Trident Re-work club tree

[Bretts]

We have a collection of trees on display at the Orange Botanical Gardens where the Orange Bonsai Club meets . I found this tree interesting so when it came time to hand out trees for re potting I bagsed this one.
It is strange that it looks too tall but is not far off on a 6:1 height ratio and also 1/3 to the first branch. It may have more to do with spacing between the branches from then on that unsettles it?
The strong trunk had decent root spread but the surface roots seemed to be lacking vigor. As I thought it had some major roots underneath that where leaving no energy for the surface roots. I cut all the lower roots off and covered the surface roots which should show a marked improvement in a year or so.
I got the branches about where I wanted them but. I am unhappy with the bar branch towards the top that accentuates the parallel look between the lower branches and the upper branches.
I am thinking that once I graft a back branch in something like my crap virt and cut the upper branch where indicated it will not be so obvious.
Any one got any ideas besides air layering?

tri1.jpg

Before repot

tri2.jpg

After repot and wireing. It was very finiky wiring this. Although I got a handle on how much I could bend the branches I found my clumsy hands often knocked off buds and tiny branchlets as I was getting the wire on.

triv.jpg

More like a mud map than a virt. I have never worked out how to draw a back branch?

[daiviet_nguyen]

Hi Brett,

I like the idea of grafting the back branch. This could easily be accomplished within a growing season.
Though I have never done one on such large tree.

Regarding the visual tallness of this tree, I am wondering if drum pot would lessen the visual-height?

I am feeling that the pot is too small for the height?

Best regards.

[Elias]

I would second the idea of the back branch, and here is a crappy virt with one less branch just an alternative, I guess you could also bring to other branch a little lower and slightly forward maybe...

tri2.jpg

With the pot I'm really liking soft blue glaze for tridents, I think it really highlights autumn colour, but I would go something larger, perhaps oval and a bit more shallow.

[MelaQuin]

Something has to be done with the branch shaping... the bottom two branches are mimicked by the top two branches and the duplicity is unsettling. I like the virtual that has one of the top branches removed...this brings harmony to the design that is lacking at the moment. As for the pot, yes, definitely wrong pot... a more shallow tray pot would suit the tree better. Nothing wrong with the height - tall and elegant, but the pot suits a flowering tree with the depth, not a deciduous tree [as if most flowering trees aren't deciduous but you know what I mean].

Once an upper branch is removed and the pot is changed for a lower longer tray pot this tree will start to be striking. It has a bit of reverse taper but once the foliage is there that won't matter and it is not sufficient to cause worry.

Graft back branch, yes... but look closely at the virtual with the one upper branch removed and the tree sings in a way it doesn't as it is. But a lovely subject to work with and I am sure the end result will be super.

[anttal63]

good work here bretts, as lee said a lovely subject to work on but for me difficult in its current configuration of branches. there's no flow, branches are taking off in all directions. if this were mine i feel strongly that it deserves a rebuild. firstly by starting with the 1st left branch. this branch is a killer. it is beautifully styled. muscle and character is great. in combination with the apex leaning left, these two dominant characters set the tone for this tree. the movement and the weight distribution. i started by stripping everything off this tree but the 2 above mentioned. then rebuilt with where i would like to see things according to this tone im feeling. i dont have tridents of this maturity so am not sure if this is horticulturally possible by popping back or lots of grafting.

trivb.JPG

trivc.jpg

[Pup]

Bretts
The right pot as has been suggested, will make a huge difference to this tree. Longer and shallower. Then re assess the tree, as they bud freely you should not have to many probs up top.
The back is a different issue thread graft will put it where you want, and is a better proposition than in-arch and stronger.
Nice potential in this tree I am sure with your typical enthusiasm it will thrive

[LLK]

Something has to be done with the branch shaping... the bottom two branches are mimicked by the top two branches and the duplicity is unsettling.

Agreed. It is made more obvious by the fact that the two branches on the left rise, while those on the right point downwards.
Maybe the ones on the left could gradually be brought down with guy wire, or just the bottom branch if you decide to remove the upper.

Once an upper branch is removed and the pot is changed for a lower longer tray pot this tree will start to be striking. It has a bit of reverse taper but once the foliage is there that won't matter and it is not sufficient to cause worry.

Agreed again.
I don't know what sort of care this tree has had, I mean whether it was always sufficiently watered and fertilised, but normally I would have expected a tree this size to have more adventitious branching, from which you could choose an alternative to the branch you might like to remove. Maybe it will bud out better after repotting and a lot of t.l.c.

LLK

[Bretts]

Bar branches. Walter pall reckons they are not an issue as painting artists told him it was silly that trees should not have them. I can't say I agree so much. Bar branches are said to be less of an issue towards the top of the tree yet it is towards the top of this tree that they stand out the most. As stated it is the mirroring to the primary branches that seems to make it show up so much.
I think the biggest problem here is overall branch placement. I would almost call this formal upright and I think that even branch placement is important with this form more than any other.
I could bring the first left branch down more to take the seesaw thing away from the two lowest branches but this was to try to separate the closeness of the two branches bringing one lower than the other. Maybe this is just not possible with formal upright.We could remove the branch as Elias indicates but I think that presents as many issues in negative space as it did in positive space. I think a more major branch replacement plan is necessary.
As the two bottom branches are so close together can we keep both?
I think the only way they can both be kept is if the closeness of branches is continued all the way up.
This would mean removing the branch elias indicates but instead of grafting a back branch where indicated it should be more of a side branch with another Back branch again a bit higher. Also the branch removed could be replaced with a forward branch out to that side which I have indicated with a red spot on the new mud map.

trivirt2.jpg

This is pretty close to Antonio's virt but maybe not so drastic in the process
Are we getting closer?