Thoughts on this Trident

[Daluke]

I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on this trident.

It’s got a nice trunk but is lacking fine ramification.

It’s probably been hedged -

What do the people think

B11B269D-EDE5-4ABA-AB37-E5CB95986FB1.jpeg

[wrcmad]

uh-oh-time-to-go.jpg

[TimS]

Leaving aside the whole discussion of "this isn't how tridents grow in nature" for a moment, and staying well clear of the hedge pruning fiasco, and focussing on what i objectively notice in the tree i would say my good and needs improvement lists are as follows

Good:
Taper from base to apex
Distribution of branching from top to bottom. Energy balance seems well under control on this one.
The flare into the soil seems (at least in this front) to be nicely even.
Overall impression of the tree being mature.

Needs improvement:
-Transitions from trunk to primary branches. I feel the low branches are a little undersize for the girth of the trunk.
-Already being done but i'm assuming the reason there is so many guy-wires is a lot of the branches are either horizontal or beyond. In my book dropping them like this is appropriate for this aesthetic, especially since the initial movement in many of the primaries is up first that lends some credence to this being an aged tree, even if this is more of an Oak growth habit than a Maple growth habit to go up and then spread horizontally or even down and wide.
- Looks like it could use a cut back and re-stared finer ramification *cue the bunfight about hedge pruning*

Doesn't phase me:
-The scars and bumps on the trunk. Tridents seem to get away with this look where Japanese Maples don't. It's one of those weird quirks where it's acceptable on one species but not another. I think with further development the scars and bumps will look progressively more in keeping with the tree.

All in all i say good tree, will be significantly better in another 20 years or so if the low branches are allowed to thicken up more relative to the trunk and those above them.

[SquatJar]

It’s probably been hedged -

Probably? LOL, it was posted by Walter Pall.

I'm most surprised by the pot choice, it's very rare I don't like a pot and tree combination chosen by Walter and I dont think I've ever seen a Tom Benda I didnt like but this pot is just meh. At first glance I thought it was a mica training pot, I'm sure it is much nicer in person.

[robb63]

An impressive tree that will only improve with time

[baldtwitlion]

Just for scale


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MJL]

It’s another one in the category of ...if I looked after this tree it would be the most significant tree in my collection and if I had got it to that stage at my relatively young Bonsai age - I’d be damn proud of myself ...but....it is not in my collection!

So it is relatively easy to make comment without the responsibility of making the changes myself but because the question was asked ...

This is right on the border of a jabba trunk - this is purely a personal preference - I just don’t gel with big trunks talking up 80% of the pot and having little or out- of-perspective (to me) branches. (Except some ficus which can look great; even better with aerial roots)

I think my dislike of stumpy trunks (and indeed roots look like they melt into the soil ... I digress) puts me at odds with many great trees and perhaps if I saw such trees in the flesh, I may have a different reaction.

Further, in making this comment - I am not, I hope, disrespecting the trees current curator - rather voicing a personal preference.

Now perhaps to contradict what I just said, the interest in this tree is the trunk ... so if I had guts, I make that the focus and remove branches - staring at the bottom right and then moving up through the tree ... making it look more elements-affected - and hopefully thickening up the remaining branches to create a better perspective ....I have no idea what I would do wit the tree’s top once I’d removed other beaches ... (so you can see the train wreck that I’d create!!)

I’d then offset tree the in an oval pot to reduce the sense of mass of the trunk.

You asked ...

Also - are the guy wires there because it is better or more suited for this tree than wires wrapped around each branch. I have used guys wires but there are plenty on this tree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MJL]

Wow! After seeing, baldwitlion’s picture I (almost but not quite ) take back my entire previous post ... alas I can’t ... but the scale and leaves make a big difference ... to the whole Jabba-trunk thing... which then makes me think that I would think differently if I saw this tree in the flesh, I think I’m confused!

But still ... why does the tree look odd to me when the tree is naked? Is it because the tree is still in development and I simply don’t have the vision or skills to see its future. Probably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SquatJar]

I'm only guessing but I'd say Walters penchant for mega guy wires might have to do with his hedge pruning method. The rapid growth he reports would probably scar the branches very quickly. Guy wires might allow him to keep them on until next winter stress free when he can re-evaluate. He regularly mentions a preference for quick and effective measures as he looks after so many trees

[ketutg]

It's way better than any trident maple I have that's for sure

[treeman]

You can either leave the tree as is - fine - easy.
Or you could pick some good branches and let them grow 2 metres long until they match the tree more - also fine but your children will be showing the tree not you. Especially if you are Walter Pall.

[nathan987]

You can either leave the tree as is - fine - easy.
Or you could pick some good branches and let them grow 2 metres long until they match the tree more - also fine but your children will be showing the tree not you. Especially if you are Walter Pall.

I agree that thickening up some of the main branches would be the best improvement for this tree.

I think that the ‘child’s arms’ on an ‘adult’s body’ look is part and parcel of much wild/urban yamadori/collected stock or stock that is ‘trunk-grown’ i.e. grown and sold essentially as a trunk, for us to finish off with the branching. I think that most of us want to ‘finish’ such a trunk asap and so we fill out the silhouette and then cut the growth off. After all, you buy a well-developed trunk to save decades of time - who then wants to have to wait decades to grow its arms?

From looking at some really good, really old trees, the thing that I landed on as distinguishing them from other equally large specimens was their well-developed (in the sense of thick and reflecting the trunk’s weight) primary beaches.

Walter’s kids have a new project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daluke]

I’m almost certain this wasn’t grown or developed as opposed to dug and sheered.

It’s a shame because the trunk is tapered and has character.

The branches look bowed and don’t match the elegance I’d expect from a tree that age.

[wrcmad]

Interesting opinions.... and all very worthy.
My own opinion is that this is an absolutely cracking tree, and I'd be proud to own it.

As for the branches... they need further refinement .... but not thickening for 2 reasons:
Firstly, besides the fact that further tertiary ramification in the branches will naturally cause some thickening, thinner branches actually emphasise the trunk girth, which in turn emphasises age - the world-leading master-craftsmen of contemporary (dare I say it) Japanese bonsai and the like will attest to that.
Secondly, it is unnatural to see maples with thick branches (and we all know how unacceptable it is to condone anything other than 'natural' here ) - thick branching is for the likes and species of Oak trees. Yes, thick trunks are also unnatural for maples, but see the first point above regarding the expression of age, and then also consider the artistic expression of representation.... not imitation.

Here is a shining Kokufu trident example:

20140210-1219-Japan-M.jpg

.
.
.
And here is my flame-suit :

UTB8phXmbwnJXKJkSaelq6xUzXXa1.jpg

[MJL]

You crack me up - no fire suit needed. In this new photo, I do like the moss and the base of the trunk in the context of pot size. Then there’s incredible ramification but I still can’t get past my own taste and personal preference and indeed, this looks stranger than the first tree with the sort or lumps that seem to turn into branches branches - take the second lump on the left as an example.

Anyway ... each to their own ... a super experienced hand and skills to get a tree to this form ... and I reckon it must look pretty amazing in early spring or autumn when the trunk is shaded by the foliage.

I’ll stop commenting to this thread now (and that’s a promise) - I generally prefer to speak well of trees or remain silent ... what is the saying ... if you don’t have something good to say ...

and fairdinkum ... I’d feel better commenting on such advanced trees when I have another 20 years experience under my belt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk