That's a pretty cool story about the deadwood. Very few broadleaf trees I'm familiar with presrve such large amounts of deadwood - buttonwood, pemphis, european olive, a few others. I've never heard of Duranta Erecta - so there's another one for my list.
You discussed branches and branch placement - for me, that's the thing that I really look for in a broadleaf tree because it's so difficult and takes so much time to obtain the level of refinement that I associate with a world class tree. If I may, I'd like to highlight this statement because, at least for me, it's something I look for that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. Here are two broadleaf trees that have won the Kokufu prize:
View attachment 85176 View attachment 85177
The first is a Japanese Maple, the second is a Trident. Consider the branches on these trees. Movement right from the start. Branching close to the trunk line. Continuous taper from the nebari out to the tip of every branch. Branch size decreasing all the way up the tree. Dense and full ramification. Seeing them makes me want to go out and throw away 1/2 of my collection. Few of us have the skill to pull this off and I've seen very few trees in the US that have reached this level of refinement. Whether or not these trees appeal to our specific tastes, I think any of us that have grown these trees can appreciate the patient and dedicated effort that has gone into achieving these results. For me, these are world class broadleaf trees - they do not exhibit the gaudy beauty of the yamadori conifers (I like them a lot too), but I have much more respect for the patient skill that they demonstrate.
So why don't we see more trees like this in the USA? I've seen a few spectacular ones but, frankly, I've seen far more great conifers than great broadleaf tress. And it's not just a question of material - I haven't seen many examples of a high level of refinement on a poorer quality trunk either.
Scott
Hey, Scott I wanted to address one more thing in regards to your post and your question of why we don't see trees like this here... alot of this has to do with our understanding of what makes good bonsai and is very much a regional thing.
For years here in the States, there has been a big interest in negative space... I think alot of this thinking originated years ago with Naka... we have all heard the allowing for birds to fly through comment.
If one was to go back and look at pictures of bonsai here in the states from the 70's and 80's there is so much space that there is hardly any tree! I said this before, when I saw some of the trees out west, at the ABS / GSBF Convention, the first thought that came across my mind was all of the trees I saw needed tightening up...
So, to answer your question, alot of why we don't see trees like this here in the states has alot to do with more our understanding of what makes a great tree.
I still see alot of this older, philosophy still being taught by alot of the professionals out there still at shows and demonstrations till this day... they remove way to much branching coming off of the trunk. And sadly are still going with the old left branch, back branch, right branch mentality...
Why? I think alot of this has to do with this generation seeing older images of older designs from places like Japan... that were out of touch from where the current Japanese were at... they had moved on. With the Internet things are fast.
A lot if these trees have issues where these professionals here, have told folks to remove... a lot of the branching coming off of the trunks would be considered bar branching to most here, because they are of to close of proximity. So, they would be removed. So, there i believe is a lot more behind why u do not see them here...
Often, when I see trees like these or one's coming out of Taiwan, or even the maples Walter Pall has posted here, I see so many issues that most here would consider wrong! I see things like what most here would consider bar branching, reverse taper, crossing branching, to many branches protruding from an area, the lack of negative spacing, to much of a helmet look, etc... but the trees are great trees, and really don't have these, it is just our outdated thought of training, that is teaching most this.
Good news is that I see alot of things changing here... I see folks starting to push new boundaries here that were not here before. One of my personal favorites is the examination of new angles and views one can pot at to add to a better tree...
Thanks for the post, one of the things I have been pushing here for a long time and the reasoning behind a lot of my threads, this being one of them... the questioning of what we are all doing, the logic that has come before, and how this can be expanded... so that we can progress.
How many folks voted no... my tree could not have future potential to be a World Class tree, Why?
Either they answered without reading all of what I had posted and did so because they saw World Class tree in the question and my tree was not that, even though i said it was not in the opening post... or, voted so because the tree did not fit the teachings of what we teach makes a good tree... so the tree had no potential. I think we still don't fully recognize how we can completely change and alter material. My tree with work could have the branching and ramification of the trees you posted. Someone created them, so why could not one create the same thing on the tree I posted? Same with the nebari, one could remove, replace and grow roots, as I said in my closing post, this is all things people do to create World Class trees.
