- Reaction score
- 0
Quick intro: I'm 42 and had a hair transplant 3 years ago for the vertex only, 1500 grafts via FUT. Today, my vertex looks about the same as it did 3 years ago, as apparently most of the native hairs that were there back then are gone now.
But..where I had no frontal problems, I now have noticeable recession and thinning.
I spend a LOT of time looking at pictures, specifically pictures of men in their '60s/'70s to identify patterns in hair loss.
I think I've hit upon one of the key things that makes me apprehensive of doing a transplant to the front part of my scalp (whereas I was not so when I did the vertex a few years ago).
I am a big fan of the 1960s group, The Monkees. Attached, you will see pictures of two of the members, Micky Dolenz and Mike Nesmith, across each of the past three decades. Around '94, they were in their early 50s. The second pics are from around 10 years ago (early 60s). And the final pics are from today.
What concerns me is that while they had receding/thinning hairlines, they had hair until their 60s....and then, seemingly in a matter of years, all of the front and top hairs just vanished. Had they had transplants in their 40s to strengthen their hairlines, what would they look like today? I realize these are just two cases, but I've read often that hairloss can start being more predictable by your 40s. Mike and Micky seem to be counter to that thought. Even if these guys had transplanted, say, 5000 grafts back in their 40s or 50s, would it look worse today in their 70s versus if they had not done anything?
So, effectively, my concern is that having already used 1,500 grafts for my vertex, if I do a 1,500 hair transplant today in the front and find myself 30 years later seeing all of the native front/top hairs fly away, I will not have enough grafts left to make myself look natural.
Your thoughts? Does a well placed transplant of even 1,500 grafts (and possibly another 2,000 down the road) allow for things not to look "bad" should I lose ALL my native hairs on the front/top?
But..where I had no frontal problems, I now have noticeable recession and thinning.
I spend a LOT of time looking at pictures, specifically pictures of men in their '60s/'70s to identify patterns in hair loss.
I think I've hit upon one of the key things that makes me apprehensive of doing a transplant to the front part of my scalp (whereas I was not so when I did the vertex a few years ago).
I am a big fan of the 1960s group, The Monkees. Attached, you will see pictures of two of the members, Micky Dolenz and Mike Nesmith, across each of the past three decades. Around '94, they were in their early 50s. The second pics are from around 10 years ago (early 60s). And the final pics are from today.
What concerns me is that while they had receding/thinning hairlines, they had hair until their 60s....and then, seemingly in a matter of years, all of the front and top hairs just vanished. Had they had transplants in their 40s to strengthen their hairlines, what would they look like today? I realize these are just two cases, but I've read often that hairloss can start being more predictable by your 40s. Mike and Micky seem to be counter to that thought. Even if these guys had transplanted, say, 5000 grafts back in their 40s or 50s, would it look worse today in their 70s versus if they had not done anything?
So, effectively, my concern is that having already used 1,500 grafts for my vertex, if I do a 1,500 hair transplant today in the front and find myself 30 years later seeing all of the native front/top hairs fly away, I will not have enough grafts left to make myself look natural.
Your thoughts? Does a well placed transplant of even 1,500 grafts (and possibly another 2,000 down the road) allow for things not to look "bad" should I lose ALL my native hairs on the front/top?
Last edited:
