thanatopsis_awry

I'm pretty sure he has an elaborate wig/hair system. I know he used to, even in recent years, so I'd think he's still using it. There's a shot from some studio set that shows him with the wig falling off, and he looked like a solid NW6. I guess he could have gotten a HT recently to the front...gotten a boatload of grafts, and still uses a piece for his top/crown. But the matching of density would be tricky there.

Rachmunas, nice find. Also, to repost the Dr. Hasson case, who actually has a fairly similiar pattern to JS, though, again, more native hair and much higher laterals: http://hair-restoration-info.c...66060861/m/862106743

I agree, all of those cases look good in their own right, though as you say they don't necessarily approximate what JS is in store for; and thus, most importantly, what may very well be *best* for JS. Many of the very links you posted I would actually use as support for my cautionary urge that JS *not* go to a doctor who is *shooting* for 2700 as a *target*. Out of the 9 case links (the first link not being a result): #9, #8, #6, #4, #3 I would say explicitly support my argument that JS at the very least *shoot* for more grafts than 2700. With regard to the other case links: #2 http://www.hairtransplantnetwo...tientID=1879&DrID=16 isn't a great example for JS (or most anyone) to compare, without more information. Nice result, either way, but I would love to see the post-op photos, as I suspect this is mainly hairline work utilizing 2k grafts, and the before/afters represent this, as well as meds or simply lighting and longer hair. Again, a nice result, no doubt, but I don't think even SMG would actually use this as a prime example of what 2k can do for someone's *entire* head and produce *that* transformation. It seems SMG themselves classified the patient as a NW2, so.... #5 http://www.hairtransplantnetwo...tientID=1648&DrID=18 is a pretty good comparison, but again, it utilizes 20% more grafts than what JS has been prescribed, and if you asked Dr. Parsley -- let alone the patient -- if he wished he had been able to magically get more that day I'm sure he would say "hell yes". #7 http://www.hairtransplantnetwo...ientID=1579&DrID=263 (even with the given lighting, and no true top-down) is actually a pretty good supporter of my position. I guess this is all subjective, so if JS would be content with reaching that + 700 grafts thrown in, then all the best. Most wouldn't, particularly in light of the options available. The final example, #1 http://hair-restoration-info.c...=158100281#158100281 is of a guy much younger than JS, with a *much* *much* smaller area of balding, who also got more grafts used. 2700 grafts done by God would not be optimal. Will 2700 be good? Probably, but again, I don't really think that's the most important question. We're talking about what should be sought after, as a realistic ideal for JS. Maybe it's my old age setting in, but I'm just calling it like I see it. If JS, or anyone, thinks "Dr. Alexander" can deliver the goods unlike anyone else, fine....the Dr. in question should *still* shoot for a max-like session to whatever their capabilities are and not target 2700. Merely my opinion, but I *know* patients who went into their HTs who *didn't* hear talk like this wish they did beforehand. If JS is not destined to be one of these people, all the better, for sure, less grafts for the same level of contentness is undoubtably the best route to go. I personally don't believe *any* doctor exists who can work virtual magic and make grafts work better than they can in the hands of any number of solid, let alone elite, surgeons. Ultimately the approach of --> "If you like the work, you like the work." is just far too narrow for my tastes. The innumerable # of patients who get inferior jobs (ranging from not optimal, to OK, to horrible) almost always go in "liking the work" of whatever doctor is in question. Granted, on this site, we rarely deal with cases of poor surgical work; which is a truly terrific thing. I feel like session sizing is the #1 thing that can often be improved, and flexibility in this area is for the general population of patients' benefit. Either way, I think we have both given JS more than enough info to chew on. So while I disagree with you I'm glad JS and any1 else can decide what makes the most sense for them personally. *this isn't to target Dr. Alexander, whose work I have consistently praised, and whom I've often recommended, as I'd apply what I've said univerisally to any doctor and clinic. **also, JS, don't worry, you won't be confined to a "LIFETIME" of looking like a "FREAK" if you get 4k (or 9k) done by Dr. Alexander or Dr. Spok.

