Why do pines take so long before they look good?

[5th element]

I have noticed there are very few pines I see that actually look like old mature trees. 90% of what I see to me look like the start of a Christmas tree farm. Even when guys claim how the trees are like 40 years old, they just don't look believable to me. Deciduous trees look much more like an old tree to me when properly cared for and styled the right way. The JBP seems to be the most desired tree, but some of these trees remind me of stuff that is just growing in my neighbors field.

 

[5th element]

Please do not post

vance woods

 

[fourteener]

Pines don't offer the easy hack back that people do with deciduous trees. There aren't as many shortcuts with pines. In the world of pines forty years old isn't that old. A trident maple that is forty years old will be more impressive.

It's the beauty of working with pines…they don't grow out of their design very fast. The problem is, they don't grow into one fast either!!

 

[Vance Wood]

I have noticed there are very few pines I see that actually look like old mature trees. 90% of what I see to me look like the start of a Christmas tree farm. Even when guys claim how the trees are like 40 years old, they just don't look believable to me. Deciduous trees look much more like an old tree to me when properly cared for and styled the right way. The JBP seems to be the most desired tree, but some of these trees remind me of stuff that is just growing in my neighbors field.

Because; for the most part Pines only respond with new growth one time a year. Some of the two needle pines will give you a second flush of growth but you have to know which ones fall into this category. If this is not done at the right time of year or you use the wrong technique on the wrong Pine, you may indeed find yourself working contrary to your intentions.

Some growers devote a life time studying Pines and what to do with them. They then put the information on the INTERNER , or in a book or magazine, so that people who could not find their butts with both hands can criticize their findings and accuse them of being flatulating-old-douch-bags. But; there are those who appreciate the information and are thankful to have received it.

 

[Dav4]

Please do not post

vance woods

That's not very smart....Vance has been growing pines as long as I've been alive... He might actually have something meaningful to add to the discussion.... And you're being abrasive again.

 

[coh]

not worth it.

 

[M. Frary]

I agree. Vance has probably forgotten more about bonsai than you will ever learn. Even with his geyser affliction. ( Sorry Vance I couldn't resist. I don't care who you are that's funny.)

Mike Frary

 

[buddhamonk]

Maybe you should stop posting these dumb topics.

 

[Nybonsai12]

Not worth my time

 

[jk_lewis]

We get these kinds of questions because all too many newcomers to the sport enter it these days with absolutely NO natural ties to the world around them. Most have never even grown a radish, much less a pine. Nor have they even looked into how plants grow.

No one seems to want to do any real research for themself before posting what turn out to be such vapid, sophomoric, questions that it actually hurts to develop a meaningful answer.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

It's interesting; most people start with junipers or deciduous trees, then move to pines.

I know this wasn't really your question, but here's my $.02. Pines require more understanding of timing and cause/effect. They take longer to respond than d-trees, which makes them "harder".

However, once one knows how pines work, it becomes pretty clear that they can be developed relatively quickly and look good. They always have foliage to cover "flaws" or imperfect areas while they're being developed. D-trees offer nowhere to hide.

Quick example, a Japanese maple in '07 and '13 The structure hasn't changed, it just has more twigs.


By contrast, during the same 6 year period of time, this JBP was developed to a very showable state.

 

[sikadelic]

Brian, thanks for posting those two trees. I am surprised that the maple's trunk didn't develop more during that time (No offense). The pine, however, looks much larger. I find them extremely beautiful but not something I feel like tackling yet until I get much more of a grasp on techniques.

Great photos!

 

[MiteyF]

I've kept myself from making the same post actually... 95% of pines do absolutely nothing for me. In order for them to look like "like a tree" as most of us aspire to, they need to be quite large, and/or have tiny needles. With deciduous trees it is much easier to fool the eye into thinking the tree is much older and larger than it is with smaller leaves.

A vast majority of pines I see are just a few clusters of very long needles, and don't in any way look like a "miniature tree" to me, but rather just a tree that's been kept very small. I don't usually see the "nature" in them as much as I do the "manufactured".

As I understand it, the challenge of making a pine look "right" is why people enjoy them. Perhaps one day when I can afford to blow big $$ on a pine I can appreciate one, but as of now, I don't completely understand why pines are, to many, the ultimate bonsai material.

EDIT: take the example in Brian's post above mine. While it is a very well done little bonsai, with needle lengths approaching 1/10 the height of the plant, it does not look, to me, at all like a "tree"... if that makes sense.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

Brian, thanks for posting those two trees. I am surprised that the maple's trunk didn't develop more during that time (No offense). The pine, however, looks much larger. I find them extremely beautiful but not something I feel like tackling yet until I get much more of a grasp on techniques.

