Pigletts Progress

You guys are missing the point of the examples. You can have the branches go where ever you want, make a broom, whatever. But, it's the subtle movement and taper that is slowly developed.


What you don't want are obvious chops. Branches that are quickly grown out with few internodes, gotten rather fat, but with little taper. Then chopped, and new branches developed from that.

That type of "clip and grow" results in larger scars, bulges, angular movement rather than subtle curves, straight sections, areas with poor taper.
 
Here are two of Walters' trees:

Which do you prefer?

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

The second tree is very close to the style that Judy is going for. I like the style. But the execution is lacking. The structure branches are knobby, there's too much of a drastic change between the chop and the ramification, too many straight sections.
 
Although I do see this tree styled more to look like Al's virt, I can also easily see a great tree built using a more "structured" design as per Adair's examples. Personally I would probably fashion a wider canopy particularly at its base.
 
Here are two of Walters' trees:

Which do you prefer?

View attachment 97813

View attachment 97814

The second tree is very close to the style that Judy is going for. I like the style. But the execution is lacking. The structure branches are knobby, there's too much of a drastic change between the chop and the ramification, too many straight sections.


The first one any day!
 
You guys are missing the point of the examples. You can have the branches go where ever you want, make a broom, whatever. But, it's the subtle movement and taper that is slowly developed.


What you don't want are obvious chops. Branches that are quickly grown out with few internodes, gotten rather fat, but with little taper. Then chopped, and new branches developed from that.

That type of "clip and grow" results in larger scars, bulges, angular movement rather than subtle curves, straight sections, areas with poor taper.
Why do you think I cut it back so hard?
I want to build it slow and correct.
 
Why do you think I cut it back so hard?
I want to build it slow and correct.
Yes, I know! Very good!!! Now the task is to grow it back out nice and slow.

It's very tempting to let it grow out too far, too fast. Or try to develop ramification before a proper skeleton of branches and secondary branches is developed.
 
Here are two of Walters' trees:

Which do you prefer?

The second tree is very close to the style that Judy is going for. I like the style. But the execution is lacking. The structure branches are knobby, there's too much of a drastic change between the chop and the ramification, too many straight sections.


I would prefer Tree #2 with Tree #1's branch development and ramification on my bench
 
I would prefer Tree #2 with Tree #1's branch development and ramification on my bench
Fair enough!

Tree 2 has a trunk and character very much like Judy's. Tree 1 has better developed branches.

Smoke, I post this stuff not just for Judy, but for anyone who wants to grow good tridents.

I don't mean to offend anyone.
 
I post this stuff not just for Judy, but for anyone who wants to grow good tridents.

No offense taken but the presentation sucked... It is YOUR opinion of what a good trident should look like and not your plant. Just saying... I am also saying that if you said YOU would like to see it like, etc... rather then present it as a Holy Grail rule your input would be even more appreciated - yes, no shit I like your input just not as presented. ;)

Grimmy
 
No offense taken but the presentation sucked... It is YOUR opinion of what a good trident should look like and not your plant. Just saying... I am also saying that if you said YOU would like to see it like, etc... rather then present it as a Holy Grail rule your input would be even more appreciated - yes, no shit I like your input just not as presented. ;)

Grimmy
You have a point. I do tend come out and say what I think.

Good thing there's nobody like that running for President!


Oh, wait...
 
Here are two of Walters' trees:

Which do you prefer?

View attachment 97813

View attachment 97814

The second tree is very close to the style that Judy is going for. I like the style. But the execution is lacking. The structure branches are knobby, there's too much of a drastic change between the chop and the ramification, too many straight sections.

Dare I say it? The first one looks like a bonsai. The second one looks like a tree.

Second one needs more development on the branches for sure, though.
 
If you guys are worried about wasting wire, or the cost of aluminum wire, then you should quit bonsai altogether. Seriously. Get out now before you lose more cents (and more sense).
I did call it a waste of wire, not that it greatly concerns me. Wiring is a key essential part of building excellent bonsai. The point I was making is that it seems to me to be redundant to wire past the first or second node, all the way to the tips focussing on adding movement throughout the entire length. All those wiggles you spent time adding will be cut off in one months time. The movement that's gained from where the branch emerges to the point it will be cut to, could've been gained by using less wire and less time.
 
Back
Top Bottom