I don't like my Ulmus minor

[Cable]

I got this Ulmus minor (smoothleaf elm) at a recent workshop. You drew lots to get assigned a tree and this was mine. I'm not a fan of the second "trunk" but the workshop instructor thought I should keep it. Looking for second opinions since I may very well be wrong!

As I see it my options are:

1. Keep it as is.
2. Use wire to pull it more upright and closer to the main trunk
3. Shorten it to the first set of foliage
4. Air layer the whole bloody thing off

Right now my preferences are 4, 3, 2, 1.

 

[Scorpius]

I say keep it. It's unique. It's got a mother daughter vibe going on.

 

[ShadyStump]

There's a couple of cottonwoods I've seen when I used to commute to work that grew right on top of each other creating a comparable appearance, ie. one trunk relatively vertical, then another that must have been broken over in a storm that extends off horizontally.
I'd actually use a guy wire to bring that trunk on the right DOWN MORE in all but a semi cascade to emulate the one I'm thinking of. Take the existing look to an extreme. I'll be out that way again later this week, so I'll try to remember to get a pic for you.

Otherwise, I'm thinking number 3. I'm afraid that with out the smaller trunk you'll wind up with empty space that will require a complete restyle.

 

[sorce]

It can't "look good" at the same height (length) as the main with no taper transition points.

The foliage currently on it seems will also remove the slight taper it has.

The left trunks first branch says remove the whole second trunk, but I don't wanna see it gone.

But you can't exactly remove the left trunks first branch either.

I don't like the segmenty nature of the whole thing, branchless internodes of 3.....
Makes it hard to find anything good in old work, so I'd probably cut it up hard. Do a mad start over.

Sorce

 

[DavidBoren]

I think you should keep it [the right trunk], but get it lower than the left trunk's first branch. I would also cut the right trunk back to its first foilage.

 

[BobbyLane]

Have you explored the option of how the tree would look without it, why dont you hide it and show us again. personally i think its a lesser tree without it.
your instructor wired this tree? did your instructor point out its flaws for you to correct?
sorry never been to a workshop, curious how theyre run.

ps did your instructor give you a reason why he would keep the second trunk?

 

[Shibui]

Good twin trunk are much less common than good single trunk trees so always take a good hard look before removing a second trunk. Getting branches in good spots and shapes on a single tree is hard enough but when you add the second trunk the problems can multiply.
The second trunk does echo the shape of the main trunk really well but I agree the lack of taper lets it down badly. The main trunk has been chopped and regrown (or had forks to chop back to) so it does have taper but the smaller one has never been chopped. That's where I'd start - chop and regrow the second trunk, probably from its first branches area.

That big fat branch at the rear also jars with me. I'd have no qualms taking that one off.

 

[rockm]

This can work into a pretty decent tree if you sort it out...

Here's what I'd do (and others have suggested it also)--Cut the second trunk back as indicated in the previous post (back to the first green shoots). Remove the big fat rightward growing branch on the main trunk. This really not a twin trunk, the first "trunk" is your first branch.

 

[ShadyStump]

This really not a twin trunk, the first "trunk" is your first branch.

I like this as a problem solving concept.
For my own future reference, would you recommend this as a good rule of thumb when stumped () by multiple trunks?

 

[BobbyLane]

Before removing anything, beginners should consider using maybe a towel or something, OP could reduce the offending trunk himself and see how it looks at different heights or removed. with the towel or tissue, or foil.
thats just basic stuff no?
i mean, even Peter chan teaches this stuff
heres an example of similar material i found on the web.

 

[Maiden69]

I think I will go against the grain here. I love @MACH5 Arakawa Maple so I think that ground-layering and changing the angle, plus pulling the smaller trunk closer to the bigger one would look great. On the left I left the smaller trunk the same size as it is now, on the right I changed the angle to look like the Arakawa, plus I reduced the size of the smaller trunk. I would love to know what Sergio suggests for this elm.

 

[Nelis]

If this was my tree, I would tilt it slightly to the right, eliminating the need to try and bend down the branch as suggested previously, then do a ground layer just above the first roots. No use having something nice on top sitting on a bum like that.

