BackyardBonsai
Shohin
4 images but only 3 trees? The left are the same tree while the right is two different trees? I like the one on the left as it look more tree like.
What one would you pick, and why?
- Thread starter Scott6829
- Start date
-
- Tags
- katsura bonsai
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
Curious to your choice of words. Looks like a tree? or... Looks like a maple tree? Formal upright is not a form used much in styling a maple.
Has the choice in making a good species of any deciduous tree come down to it has good taper, and the internodes seem shorter? I find the tree on the left dull and boring.
I was hoping to hear some ideas on what make the tree on the left popular? What makes it not popular? These are things that anyone here after one year doing bonsai should be able to whip out instantaneously. Unless your laying down some serious cash for a perfect fat tapered Japanese Black Pine for a formal upright, outstanding taper should not be the number one criterion for choosing maple stock.
Anyone? Put some good maple attributes down to paper here and see if it matches up to that tree.
Here are five trees from my backyard. If you didn't see the leaves, would you know what kind of trees they are without seeing those leaves?
You would probably at least guess deciduous?
Pretty hard to mix this up with a juniper or pine?
Deciduous trees are a blank canvas. If you wish you can just cut all the branches off and chop it down to three inches off the dirt and start over. If it's a maple you probably would have a pretty damn nice tree in 5 years after the chop. So to me...it seems that it might be useful to hone in on what makes a great, not good, maple tree.
What do these five trees have that the left tree does not?
LanceMac10
Imperial Masterpiece
What image you want? The one that everybody likes? That image will be all you'll have, outside of an angle change at re-pot. Seeing it's your first post, you might not be aware of certain techniques that would create options in the design.
Mind you, I got no problem putting that puppy in a huge pot and growing a "monster"!!!
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
We don't know anything about the OP - experience level, what kinds of trees he/she likes, or location. If he is beginner and/or just wants a maple in a pot, I think any of these could be OK. None are National show level but they could still make nice trees that are enjoyable to work on (and learn from).
I can see the attraction to the tree on the left. Overall, for most of us who don't live in areas with really ancient trees, the shape and structure look very familiar. Lots of deciduous trees look like this, the kinds of trees you'll see in yards or parks, maybe 30-50 years old? Not saplings, not old craggy old monsters, but trees in the prime of their life. Plus as Adair noted, it has decent taper, decent branch size, and has a fair amount of ramification. Sure the trunk is straight, but many trees grow that way - they don't all grow with contorted trunks. So if the OP finds this image attractive, then it would be a good purchase (depending on price). As for the bar branches, there are ways to deal with that or you could just leave them...trees in nature do have bar branches, inverse taper, etc. It's only ugly if you think it is (or have been told it is).
The tree on the upper right has longer bare sections of trunk, hard to tell where there are nodes for potential budding. Nebari might be OK but hard to tell from the photo. Maybe somewhat more of an informal broom deciduous style with the main trunk splitting about halfway up. One could graft into those straighter trunk segments if there aren't enough nodes, or cut back.
The tree on the lower right has a bad roots but a little more trunk movement. The top is congested so either some of those branches/trunks would need to be removed, or it could be layered and the lower part of the tree grown out or put in the yard.
Overall, as they exist...all look more like natural trees most people would be familiar with, and less like the standard informal upright left/right/back bonsai structure. Any of them could be bludgeoned into whatever form is desired, of course, all it would take is time and skill.
For what it's worth...
I can see the attraction to the tree on the left. Overall, for most of us who don't live in areas with really ancient trees, the shape and structure look very familiar. Lots of deciduous trees look like this, the kinds of trees you'll see in yards or parks, maybe 30-50 years old? Not saplings, not old craggy old monsters, but trees in the prime of their life. Plus as Adair noted, it has decent taper, decent branch size, and has a fair amount of ramification. Sure the trunk is straight, but many trees grow that way - they don't all grow with contorted trunks. So if the OP finds this image attractive, then it would be a good purchase (depending on price). As for the bar branches, there are ways to deal with that or you could just leave them...trees in nature do have bar branches, inverse taper, etc. It's only ugly if you think it is (or have been told it is).
The tree on the upper right has longer bare sections of trunk, hard to tell where there are nodes for potential budding. Nebari might be OK but hard to tell from the photo. Maybe somewhat more of an informal broom deciduous style with the main trunk splitting about halfway up. One could graft into those straighter trunk segments if there aren't enough nodes, or cut back.
The tree on the lower right has a bad roots but a little more trunk movement. The top is congested so either some of those branches/trunks would need to be removed, or it could be layered and the lower part of the tree grown out or put in the yard.
Overall, as they exist...all look more like natural trees most people would be familiar with, and less like the standard informal upright left/right/back bonsai structure. Any of them could be bludgeoned into whatever form is desired, of course, all it would take is time and skill.
For what it's worth...
These trees are all trees I would not purchase for myself. About the only thing I like about them is they are old enough to have mature grey bark, rather than the young, green juvenile bark.
