Lets attack this a different way Adair. It's a given that you buy more finished trees. It's also a given that you are not really known as a person here that regularly offers ground up progressions from nursery material or freshly dug material from a tree farm and puts branches or grafts branches ( on your own trees) and explains ad nauseam how to BUILD a tree.
So.. do you have any trees, that you have built that do not have this projecting apex? I know that Boon likes to give hand outs to students, ( though many of them have been copied from other text) that talk about this as a useful tool?
I have been doing bonsai for 35 years worked with some steller talents. I have taught classes along side William Valavanis and Jim Gremel, and Kenji Miyata at the Bi Annual Shohin convention here in California. I have taken workshops with the same, and many more, including Walter Pall. In all these years and all these workshops and guest artists visiting, including Ryan Neil more recently, I have "never ever" heard, nor read of the importance of the "projecting apex".
I'm not saying I have never seen it, nor am I saying that I don't have it, but it has been a by product of working the tree over years and the apex working its way forward, ( not to your extreme) over the years.
You have shown two trees with this super forward apex. Both I suspect were that way when you purchased them. Both of them will not ever be back over the root mass, because of the massive change in the tree it would make, and probably not for the good.
On your pine, which you did not create, it is evident that the original artist started the tree with the trunk leaning backward. That would be a no no. So I can surmise that the front, even though it went the wrong direction, was the better front between the two in terms of rootage, flare, taper and flow. Over the years, ( nothing having to do with you) the top of the tree was chopped and a new top was built. In the zest to get the apex in front of the trunk, the artist began choosing shoots that best achieved that aim. Over the years the apex was so far out there due to working towards that end, we have the tree we have now.
You can explain it, or rationalize it any way you wish, but that tree looks goofy in any view other than the front or back. While I am not a full on zealot for 360 degree trees like Will Heath was, I do feel that a tree should look as good from the sides as it does from the back and front. I understand about back branches and all that crap, but it still should have some symmetry as an upright growing tree.
I just don't buy your premise and everything you keep saying to rationalize the look that could be achieved with the tree standing up. Why try to make it look shorter when you can just make it shorter. Just cut the damn thing down. Its been chopped before, chop it again. Need more branches closer together, then graft them in there and get away from the stupid leaning tree that looks like it is going to fall over.
Just be honest. If you like it say so. If you think it looks a little goofy say so, it came that way. Would you have built it that way on purpose, say so. You never answered my questions in the other posts. I don't know why. It may be hard I know, cause you have to give a little and that is hard. Post some facts of this process. Who says this and show us some other trees if you have some? If you don't want to partake in this debate, I get it. Just say it. But please don't continue to question my intelligence by you "saying it and thats it". Thats bullshit and you know it.
Teach me. That's what I do.
