thanatopsis_awry

You've narrowed it down to three excellent docs, Severn; and it's no surprise to me that they quoted you similiar #s, and also that those #s were in the higher range. Also, actual graft #s are the 'sine qua non' of getting a quality HT for all practical purposes....choosing the best graft # is indispensible to getting the best result, and finding yourself happy at the end of the long, winding road. Going by "feelings" and "trusting" that a doctor will "be able to deliver..regardless of their graft estimate" the goods that you have in mind is a sure-fire way to end up at a destination you don't want, and wishing you could do a do-over. I've seen it happen countless times and it will continue to happen (unfortunately). Don't let that person be you -- and it seems you won't be! A doctor could puportedly have the most supreme skills in the world, but if he is quoting and delivering inferior graft numbers that aren't in sync with the patient he's doing his skills almost as much of a disservice as he is doing the patient. Thankfully, in actuality, this hypoethical doesn't carry much weight since the best docs have been those who have pioneered their practices into offering patients the most flexibility and choice -- graft #s included. Maybe there is a method to the madness in quoting Severn 1500, when juxtaposed to the service being offered by SMG, H+W, Rahal, and Arocha -- I'd love to know it....

Re: 3500....I see where the "overkill" remark is coming from...BUT, I totally disagree that there would be "no cosmetic benefits from it". Make no mistake about it, even 3k will likely *not* be giving you *true density* on par with your pre-MPB self. IMO, it will strike a great balance between the "illusion of density" and true density and leave you very satisfied. What would an extra 500 or 1000 do? It will assuredly give you greater true density. What does this practically mean? You will be able to pull off a denser look in a wider array of circumstances, regardless of "style" or how "wet" or "dry" your hair is. What that is worth, over the backdrop of stockpiling another ~500 grafts is your call. Your age, pattern, and pretty excellent stabilization of hairloss sets you up nicely to really blast the area; so, while I think ~3k is a great #, I can understand 3500, too, in that any future loss will still be able to me targeted with an ample number of grafts. As for swelling....I'm not positive on how facial swelling is effected by non-hairline work, but either way, I'd be shocked if you weren't able to at least be able to put a cap on.

2500-3000, and it's not even close, IMO. Dr. Arocha's 3500 certainly wouldn't hurt, though lol... You're in a tremendous spot to get a near-total restoration in one pass here; take advantage of this!

Rassman didn't perform that HT; it was done by his partner, Dr. Pak.

Armani is an incompetent surgery who runs a scumbag chain of hair clinics; his results suck, he charges a ton of money, and his ethics are borderline if not out-and-out criminal. Back in ancient times he was a pretty talented surgeon, but that is in the rear-view mirror, a part of ancient history, and pretty inconsequential. IMO, of course. Rayne, you still considering a HT? Who are you narrowing your search down to?

This is my conjecture at this point w/o seeing pics yet, but I'm willing to put my sheer speculation to the test -- I'd bet the next 10 of my paychecks that the SMG and H+W recco's will be close to optimal, and that 1500 would leave you sorely lacking. Huge discrepancy in graft recommendations (which is the norm, not the exception). Get those pics up!

I wouldn't expect some thick lion's mane, but this looks pretty poor for nearly 6000. The documentation, as usual, is lacking, as well. H+W pump out cases like pez w/ similiar (if not lower) graft totals with end-results that dwarf this; several from SMG, Feller, and Konior, too, come to mind with far superior, far more natural-looking results. Totally agree that he should not have gotten a HT, and I'm surprised that if his hair charachteristics are as bad as Rassman says that he even operated on him. I find it very hard to believe this kis is truly happy with where his hair currently stands and his future prospects for now his *3rd* surgery.

It's a totally relative term, which is basically applied to cases where the doctor (and patient) are striving for something approximating -- if not outright reaching -- "true density", or the density that existed pre-MPB. Even "true density", however, is a relative term, and the hairs/cm that we have pre-MPB varies person to person. That said, in the vast majority of "dense packing" cases the actual density is *not* the same as the "natural hair". In theory, it's entirely possible, though, and pre-MPB can be matched. Generally, though, it's about walking the fine line of conserving donor and creating an "illusion of density", while offering an optimal balance of actual density while preserving the said donor for the future or for attacking a large balding area.

