ready4Hair

To be clear KO; the HT is a "donkey result" whatever camera was used to take it, under whatever lighting conditions, from whatever distance, at whatever angle, with the hair styled whichever way, however many yeears after it was performed or how much loss occured since. SOMEONE needs to let the poor bastard know this instead of pulling excuses out of their collective arses. It doesn't mean we like or respect Dr. Rahal any less, just that we acknowlege a poor result and want to know WHY. Would knowing the before pics help u and would brushing it down to hide the gaps and pluggy aspect help him in real life, no doubt. But tt wouldn't turn a donkey into a unicorn.

And Joe it is these kinds of comments: "I do think you still look natural. If people are telling you to get a transplant, they can't tell you've had one, and that's good. " Natural? His hair looks like a 90s plug job. And the last sentence doesn't even deserve a comment. Would pics of where he started help, sure. But if he was NW5 then that means he had no hairline which would mean that what we are seeing is an HT hairline so future loss would be irrelevant. That brushed back isn't going to look much better. I bet dollars to doughnuts if this were a surgeon that is not in favor here the entire tone of the replies would have been entirely different.

Blast this as a donkey result? To date no one has done that, people have blamed him for bad lighting, bad styling, and told him the fact people tell him that having people say 'boy you should get a HT' is a GOOD thing AFTER getting a 5400 graft HT. In other words, KO, people are bending over blaming him. Is it POSSIBLE this is all due to bad lighting, bad styling, additional loss (where? his entire hairline was HT)? Sure. But the MUCH more likely explanation is that your fave Dr (one I happen to think is aces too in every way btw) botched this one and the patient deserves support, not criticism for his styling or camera skills. And btw you should understand that 'constant promotion' doesn't include posting a thread on a Dr. whose results you think look stellar and want feedback on, nor on comparing HIS similar graft/patient result to one such as this, it is refusing to acknowledge the likelihood that one of 'yours' botched a job and using every exciuse in the book to say it ain't so. Whose the fool?

I think it is fair to look at even just the front hairline which is all transplant and see it is pluggy and sparse. Who in fact CARES what his crown looks like? Is it affecting how he looks? Does the Dr not anticipate that there might be future loss and his 5400 grafts will look like this? What is fair is that a mega session result looks like this 5 years later. PERIOD.

Joe Tillman, the result sucks. When Dr. Diep was recommended he got skewered for a 2000 graft ht on the same area that looked better than this. I'm not even saying the clinic should do anything after 5 years, just that it sucks. Should he brush it back, put in product and light it softly?

Ok thanks, I'll just wait for someone who understands what I am actually asking.

Ok thanks, I'll just wait for someone who understands what I am actually asking.

What isn't clear about it? His yields and hairlines are on par with the top Drs. and I am asking if there is some reason he is not. Subjective opinion wouldn't cover it, since, as far as I understand, this forum is to ubcover HT docs who are honest, reputable and deliver consistent good yield and cosmetically pleasing results. Since his name is known here, I was trying to find out why this would be, I am not implying some conspiracy.

I agree it might be (in part) his videos. He is very low tech in his vids (pans from user to the screen of their before pics, talking to either himself of his cameraperson, trying to focus, etc.) and uses superlatives a lot which in some people's minds especially combined with the accent might turn them off. Not me. I see an endless stream of fantastic hairlines, great yields, and demonstration of dense results with brushes to show it on generally short hair. Not sure what there is to knock. It seems to me in general in this board you are 'part of the club' or not. For instance someone just posted a horrendous Dr. Rahal result and by and large the replies excused the work. One person's reply to the fact that even after 5400 grafts poeple suggest he get a HT was that that was a GOOD sign. Dr. Rahal like anyone else has less than stellar results but my point is it seems like the big three can post poor results or hairlines and the board will still gush and less known Drs. can post fabulous ones and people will write it off. At this point I'd put Dr. Diep on par with Dr. Feriduni and ahead of Dr. Lorenzo for yield (from what I can see), ahead of Dr. Rahal for hairlines, and (from his vids and reviews) on par with Dr. Feriduni with his care for patients goals/hairlines.

I am just curious why he is not mentioned here as a top HT doc and even top FUE. His yield and especially hairlines seem as good as any of the top 3-5 I've seen mentioned here. Dr. Lorenzo is often referred to as the 'God of FUE' and though his results seem impressive, almost all of them are shown with long hair slicked back not to mention hairlines that (to my eye) seem strange (pronounced Vs, Soprano hairlines, etc). On the other hand, Dr. Diep results are usually shown with shorter hair, often buzzed, which is much harder to hide the work/results with and his hairlines are, again to my eye, spectacular, as in Dr. Rahal and Dr. Feriduni worthy. He has scores of pictures and videos. I do not work for Dr. Diep and am not being a shill, I am truly curious what if anything I am missing since his work looks stellar to me.