Specifically, I don’t like the scarred trunk of the first one, one looks like a sling shot, the twin trunk has two equal sized trunks...
Tieball
Masterpiece
I don’t think the trees offer something exciting in appearance. Nothing says a great find. I’d keep looking. Primary branches near the top are thicker than branches lower down. The tree on the top right at least seems to have (from what I can see) decent roots. The other trees have eagle claw roots. There’s no wow! factor in the trees...they are just young trees....just quietly standing there. That’s my view based on what I see.
River's Edge
Masterpiece
I think you have made a good observation.
Well, @Smoke perhaps another thread with the title " Developing Deciduous" or " Important Characteristics of Maples" is in order!
You could create it for the resource section!
You could talk about movement, the importance of change of direction, thickness, taper and length of internode as the trunk moves upward and the branches move outward. The subtle angle and size change of branches in relation to the bottom and top of the tree. Important to note the role of wiring and rewiring when growing out and cutting back once desired thickness is achieved and movement has been set in each section by section of the trunk, then each section of the primary branches and so on.
For those that acquire written material the old fashioned way, there is a great write up in Andrea Meriggioli's new book " Bonsai Maples". Page 114-115.
Orion_metalhead
Masterpiece
Initially i thought left but after looking at what has best potential, I like top right with this in mind as a potential starting structure:
Also it has the best developed nebari to my eye.
The second right branch i would use as a back branch.
Thoughts??
Also it has the best developed nebari to my eye.
The second right branch i would use as a back branch.
Thoughts??
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
Obviously you have not read what I have posted here over the last thirteen years nor ever read my blog in my signature.
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
These kind of posts are super hard for a newbie to comprehend. I just feel it is extremely important to stay true to ones self. What changed about the tree that it would be the one he would choose above and then a tree he would not purchase for himself. The upper comment says it had the best taper and shorter internodes. Yet, later it is not a tree worthy of his collection. It seems that it could have been noted the first time it was talked about in a good light only to be nothing later.
We are all big boys and girls here. Don't tell me to my face that I have a great smile and tell all your friends that I have rotten teeth. Just speak the truth and tell it like it is. There is nothing worthy about all three of those trees. If I was given the one, I might spend the time to take the top out. Other than that they are not worth my time, and thats not even knowing how much. I mean, I wouldn't even take them if given away.
Lets pretend that these trees are all for sale for three hundred each. They still got what it takes?
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
The second set of Adair comments you quoted are about the trees you posted (post 22).
0soyoung
Imperial Masterpiece
If I may, I suggest that @Scott6829 buy that tree on the left as it looks the most like a bonsai.
I was a total noob about a decade ago and it is still clear in my memory how my desires at that time were dominated by just wanting a tree that seemed to be a bonsai. With that, I was able to get on with learning some of the hard lessons that were necessary for me before I could understand what you guys tried to tell me then and are trying to tell @Scott6829 now.
So, @Scott6829, if you are anything like me, just buy the tree on the left and get on with your life and bonsai hobby. If you are not like me, ignore my advice and thank your lucky stars.
You've got to kiss a lot of toads - it is just how it is.
I was a total noob about a decade ago and it is still clear in my memory how my desires at that time were dominated by just wanting a tree that seemed to be a bonsai. With that, I was able to get on with learning some of the hard lessons that were necessary for me before I could understand what you guys tried to tell me then and are trying to tell @Scott6829 now.
So, @Scott6829, if you are anything like me, just buy the tree on the left and get on with your life and bonsai hobby. If you are not like me, ignore my advice and thank your lucky stars.
You've got to kiss a lot of toads - it is just how it is.
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
I was searching thru some old club photos from around the state. One sees many trees that are good beginner trees, yet lack the real merits as to what makes a great bonsai.
Here are two separate species trained in the same style and almost exactly the same in proportions. In fact the proportions match the trees posted in this thread. These two trees I have posted both have tall slender trunks. They both have taper, that seems to be an indicator of good material. They both have small internodes, another indicator of great material. They are both informal uprights much like the trees posted in this thread. They both have nicely groomed branch structures with good foliage on the trees. They seem very healthy and the pine is covered with buds all over. The leaf size on the maple is consistent throughout the tree and the foliage is back in towards the trunk and lacks the poodle appearance. The nebari is not that great on these two, and looks much like the three posted in the thread.
So, after being at this bonsai forum for a number of years or months depending on who you talk to, is this what bonsai is about? Does a person buy one of the three, spend a good amount of time getting them healthy and building some good branches and then have a tree like these two to put in the show?
Sorry, my understanding and view of bonsai is much higher than this.
Here are two separate species trained in the same style and almost exactly the same in proportions. In fact the proportions match the trees posted in this thread. These two trees I have posted both have tall slender trunks. They both have taper, that seems to be an indicator of good material. They both have small internodes, another indicator of great material. They are both informal uprights much like the trees posted in this thread. They both have nicely groomed branch structures with good foliage on the trees. They seem very healthy and the pine is covered with buds all over. The leaf size on the maple is consistent throughout the tree and the foliage is back in towards the trunk and lacks the poodle appearance. The nebari is not that great on these two, and looks much like the three posted in the thread.