Huh? lol

Age is rarely, if ever, an absolute determining factor; it is one factor, among many, which needs to be taken into account when making an informed decision. But ya, I'd agree w/ PGP, Spex and Dakota -- ~1200 seems like a very reasonable number, and that FUE may very well be an ideal route to go, especially with the recent advancements.

Ahhh, now I remember your case, Aaron...ya, before even seeing your grown out results in this thread, my reaction was the same as before, pre-op, for the same reasons; ultimately, that 2k would still be a very conservative approach and not approximate the type of density it seemed you were after. This is no fault of yours, and I wouldn't exactly fault Dr. Gencheff, either -- you simply weren't on the same page. I see this problem a lot, especially with younger guys. We do some research, realize and are "OK" -- we "won't get our 15yr old hair back". We tell the forum, tell the doctor, tell whomever that we don't have outrageous expectations and that we aren't after a lion's mane. The problem is that while this is true, "we" often don't truly understand how difficult it is to even regain a semblence of the density we think we are compromising over.....this attitude leads to a radical under-appreciation for how many grafts really need to get moved (over the backdrop of our hair charachteristics); and that the language we speak of when we talk about wanting "modest density" or whatever, as HT-newbs and people of the general population means something else to the vast majority of hair transplantation docs out there.

This raises a lot of questions to me; questions which, at the very least, I think your doctor should be accountable to you for, and give answers to: How a 1k graft target was derived for you, and how it's justified, leading to: The response to your concern over the session size. "100 grafts is the same as 1,500 to 2,000 follicular units" seems almost like a non-sequitur response, and I'm not grasping how this was supposed to help you understand better, let alone satisfy your actual concern over getting enough grafts, which you clearly still did not. It's left me puzzled, it clearly left you puzzled, and it seem to this day you are *still* puzzled about that, and: This "maximizing your donor" -- what does that even mean....did they tell you that they were essentially going to get as many grafts as safely possible for you? That's how I'd interpret it. If so, I find it extremely hard to believe 1k -- or is it 2k lol... -- was the best that could be done. To be frank, this situation is very irksome and troubling to me. At the end of the day our best weapon is our own eyes and doing our own research until we are 100% confident; but this doesn't mean the *professionals* and *doctors* we are entrusting ourselves to should not be held to the highest of standards in helping to educate us, as well, while also working towards delivering the results we go in expecting.

Wait...now I'm a little confused haha....your doctor proposed 1k grafts?!? When you took it upon yourself to inquire into getting more...did you? As in "2100 grafts"? I think I'm confused by the semantics here, or missed something. Anyways...IMO...your result looks about right on, though I don't think the "gameplan" was terribly optimal for you; unfortunately, it's left you with a genuine need for more, and that's something I see all too often. This isn't an issue of Hair Greed. You're in good shape to get where you want to be with your next procedure, though -- just go with a top tier doc, like you say, and get the right # of grafts. Also, you look great w/ the concealer, so that should help bridge the time gap with your next op!

Yes....I guarantee he was basically promised the moon and that after discussions with the *doctor* and the *doctor's* marketing he had total assurance and confidence that his result would yield the density he now realizes he does not have. He's now in a difficult spot, which LMS has described well. Without seeing pics, I'd still guess his density is pretty good, and that with a bit of concealer (e.g. nanogen) it could look solid...it sucks that $ and the scar have to be constantly battled.....his best option might ultimately be a 2nd procedure to give him the density he wants. Having to go through a 2nd procedure that was prolly not even discussed prior is a bitch...financially and otherwise....but, three choices basically exist: Do nothing and decide if you can live how you want with your current hair. Buzz and not care about the scar. Take your time and look into 2nd strip procedure, evaluate the $ and time that would have to be committed, but a route which could in most likelihood give you the density you want.

The consistency of HTs (re: yield?) is an interesting topic and discussion and there's a lot to it. But, Swagger looks to have gone on some wicked tilt by Ron's "thunder" this time; he is like a pitbull of truth when he feels he's right, but calling him a scumbag and *personally*, *physically* threatening him won't unclench his jaws nor negate his points. I fully understand why LMS would feel attacked, though it's ridiculous and disingenuous to *single out* Ron for creating some melee-brawl when, even when disagreeing with him, his debate-posts are built like well-oiled V8's to support and defend his positions at hand. IMO, a lively debate is healthy; if you're going to be vicious, just be vicious in the defense of your position, vs. the pure ad hominem attacks cast at Ron.

