Determining Age of a tree

[Jonesy]

Please forgive a newbie question...

I'm trying to get my head around how to determine the age of a tree.

For instance, If I air-layer a 5-year-old Japanese Maple, does the new plant become five years old?
Or, if I take a cutting from a 5-year-old Juniper, is the new cutting 5 years old?

In other words, do new cuttings and air-layerings start from scratch?

Jonesy

[Steven]

do new cuttings and air-layerings start from scratch?

G'day Jonsey,

In my opinion - Yes. I don't pay much attention to the 'age' of a tree as it can be overinflated and sometimes deceptive (particularly on the large auction site). If I do refer to the age of one of mine, I count it from the time I started training.

Regards,
Steven

[MattA]

My view would be Yes they start from scratch. If it is something collected or trained from mature stock, I would state its actual age (or guesstimate) and its time in training. Much like Steven I dont put much store in ages, its the image the tree presents that matters most.

Matt

[Asus101]

do new cuttings and air-layerings start from scratch?

G'day Jonsey,

In my opinion - Yes. I don't pay much attention to the 'age' of a tree as it can be overinflated and sometimes deceptive (particularly on the large auction site). If I do refer to the age of one of mine, I count it from the time I started training.

Regards,
Steven

you would just add in the discription "taken from xxxxx age tree stock"

[bodhidharma]

Here's something to think about. If you grow a tree or collect a tree and specifically develop the top to be a tree in its own right and then layer it off, then it must be an aged tree. Only the root system or Nebari is new and needing developing but the actual top or new tree is approaching a finished design.

[craigw60]

Hi Jones,
The first question non bonsai people ask when they come into my garden is "which is the oldest tree ". A more relevant question is "which is your best tree ". Age is important but style is so much more so.
Craig
'

[anttal63]

Here's something to think about. If you grow a tree or collect a tree and specifically develop the top to be a tree in its own right and then layer it off, then it must be an aged tree. Only the root system or Nebari is new and needing developing but the actual top or new tree is approaching a finished design.

Totally agree with this reasoning bohdi!

[Pup]

I have a tree that was collected it was a self made ground layer of a large tree in a swamp. The original was to big to handle on my own so I decided with help to split it.

After the initial split I had to get one part in a rather deep pot!, but not deep enough so I cut through the root. After all work was done,I thought I would polish up the root not big enough for a stand, but I counted the growth rings it was collected in 2004 when I counted the rings it was 2006. There were 97 rings.
They are all nice trees all now 101 years old!!!!.

They are not what I would call my best but close to it. Melaleucas look old even when they are only a 3 month old cutting. Age is nice but beautiful tree's are what matter.

A Japanese saying. Never ask a lady her age just admire her beauty, that is what counts in tree's also.

Now back to how old is it what is it worth

Pup

[Jamie]

i dont think determining age is a real factor unless you are pedantic and really have to know, as pup has just stated a 3 month old mel. cutting can look really old.

i dont think a tree should be looked at by years of growth but more so years in training. thats how i look at my trees, heck i have tress that are collected and dont even know the age of how long the have been growing for, all i know is how long they are in training for and to me thats what counts.

another tree that can look old from a cutting- clerodendrum. these have great bark and are fast growing trees that can have a mature look, including branch work, quite quickly.

jamie