Great photos!

The funny thing is, they both have a 3" trunk, just the pine has been reduced from 24" to 17" tall over the 6 years, and the maple has grown from about 24" to 30" tall. It has swelled up a little, but at this rate, I'm more concerned with improving the nebari.

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

EDIT: take the example in Brian's post above mine. While it is a very well done little bonsai, with needle lengths approaching 1/10 the height of the plant, it does not look, to me, at all like a "tree"... if that makes sense.

Totally agree, and that is part of the challenge. That pine is 6 years in training, and the needles will reduce further, but probably never be in scale for the finished height, but if you look at the overall effect:

1. The tufts and pads are fairly representative of what you'd see on a pine at some distance.
2. Considering they'd be 4-6" long in nature, to get them to 1" is kind of cool.

Similar to sumo trunks and "melting cheese" nebari sometimes the exaggeration is more a show of skill than attempt at replicating nature. To each his own on that one I guess...

 

[Eric Group]

It's interesting; most people start with junipers or deciduous trees, then move to pines.

I know this wasn't really your question, but here's my $.02. Pines require more understanding of timing and cause/effect. They take longer to respond than d-trees, which makes them "harder".

However, once one knows how pines work, it becomes pretty clear that they can be developed relatively quickly and look good. They always have foliage to cover "flaws" or imperfect areas while they're being developed. D-trees offer nowhere to hide.

Quick example, a Japanese maple in '07 and '13 The structure hasn't changed, it just has more twigs.
View attachment 44023 View attachment 44024

By contrast, during the same 6 year period of time, this JBP was developed to a very showable state.

View attachment 44025View attachment 44026

I have seen both of these trees in other posts of yours but just wanted to say what beautiful bonsai they are! Truly amazing!

My only comment in relation to the OP is, how old do you thin the two pieces of stock were when you started on them in 07? I suspect the pine was older... Just a guess though...

 

[Brian Van Fleet]

how old do you thin the two pieces of stock were when you started on them in 07? I suspect the pine was older... Just a guess though...

While I don't know for sure, I would bet the farm the maple is older, and probably by a decade.

I got the maple in '02 and it was probably 15-20 years old then. I bought the pine in '07 and it was at best 10 years old. Pines can be grown very quickly compared to J.maples.

 

[Vance Wood]

I've kept myself from making the same post actually... 95% of pines do absolutely nothing for me. In order for them to look like "like a tree" as most of us aspire to, they need to be quite large, and/or have tiny needles. With deciduous trees it is much easier to fool the eye into thinking the tree is much older and larger than it is with smaller leaves.

A vast majority of pines I see are just a few clusters of very long needles, and don't in any way look like a "miniature tree" to me, but rather just a tree that's been kept very small. I don't usually see the "nature" in them as much as I do the "manufactured".

As I understand it, the challenge of making a pine look "right" is why people enjoy them. Perhaps one day when I can afford to blow big $$ on a pine I can appreciate one, but as of now, I don't completely understand why pines are, to many, the ultimate bonsai material.

EDIT: take the example in Brian's post above mine. While it is a very well done little bonsai, with needle lengths approaching 1/10 the height of the plant, it does not look, to me, at all like a "tree"... if that makes sense.

You don't need to spend buckets of money to have a pine that looks like something. You just need to get some pines to work on and have some sort of idea what you are doing with them. Mugos and Scots Pines are very nice trees to start with. They are inexpensive and in my opinion far superior to JBP in appearance and JWP in ease of development and cost.

 

[Anthony]

If you are trying to avoid a cookie cutter J.B.P, it helps to look at the typical shape -

http://texastreeplanting.tamu.edu/treepictures/pine_jap_black.jpg

then try to find the tree in nature, untouched by the hand of man -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ood_by_the_former_Tokaido,_in_Toyohashi_1.jpg

http://www.env.go.jp/garden/kokyogaien/english/img/point02.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Japanese_Black_Pine_in_Taiwan_Hualien_city.jpg

http://www.timfarmerinc.net/images/glossary images/Japenese Black Pine.jpg

http://www.pfaf.org/Admin/PlantImages/PinusThunbergii.jpg

Somehow study the trees, tracing the image on the screen is the easiest,
and transfer the information to a design.
For whatever reason, finding shots of wild J.B.P.s are difficult.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[PiñonJ]

John Naka's 'Bonsai Techniques II' has an excellent section on bonsai interpretations of trees in the wild.