 

[rockm]

I like this as a problem solving concept.
For my own future reference, would you recommend this as a good rule of thumb when stumped () by multiple trunks?

One of the primary reasons for this not being a trunk is that it is too high up on the nebari to visually make it a separate trunk. It's also on the inside of a curve, which further visually weakens it. I would not leave it so long. "The best tree is the smallest tree" is a saying to live by when designing. It means the most compact tree works best visually. The long lanky branch is boring and has no taper or real interest--other than just being too long. It's not dynamic and "says nothing" other than "I'm here because of indecision and my owner's timidity" I mean that half-jokingly. Beginners tend to be afraid of a lot of things that seem drastic, when in fact, they're really not. This is not a drastic thing really, it's basically hard pruning a branch to induce visual taper. The remaining branch will push a lot of new shoots that can be used to ramify and make it look more convincing. Without that hard pruning, you will be hard pressed to induce much ramification at the end of that longer branch...

Take BobbyL's advice--throw a white towel over the lower branch to block it out, then gradually Uncover sections of it to see the effects of shortening it could have.

 

[rockm]

Also, that beautiful Arakawa maple that's mentioned underwent a similar chop (s) on its second trunk. That produced needed taper in that trunk...

 

[BobbyLane]

I think I will go against the grain here. I love @MACH5 Arakawa Maple so I think that ground-layering and changing the angle, plus pulling the smaller trunk closer to the bigger one would look great. On the left I left the smaller trunk the same size as it is now, on the right I changed the angle to look like the Arakawa, plus I reduced the size of the smaller trunk. I would love to know what Sergio suggests for this elm.
View attachment 449818

Another thing I used to do is look at a tree and think hmmmm what would so n so do with this and try to get in their mindset.

you only have to look at Mach's trees to grasp what he would do.
for sure he makes a better nebari or adds more roots. I did think the roots need work too.and there is defo a feeling that the trunks are getting away from each other, so yes there can be more harmony there.
if you look at some of the top J maples, ones with multi or twin trunks one thing you notice is harmony and cohesion, again these are concepts you learn by looking at good trees yourself.

apologies if im being an ass guys, just trying to help people to be better really

ps tricky to tell but i also thought of bringing up that branch in the middle up into the negative space, clipping it back, training it upwards.

the low branch on left trunk i also bring up maybe like a third trunk.

I bet Mach will consider grafting a third trunk

 

[giventofly]

I think I will go against the grain here. I love @MACH5 Arakawa Maple so I think that ground-layering and changing the angle, plus pulling the smaller trunk closer to the bigger one would look great. On the left I left the smaller trunk the same size as it is now, on the right I changed the angle to look like the Arakawa, plus I reduced the size of the smaller trunk. I would love to know what Sergio suggests for this elm.
View attachment 449818

Did you do that image on paint or is there something specific for design trees? Seems very well done

 

[Maiden69]

Did you do that image on paint or is there something specific for design trees? Seems very well done

On MS PowerPoint with the computer mouse, I'm at work so I don't have my stylus. Paint is a pain to work, so I just do free-hand lines in PP and then group them all together by branches/trunks so I can manipulate them separately.

 

[ShadyStump]

One of the primary reasons for this not being a trunk is that it is too high up on the nebari to visually make it a separate trunk. It's also on the inside of a curve, which further visually weakens it. I would not leave it so long. "The best tree is the smallest tree" is a saying to live by when designing. It means the most compact tree works best visually. The long lanky branch is boring and has no taper or real interest--other than just being too long. It's not dynamic and "says nothing" other than "I'm here because of indecision and my owner's timidity" I mean that half-jokingly. Beginners tend to be afraid of a lot of things that seem drastic, when in fact, they're really not. This is not a drastic thing really, it's basically hard pruning a branch to induce visual taper. The remaining branch will push a lot of new shoots that can be used to ramify and make it look more convincing. Without that hard pruning, you will be hard pressed to induce much ramification at the end of that longer branch...

Take BobbyL's advice--throw a white towel over the lower branch to block it out, then gradually Uncover sections of it to see the effects of shortening it could have.