Seriously? I love Dr. Rahal's work too but how did he become the Emperor? That is simply lousy work, regardless of how he has it styled. Period. And the fact that AFTER getting a huge mega session transplant the fact people are telling him to get one is a *good* sign?

Out of curiosity, where would you place Dr. Diep compared to this group?

No reply from him yet, but I am pretty much decided on Dr. Feriduni (who in fact seems not only more aggressive than the other two but to my eye does better hairlines.)

These were pretty bald men. 1 inch diameter is about 3 sq inches which is about 20 sq centimeters. We are told that full hair is around 40-100 hairs per square cm. This would mean one would expect 800-2000 hairs in a normal or at least not perceived to be balding head in a 1 inch diameter. These men were on average 162 AFTER treatment putting them at about 8 hairs per cm2? It would be folly I think to use % increase as well; it looks like a massive 40% to 50% increase (which jibes with some earlier studies which showed 40% in the first months tailing off to 25% in two years) but I would bet that is quite dependent on the starting point; in other words men showing significant loss with 8 hers per cm2 who increased to 12 per cm would not translate to men with say thinning 30 per cm2 increasing to 45 or 50.

If you are asking me, I don't believe Dr. Rahal's FUEs have been as good as his FUTs and would not put him with or near the big three FUE yet (IMHO). I believe his hairlines are astounding but would say that Dr. Feriduni's FUT and FUE hairlines are on par at least.

He didn't disagree with you about Lorenzo being the #1 FUE Surgeon in the world or himself being the # hairline FUE in the world? And do you mean you chose Dr. Ferudini despite not being as good at FUE yield (in your opinion) as Dr. Lorenzo but decided to opt for his superior hairline skills (in your opinion)? Or was it just the difference in cost? Lastly I get what you mean about not going overboard, yet if you are doing so from some superstitious place, I'd say (in my opinion) it is always best to put the best positive hope and view on it vs playing it down. I know the temptation can be 'if I say it is great then I'll jinx it' but I think by saying so (if you believe it) you only help yourself feel and do the things that help it turn out great.

Hi, I agree on Dr. Reddy whose work and yield actually made me rethink FUE. I'm thinking though that either of the other two with instructions/requests to do so could get the same yields as clearly they are not guessing on FUs either. Lorenzo does have wow results but more than a few are not hairlines I like or that look natural to my eye. The 6k one plus is an example of "Wow!" and for me at the same time "No!". I'd much prefer to have seen that hairline back a bit and less dense perhaps with more work on the temples. I don't love the 1950's Fabian pompadour. Again he has outstanding yield and results just not my choice for hairlines. I saw all of Dr. Ferudini's FUTs and FUEs on his site and almost all of them are to my eye wows in terms of hairlines, I am talking Dr Rahal level wow. There is also an eight minute video which is wow almost beginning to end, especially when you see the hairlines he draws and how so many of them have temple lines added. Lastly one thing that really put me over the top with him was the amount of time all his patient say he takes in understanding what you want and who you are. Everyone has their own needs/preferences but to my eye Dr. Ferudini's results put him in the top 3 worldwide, FUE or FUT.

Hi that is great to know london81. He seems to not only have an amazing stable of great results, everyone seems to uniformly speak so highly of him and of his willingness to really listen to the patient. I know that doesn't always translate to doing what the patients want, but I am sure you have experienced as I have the Drs that sort or rush over you or tell you what they plan on doing vs understanding who you are and what you want. I can't really see working with anyone else at this point.

I definitely have thinning crown (was in fact suprised when I did overhead shot) but in any event won't address it with HT, will either let it stabilize or reverse with fin,I am happy with hairline/front and yeah, seems to me then that Ferudini is the man for that.