So, after being at this bonsai forum for a number of years or months depending on who you talk to, is this what bonsai is about? Does a person buy one of the three, spend a good amount of time getting them healthy and building some good branches and then have a tree like these two to put in the show?
Sorry, my understanding and view of bonsai is much higher than this.
0soyoung
Imperial Masterpiece
I wasn't born with such intuition and artistic talent (which is a lot of why I took this up).
The examples you post from the old club photos are significant accomplishments IMHO. Doing nothing (but general plant care) would have produced prettier trees. It took some serious effort to make such ugliness.
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
I like the way you look at things....and couldn't agree more.
That is why I see some of the posts here by people I respect and I see them just say "left tree" and I wonder why the statement is made. I come here for a reason and one reason only. I really hope to help people see trees in a different way. It's not enough to just have a reasonably tapered trunk and short internodes. Those things are very important on great bonsai, and don't mean nothing on raw stock. I can make short internodes on any deciduous tree. Probably in just one season. Its not that hard, especially on maples. Taper is different, but not the be all end all. I would much rather have a great bonsai with not as good of taper as to have a tall thin boring maple with some taper. Taper to me is not that important. It is something I induce, something I think I can induce when I buy the material. If I don't think I can make the taper, I don't buy the material. To make taper on any of the trees in this post would mean significantly reducing their height. Then above all else one has to have the branches there to cut back to to achieve the taper, which none of these trees possess. It's not that hard to asses material in about thirty seconds.
Here are some very nice clump maple designs. It is easy to see that taper is much less of a design element than branchbuilding is. In some of these trees the main trunk extends up for more than two thirds of the design and has no taper, yet we find the tree very appealing. What makes these trees work is the movement and grace they possess.
I find it odd that one of the attributes mentioned was trunk size and repetitiveness. These next two tree seem to have all the same size trunks.
While many of us can only hope to even have a tree like this, this tree below fails on many levels.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
@Smoke thank you for discussing what makes good maples. Always nice to be able to look inside someones mind as to what is good material.
But.. The OP is not in the market (yet) for maples such as those that you are showing here.
If we return to the basic question, and you have these 3 trees to choose from. Which one would you select as the one the OP should take home? And why?
Boundary condition: Is has to be one of these three. Not 0. Not 2 or three. One.
But.. The OP is not in the market (yet) for maples such as those that you are showing here.
If we return to the basic question, and you have these 3 trees to choose from. Which one would you select as the one the OP should take home? And why?
Boundary condition: Is has to be one of these three. Not 0. Not 2 or three. One.
Potawatomi13
Imperial Masterpiece
None. Boring straight trunks
.
.Al, when I stated that I would not have any of the trees on my bench, I was referring to the trees YOU posted.
Of the three in the OP’s post, I likely would buy the one on the left.
I have a similar maple on my own bench, I’ll take a photo to share here. It’s a work in progress, and has flaws.
I also wonder if you and I have fundamental language differences. That is, the definition of “taper” and “internodes”. You will say a tree has taper and short internodes, where I don’t see it.
For example:
When speaking if short internodes, I’m not talking about leaf density, I’m talking about the distance between nodes on the trunk and primary branches. On a maple with a 6 inch internode between first and second branch, there is no possibility to ever get a branch between them, unless you graft. However, on a maple where there are 4 or 5 horizontal lines (internodes) in between the two primary branches, it is possible for the tree to pop a bud at one of those internodes, and create a branch.
The other problem with long internodes is they have no taper. An internode is produced in one growing season. It’s the same thickness at the bottom and top of the stem. As it ages, it gets thicker everywhere, evenly. Never thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top. And, an internode will grow out straight. They don’t naturally have any movement within an internode. Movement is induced AT an internode by pruning. The only way to get movement between internodes is to wire the shoot as it is growing when it’s very young and soft, before it has lignified.
Trees that are pushed to grow quickly when they’re young will tend to have long internodes. Which limits where and how often they can produce branches. Trees that have shorter internodes have more design possibilities.
For example:
When speaking if short internodes, I’m not talking about leaf density, I’m talking about the distance between nodes on the trunk and primary branches. On a maple with a 6 inch internode between first and second branch, there is no possibility to ever get a branch between them, unless you graft. However, on a maple where there are 4 or 5 horizontal lines (internodes) in between the two primary branches, it is possible for the tree to pop a bud at one of those internodes, and create a branch.
The other problem with long internodes is they have no taper. An internode is produced in one growing season. It’s the same thickness at the bottom and top of the stem. As it ages, it gets thicker everywhere, evenly. Never thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top. And, an internode will grow out straight. They don’t naturally have any movement within an internode. Movement is induced AT an internode by pruning. The only way to get movement between internodes is to wire the shoot as it is growing when it’s very young and soft, before it has lignified.
Trees that are pushed to grow quickly when they’re young will tend to have long internodes. Which limits where and how often they can produce branches. Trees that have shorter internodes have more design possibilities.