"Just because some doctors may recommended 3,000, 3,500, 4,000 or even more does not mean that you cannot achieve the same results with less grafts." I'd have to disagree. If *any* doctor -- let's just plug in Alexander for now -- can deliver "the same" result as different doctor -- let's say Hasson, for example -- while using a dramatically lower number of grafts, I have yet to meet him, in any way/shape/form. In theory, this logic has a certain appeal: I love Dr. A and Dr. B --> Dr. A recommend less grafts --> I wil go to Dr. A and save grafts and miraculously get just as good a result. However, how often is this ever *actually* the case. For all intents and purposes, extrordinary outliers aside, people either get the grafts they really need and get satisfied, or they fall prey to a low # and end up disillusioned and shocked that after all the $, emotional investment, and time they are left utterly lacking and need to brave more surgeries to hopefully get what they could have had initially. These scenarios happen countless times, and when you go back through the threads -- just like this one -- you will see history repeat itself time and time again, and more times than it should. And ya, hair caliber should always be taken into account, but cmon, JS could have the hair of a thousand stallions transfused into one strand and it wouldn't make 2700 right. The # of grafts is *not* "merely one of many factors"; it is hugely important, and when dealing with otherwise skilled surgeons, it is the #1 reason *by far* for patient dissatisfaction.

Btw, here is a case to look at as a comparison: http://hair-restoration-info.c...66060861/m/862106743 I'm pretty sure KMan had 5300 grafts. Notably, he has more terminal, native hair in the front, and his laterals on the top are a lot more narrow. His crown is relatively tiny, too. Everyone says research, and it's true; I personally like to define "research" as finding cases that resemble your own, and noting the similarities and differences over the backdrop of how many grafts were utilized. Def ask all of the docs you consult with to ship you examples in this vein, and then on your own find cases like the one I mentioned. This site has a ton of legit, unadulterated info on it.

JS, I hear ya; just want your expectations to be met, whatever that even translates into (if it's 2700 w/ Alexander all the better, as I honestly couldn't care less what doc you go for all intents and purposes). You def aren't a cue ball, but, again, IMHO, I don't feel you have so much native hair and of such quality that it's going to make the 2700 go "that" far, even if you don't even attempt to fix up the vertex/crown. Dr. Alexander disagrees. HTs aren't an exact science. It's a matter of plugging your own expectations into the equation, ultimately; I'm simply expressing my opinion, which may or may not be correct, in the end, but which should help you regardless.

You've begun your research, so the hardest part is actually over with! IMHO, shooting for 2700 isn't nearly enough. I'm actually a bit confused by the statement that you have all this native hair that will really "embolden" the transplant (no offense, obviously ) You know what you want and will be most happy with better than anyone; so, I'd just say that you research all your options and pick the doctor and graft# that you think will make you most happy. Personally, I'd shoot for a max session; at the very least shoot for a fully rebuild hairline that is balanced by a reinforced top (if not vertex and crown, graft count willing).

I noticed what Spex did, too. The extraction area looks a bit "odd" to me.

Glad you're happy; hair looks good! Any before pics, # of grafts, etc.

Heal and grow well, Joel; look forward to seeing this grown out!

As a rule, I'd say run -- don't walk -- away from hair gels. For your untamed locks...I would look into a styling creme or paste (prolly a creme). Use this in conjuntion with a "hair straightener"; be careful with these as the wrong ones can do you more harm than good (re: density). Essentially, this will give your hair the same +properties (and then some) that you enjoy when you first brush your hair, but invariably lose. You can get all this OTC. The "hair straightener" ointments usually aren't viscous, and are kinda watery, which again isn't the best thing for your density, but optimally it will be a small sacrifice for your straightened hair. They work fairly well, especially if you use them in tandem w/ a styling aid like I mentioned. Also, I'd stay away from getting your hair "professionally" straightened -- it can wreck what density you have.

