"age-inappropriate" Hairline: Is There Such A Thing?

[comoespossible]

Hello friends

I have heard many times (including from the doctor I am considering getting a hair transplant from) that when you are getting a transplant to fix the temples and front of your hair, it is a bad idea to give yourself too low/straight a hairline (i.e. to recreate something similar to your original hairline from before you started to lose anything) because the transplanted hair is permanent and such an appearance would be considered "age-inappropriate" when you are older.

I have no doubt that the people who have told me this are being honest (if anything, someone trying to scam you would suggest transplanting more hair, not less), but I am having trouble imagining any scenario in which someone of any age could have too low a hairline, that is one that diminishes rather than enhances their appearance.

With every old person with a low hairline that I know, people offer them nothing but praise (or maybe occasionally envy) for it. Maybe this is because they have a slight bit of recession that puts them just in the "age appropriate" category, but I don't think this is always so, Consider Ronald Reagan. Whatever your opinion of his policies, his hair is constantly exalted, and it was nothing near typical for a man of his age. The same can be said for Bill Clinton. Maybe he has a slight bit of recession, but it's not hard to picture what he would look like if you filled that in with Photoshop, and I don't think it would look "worse" in any way.

I also tried searching for images of "age inappropriate hairline" to see if maybe some examples would clarify to me why this is a look to be avoided, and found none. (If anyone has examples, that would be great!)

So I ask you, members of HairLossTalk, is there any truth to the idea of having too adolescent a hairline at an older age? One argument I can think of is that people would be more suspicious that you had a hair transplant, but I would gladly accept the slight social embarrassment of admitting more often to a hair transplant in exchange for the obvious social gains from having a more youthful head of hair, especially since I am 24 now, and will of course also have to live with this hairline as a young man. And even if there was an age at which you would look better with a bit more recession, is it worth it to deprive yourself of a better hairline in your youth?

I am very open to the possibility that in my naivety, I am hoping for something too close to perfection, and willing to be convinced that being more conservative with the hairline would help in the long run. But the argument of "age appropriateness" is just not one I can convince myself. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for whatever you all might have to say

 

[abcdefg]

"So I ask you, members of HairLossTalk, is there any truth to the idea of having too adolescent a hairline at an older age? "

No. Why would someone not want perfect or abnormally amazing Norwood 1 straight teenage hairline at older age. I guess the downside is you would get mistaken for being a lot younger then you really are. On the plus side your probably never going bald even it did start later on.
Its opinion though some guy out there will say perfect hairline at 50 looks weird, but we could say a Norwood 6 at 30 looks weird. I have seen many real life situations and comments that suggest that almost always more hair is better and looks better.

 

[Shai Foster]

My husband started going bald at age 20 and there is nothing abnormal about that. Just my own two cents.

 

[Retinoid]

Picture of Calvin Klein, he is 75 and obviously that hair line is not natural. He obviously has had other cosmetic procedures in addition to this, but even if he did not, the hair line would look odd.

 

[Cue Bald]

i think basically they mean the results of a hair transplant aren't so good when you expect a thick NW1 teenage hairline.
they put the hairline further up because hair transplant's are often thin, so thin hair as a Norwood 2 doesn't look "fake" and looks perfectly natural on a 30+ year old man.
but if they made a low NW1 with thin hair, it will look off and fake.

you can bet that if they could do Hair Transplants that actually matched teenage density and looked good, everyone would be getting thick Norwood 1 or even Norwood 0.5 hairlines.

also look at these SMP hairlines. even with SMP a receded or conservative hairline always looks the best.
look how bad these agressive hairlines look:

 

[comoespossible]

Thanks for all of the responses!

My husband started going bald at age 20 and there is nothing abnormal about that. Just my own two cents.

I did not mean to say that it wasn't! I also started balding around that age. I don't think that the terminal goal is to look normal as much as it is to look good. Whether it's normal or not, I don't think anyone would claim that being bald in your twenties looks good. But I was trying to ask about the notion that having a perfect hairline later in life looks bad (because it's abnormal and therefore sticks out).

"No. Why would someone not want perfect or abnormally amazing Norwood 1 straight teenage hairline at older age.

I am inclined to agree!

i think basically they mean the results of a hair transplant aren't so good when you expect a thick NW1 teenage hairline.
they put the hairline further up because hair transplant's are often thin, so thin hair as a Norwood 2 doesn't look "fake" and looks perfectly natural on a 30+ year old man.
but if they made a low NW1 with thin hair, it will look off and fake.

That is a very good additional argument for being conservative with a transplant, thanks for bringing it up! However, thin low hair would look fake and unnatural on a young man too, right? Whenever I've heard the "age-inappropriate" point, the person making it does specify "when you get older," so I really do think they are making a different argument than you, and that their argument really is that a perfect, thick, teenage hairline would look ridiculous on a 60 year old man.

With regards to SMP, why do you think the less aggressive hairlines look better? It can't be because the more aggressive ones are thinner in front.

Picture of Calvin Klein, he is 75 and obviously that hair line is not natural. He obviously has had other cosmetic procedures in addition to this, but even if he did not, the hair line would look odd.

Thank you, this is exactly the type of example I was looking for! My kneejerk response is that he still looks amazing for a 75 year old, and that I would kill to have that hair in 50 years (or even now ), but I can see in myself that this is probably me being overly cynical out of frustration with my own recession.