Hi, I did see that work. Now call me crazy but I don't love it (apologies to Dr.Lorenzo and patient as clearly it is amazing work, just not my cup of tea).. I might have gone for less density or higher hairline and some more temple/side work. Perhaps at a certain point of loss you just have to accept you aren't going to have that head of hair. So it is less about age-appropriate to me than it is loss-appropriate. Honestly: I am 99.9% sold on Dr. Ferudini at this point and 100% sold on FUE, after coming <this close> to getting a FUT. I not only think his FUE is great, I think his hairlines are phenomenal, exceeding perhaps even Dr. Rahal's best work which is saying a lot. I'll probably have to wait a bit for an appointment but that will give the FInasteride some time to stabilize or reverse crown and other miniaturization and frankly I've turned my life around from the crazy stress, poor diet and lack of sleep that plagued me for the last decade so that should reflect in the coming months.

I love Feriduni's work truth be told. I liked Dr. Reddy's approach and crunched some #s and he seems to average almost 2.7 hairs per FU which is huge and claims to still leave a good 2-2.2 on remaining donor area. That said I did notice the gaps in his hairlines. Lorenzo's work is stellar but do not love his hairlines (like them, don't love them). Dr. Ferudini seems to me to be the best especially because he believes in temple work and being more aggressive. I have the 'advantage' of being 52 but also a very young 52 on the way up not a 'retire ready' guy but living more of a 30s life. I was classified by a top strip Dr. as being either 3 Vertex or 4. Basically receding and diffuse thinning on top. Somehow the qualtiy of my hair gives a decent illusion of coverage. I just started Finasteride after being off it for ten years (and any topicals). So I am pretty sure given my age, the addition of fin, my loss is pretty much halted if not slowed appreciably. Additionally given the last ten years (very hard) and a bright future I have no issues being aggressive and also concentrating on hairline/front and let the crown either a) stabilize or b) improve or c) slow down.

I spent a couple year totally against FUT and considering top FUT surgeons only but after getting close to making the decision started reconsidering my prejudices (poor yield, etc) However I saw some of Dr. Reddy's work and how he can get more hair per FU yield. This led me to start researching FUE in depth. I have diffuse thinning top and receded hairline, but maintain a decent illusion of hair (not full head but not as bad as it actually is) I just started Finasteride to address the crown as I want to leave it out of the first HT and just rebuild strong hairline and some temple work. If the Fin halts or reverses crown even I can do a second ht for crown in a year as Fin works on back and HT works in front. I really like Dr. Reddys cherry picking to get high hair to fu yield (I did the math and his AVERAGE is 2.7-1 vs more like 1.8-2 for others). Dr. Lorenzo's yields look amazing though I don't love his hairlines always (that pointy 50s pompadour look). Dr. Feriduni seems IMHO to have the best of both, and seems to not only do great hairlines, he seems to offer and like to and realize that temples are a HUGE part of any excellent HT result. I'll take a few hundred less on top to get a good temple rebuild anyday, most of the HTs I dont like are the ones without that balance. Any thoughts on these Drs? I am very much leaning towards Dr. Feriduni as he seems almost like the Dr. Rahal of FUE when it comes to hairlines.

In fact it was 4000 HAIRS and 1484 GRAFTS. That is impressive indeed.

After doing extensive research I have ended up with these two Drs. (yes I considered Dr. Hasson,Bisanga, etc). I have recession and then diffuse thinning in the crown (the latter I am willing to live with and/or address with Finasteride which I am back on for the last 3 months and/or do a second HT later). Right now I want to fix the hairline and behind. Dr. Rahal does amazing hairlines, yet I haven't seen as good results with FUE. I am not totally against FUT but clearly would prefer FUE if possible. I have seen some extraordinary FUE results from Dr. Reddy, and his hairline and temple restoration is also outstanding (I'd say on par if not even superior to Dr. Rahal) He also seems to have perfected 'cherry picking' FUE and also gets a higher yield specifically because he harvests 2-4 hair FUs (and of course 1s for hairline). I like the thought of that because my donor hair (to my eye/hand) has some areas that would be great for hairline that might be below the strip and also because I'd prefer if possible to take hairs that still have color (I am salt and pepper). I am not so worried about nape loss as i am 54 and my nape has always been strong, and it is doubtful it is or will thin. In any event, I am looking for some feedback. Dr. Rahal is great choice to be sure but I'd say given the results I've seen I'd be looking at 3k-4.5 FUT which is no small FUT scar, whereas with Dr. Reddy I am thinking 2-2.5k FUE would be in order. I am also slightly concerned about a couple bad recent results from Dr. Rahal but of course understand that this can happen to any Dr. and in fairness to Dr. Rahal he seems to be outstandingly committed to his patients and work and stands behind it like no other (I've read threads where he flies patients back in on his own dime). So I'm sort of up in the air. I'll assume the costs between the two aforementioned would be similar, so that is not a consideration.