That doesn't matter to me or change what I said, which are of course, not very scientific things to begin with. I call it the "guess if I am going bald" game and I always exit when they person originally asking, then counter-argues. Your hair was not cut so that it has a piece jutting out. That's an artifact often associated with further recession in the temples and it also tends to make the hair not look as good when worn long but many actors have this pattern as I mentioned. Jack Nicholson has a similar sort of jutting pattern in front of the ears. I never had that. Any deviation from a normal halo or canopy shaped head of hair is a negative unless partial baldness comes into style and I would argue that such hair loss is not cosmetically significant if it stops but eh, at some point, the temples seem to go for everyone almost by age.
I am just always surprised why guys don't fixate on being attractive instead of coverage. I see a lot of transplant work that looks fine if someone wants to look like a nebbish person wearing his hair down in front. I am not against you or anything or those people. It all depends on what one wants and one can reasonably have but many guys seem to think that "if only they could get their hair back, things would change" but it wouldn't unless the person was attractive before going bald. I am very, very precise in what I view as the hair that's worth having where you do anything and it's far better than 99 percent of transplants because the hair that is transplanted is often already stressed. For the great results, the person needs very high fringe but it needs to be shiny, with luster and a silkiness about it. Wiry heads of hair to me are, eh. Rock and Roll hair or bust is what I say but listen to Tyler Durden if you want to know all the secrets of life.
