair loss as a leading man and did something about it initially but with his current age, i do not think it's affecting the acting opportunities to where he would need to address the issue and he's more than likely significantly more secure given hos age and lived life. That's before you consider his fame as a Hollywood actor. 

I do think people care about their appearances as they age still, but the desire in your 20s to have an utterly perfect hairline without any signs of recession probably slip as you get into your 40s as you begin to accept a more "mature" hairline design etc. 

I personally have just gone for a hair transplant that's arguably aggressive and now i'll have to hope i can maintain that with medication and hopefully not having to chase it as much. 

[pkipling]

While it's true that a lot of younger people mistakenly think they won't care about what their hair looks like when they're older, I think there's sometimes a bit of truth to that simply in the sense that as we age, we tend to be less bothered by things that maybe really bothered us when we were younger. Whether it's hair loss or any other physical attributes, I think it's very possible that Mel Gibson has reached a point where his hair looks "good enough" to him and he may have no interest in getting any more procedures. Heck - I even know men in their 30s who are completely at peace with their hair loss and wouldn't get a hair transplant by a top surgeon even if it were free. Lol.

And as GoliGoliGoli pointed out, with the resources he has, if he wanted to address it, I'm sure he would. And the front really does look great! 

[A Fue Good Men]

Honestly, what would extra hair bring him at this point in his life? He has a family, he has all the fame in the world, and he has more money than I can ever dream about.

 

unless he’s obsessed with his hair, like some of us are, then it likely doesn’t affect him much at all

[akbar264]

He may be thinning in a NW7 pattern but he's 70 and most people would consider him having an ok head of hair for his age.  

[Al - Moderator]

On 8/7/2022 at 9:10 AM, mr_peanutbutter said:

you would assume people at 50 already reached their final norwood status

Why would you assume that? There seems to be way too many people thinking that at a certain age your loss pattern is established and the area of loss won't increase. That has never been the case. Most men will continue losing hair throughout their lifetime. I think younger guys just try to fool themselves into thinking they can get an agressive hair transplant thinking they won't lose much more hair after a certain time. The HT Drs don't help the situation either when they all say you should wait until your pattern and loss stabilizes and they can see how much hair loss you will have. That's BS. Obviously the odds are better transplanting on someone who's hair los has slowed, but that doesn't mean the area won't significantly increase at some time in the future. Just look around when you go out. You'll see nearly all of the 70 and 80 years olds have more hair loss than the 40 and 50 year olds.

[mr_peanutbutter]

4 hours ago, BeHappy said:

Why would you assume that? There seems to be way too many people thinking that at a certain age your loss pattern is established and the area of loss won't increase. That has never been the case. Most men will continue losing hair throughout their lifetime. I think younger guys just try to fool themselves into thinking they can get an agressive hair transplant thinking they won't lose much more hair after a certain time. The HT Drs don't help the situation either when they all say you should wait until your pattern and loss stabilizes and they can see how much hair loss you will have. That's BS. Obviously the odds are better transplanting on someone who's hair los has slowed, but that doesn't mean the area won't significantly increase at some time in the future. Just look around when you go out. You'll see nearly all of the 70 and 80 years olds have more hair loss than the 40 and 50 year olds.

i often read responses like "oh you are just 20something, better wait until youre 30 so doctors can tell where your "journey is going to“". but now i wonder: could have doctors be able to tell a 30 year old mel gibson that his dip will go so low the moment he reaches his 60? would 30 year old mel gibson already display signs of  miniaturisation in an area that went bald 30 years later?