It's good that Riky is pleased with his result; though, his pics are totally dubious and I put little stock in them. Something does strikes me as fishy about all of this...the protein shakes....3months miracle growth.....and part of which is that L. Shapiro is fond of employing shills and deceitful marketing....which leads to the other important thing: 99.9% of people who do research, like everyone on this forum, will come to the opinion that there are *far*, *far* better docs and clinics to go to. But, if Riky is genuine and happy all the best for him -- if he would like to persuade anyone, however, and improve his doc's standing he should produce a nice set of quality before and afters.

Incredible even when wet! Your hair is looking awesome -- really can't ask for much more, yet it will still only get better. IMO, it is ready to be tamed and styled whenever you want!

lol, why would he go "unnamed"? As opposed to standing by his assertion, which I would think he actually believes in and believes to be true.

Congrats on making it past the first 1/4 mark, dude! The hairline looks awesome on you. Unlike an actual race it's going to be smooth -- and smoother -- sailing going forward!

Wow. Exciting news, particularly since I'm pretty interested myself. Are you going to be documenting any of these cases/

LOL! There's only two types of woman who would realistically do this but 2 days post-op -- let's have faith in the OP and hope it was the wife! But ya, this is the most luxurious post-op "concern" I've ever encountered...and to think I was sweatin over whether my pillow fortress was good enough for my grafts when I slept....

FUE might keep making strides and become a more attractive option for many who prize yield as high as they do a swift recovery. For something really impactful, though, which to me means something that augments our donors....it wouldn't surprise me if some type of BHT became viable for some people, and act as very good "filler" in the mid-scalp and vertex. For many, we truly don't need *that* much more donor to be able to really smack MPB in the face even at its worst....2k...3k...let alone more would be *huge*.

I can't agree more w/ Bill about "risk management"....a reflective, informed assessment of risk-reward, subjective to each of us. If we look at HTs to be something of a perfect solution, then I agree that there are very few -- if any -- satisfactory results and outcomes. But, if we look to HTs to be that of a positive -- perfection be damned --, for the majority of posters who do adequate research and reflection, HTs are a consistently clear success. We can pick flaws in virtually any HT case, and it's also the nature of us to take successes and improvements for granted and to focus on any and all problems with rewnewed vigor (once we have the very luxury to do so following the said success/improvement); but the fundamental question is whether the person in question is better off and whether they are content with the route taken. I've followed Hasson, Wong, Rahal, Feller, SMG, Cooley, Alexander, Farjo (and others) fairly closely. Looking not just at clinic results themselves, but of actual patients who have taken the time to document their journey. The verdict is that the overwhelming number of patients feel improved, if not radically transformed for the better. To me, realistically defeating MPB doesn't really mean that you kill it; it means that you fight it as well as you can for your own situation.

Stop bragging, lol! But ya, unless in ectasyu you repeatedly mashed your donor into some wooden headboard on your love-bed, I'd imagine it to be a positive if anything, aside from likely being totally neutral.

You make some interesting points, and I wouldn't mind seeing the "system" in mind played out to see how it'd go. I will say, though, that I find the clinics who have risen to the challenge of posting transparent results of ultra-refined work really do seem to be showcasing true representations of their work -- as opposed to like rare, cherry-picked results. That this might not be the case used to be a concern of mine. One of the best things about this community is the *lack* of hype, and a realism about the HT field that is veryvery rare to come by. This keeps the clinics and docs on their toes, in a good, honest sense. It's not too uncommon for a "WOW" result to be buffered by the doctor himself saying that the result might not be typical for a variety of potential reasons; likewise, doctors have posted and openly discussed cases that are far from being instantly impressive. Your research shouldn't stop within this forum itself, either; once here you can smoothly branch into consultations with elite docs and talking to and meeting patients, which is really indispensible. Also, no matter how particular a patient gets about their level of satisfaction -- be it a 1, 5, or 10 -- it's still so so subjective. You make a vital point about what does "satisfied" really meen, with regard to our own selves. Using this forum while trusting our own eyes, surveying clear pics and video, and ideally seeing patients in the flesh will be the best combo, IMO.