Oh, ok. I see what you're seeing now.
Not certain I agree stylistically, but you're right that's totally just a big branch trying to to be a trunk. Changes my entire perception of the tree now.
Thanks for the side lesson.

 

[Cable]

Have you explored the option of how the tree would look without it, why dont you hide it and show us again. personally i think its a lesser tree without it.
your instructor wired this tree? did your instructor point out its flaws for you to correct?
sorry never been to a workshop, curious how theyre run.

ps did your instructor give you a reason why he would keep the second trunk?

I did hide part of it with a handkerchief and I didn't like it (my #3 option, similar to what David posted but without the downward bend). No, the instructor didn't say much because there were plenty of other people in the workshop who needed his help and I'm supposed to know what I'm doing. lol. He said he'd keep the trunk/branch because it was interesting.

This can work into a pretty decent tree if you sort it out...

Here's what I'd do (and others have suggested it also)--Cut the second trunk back as indicated in the previous post (back to the first green shoots). Remove the big fat rightward growing branch on the main trunk. This really not a twin trunk, the first "trunk" is your first branch.

That's my #3 option, but I did not think about removing the back branch. Interesting idea!

Before removing anything, beginners should consider using maybe a towel or something, OP could reduce the offending trunk himself and see how it looks at different heights or removed. with the towel or tissue, or foil.
thats just basic stuff no?
i mean, even Peter chan teaches this stuff
heres an example of similar material i found on the web.

Yes, I did do that. Wasn't happy with the results of shortening. One reason why I was considering air layering it off is that it does make for a pretty nice tree by itself and I thought I could sort out the main trunk. But, what Shibui said about good twin trunks being less common resonated with me. It may be what the instructor was thinking, too. I ended up not touching it because I said I can always take it off later but I can't put it back!

One of the primary reasons for this not being a trunk is that it is too high up on the nebari to visually make it a separate trunk. It's also on the inside of a curve, which further visually weakens it. I would not leave it so long. "The best tree is the smallest tree" is a saying to live by when designing. It means the most compact tree works best visually. The long lanky branch is boring and has no taper or real interest--other than just being too long. It's not dynamic and "says nothing" other than "I'm here because of indecision and my owner's timidity" I mean that half-jokingly. Beginners tend to be afraid of a lot of things that seem drastic, when in fact, they're really not. This is not a drastic thing really, it's basically hard pruning a branch to induce visual taper. The remaining branch will push a lot of new shoots that can be used to ramify and make it look more convincing. Without that hard pruning, you will be hard pressed to induce much ramification at the end of that longer branch...

Take BobbyL's advice--throw a white towel over the lower branch to block it out, then gradually Uncover sections of it to see the effects of shortening it could have.

That's what I was thinking for reducing it. I tested several lengths with the handkerchief and wasn't thrilled with any but that was really because of the lack of taper. I think that's fixable over time. I'll get some pics of that and post.

Another thing I used to do is look at a tree and think hmmmm what would so n so do with this and try to get in their mindset.

you only have to look at Mach's trees to grasp what he would do.
for sure he makes a better nebari or adds more roots. I did think the roots need work too.and there is defo a feeling that the trunks are getting away from each other, so yes there can be more harmony there.
if you look at some of the top J maples, ones with multi or twin trunks one thing you notice is harmony and cohesion, again these are concepts you learn by looking at good trees yourself.

apologies if im being an ass guys, just trying to help people to be better really

ps tricky to tell but i also thought of bringing up that branch in the middle up into the negative space, clipping it back, training it upwards.

the low branch on left trunk i also bring up maybe like a third trunk.

I bet Mach will consider grafting a third trunk

Yeah, I need @MACH5

The roots do need work. What you can't see is that it has a decent back root and the big one on the right. I feel two of the other three need to go and I'm leaning towards keeping the curvey one on the left and taking out the middle two because they are mostly straight. Or, I could remove #2 and bend #3. I have time to sort that out!

Appreciate the advice everyone, I really do.

 

[0soyoung]

I think that ground-layering and changing the angle, plus pulling the smaller trunk closer to the bigger one would look great. .

I agree, except for the ground layering which I would do only if it really is necessary (I think the nebari can be redeveloped without it).