I agree w/ Jessica. Seems fishy. My initial guess was an exorbitantly large punch size was used, maybe off of a motorized device that went too deep....sounds really weird, though.... I wish you the best. Keep on your HT doc, and stay dilligent with the specialists for this neuro problem.

The patience and biding of time will be good practice and preparation *for* the HT. Your thinning/pattern looks pretty similiar to mine, btw....you're a bit further alone, but lotta commonalities. You are due for a sick result; can't wait to see your work!

Lookin' good Kman -- overall transformation, for sure. Great to see the HT be a sparkplug for more positive change! You had 5400 grafts, right?

Looks quite good. Do you have the immediate post-ops? Did many grafts actually go into the crown, or is that a result of meds?

I know some who switched to dut b/c they had bad sides from fin, and the dut was fine on them. Generally, dut's side are perceived to be stronger, though, and there is certainly less clarity on all matters concerning dut, vs. fin. Various H+W patients have certainly tried dut, and with success, for either the aforementioned reason; or, as I plan to incorporate it, when fin's potency looks to be fading.

Congrats! Look forward to seeing where you take things.

Well said, Dr. Lindsey; very good points, indeed. On a side note, anyone know why "swim" suddenly erased all of his many posts in this thread?

I went through his site but couldn't find more on his "growth guarantee". I'm curious as to how exactly he positions that. As far as I know, H+W is the only clinic that actually "guarantees growth" (I interpreted it to mean that they stand behind growth, or a lackthereof, and take full culpability for it); I don't have firsthand experience with this, so the statement could be incorrect, but I was told that H+W guarantee growth in this sense, physiological problems (etc.) be damned.

How would I jack up my post count to 2k+ territory if I went and did that?!?

I think you look improved, for sure, and it looks totally natural and pleasing. Right on target, IMO. I agree that additional thickening would be nice and should prolly be expected, though it can't be guaranteed. I think over the next 4months you'll see density gains in the temple regions, which will round things out.

Hmmm....what do you mean by "don't respond well"? Like, side-effects, or you just don't think propecia works? Much of the time propecia will simply be preserving what hair you have left; at best, it can reverse miniaturized hairs and induce re-growth. It can often take upwards of 12+months of consistent use to truly be able to gauge whether it will work for you or not, too. Of course, you don't *have* to be on propecia to get your HT; it's just a factor you would need to discuss w/ Dr. Feller or whomever. Def set up a consult w/ Feller....his office can get super-busy, so you might want to talk to Spex on the forum, too. He's very knowledgeable and very friendly, no-pressure kinda guy. I'd ditch the laser, personally.

Hey Mohsin, My initial inclination would be to go the route of FUE, given the # of grafts you think you need, and assuming you are willing to pay the premium on $-cost. The recovery for FUE is superior to FUT, and the impact of visible scarring would be much improved. Some questions: How old are you? Is your loss hairline work, or crown/vertex, too? If your work would be on your crown, e.g., getting on propecia for a solid 6+months could be wise; especially, if the area isn't totally barren, the miniaturize hairs of a thinned region have a reasonable shot of becoming terminal and strong by way of the propecia. Either way, I'd heartily recommend Dr. Feller. He would also be optimal if you wanted to go the route of FUE.

Very nice montage, Spex! Tubs, you look *great*! You've come so far, and for a pretty nominal number of grafts, I'm sure you're loaded for any future ops. I'm curious to see what happens with you and FUE/PRP....I'm in a similar boat, considering both.

Doesn't hold much salt. Being ISHRS would never really factor into my decision making in considering a doctor. The Coalition is pretty much the creme de la creme of "organizations" that maintain an upwards trend of excellence while always keeping an eye out on potential applicants. ISHRS is often just smoke and mirrors for hacks to pump themselves up.