AusBonsai

Hi Grant,

Do you still have the pictures I had Robert Steven do for this tree? I also remember getting a bunch of other people to offer virts on this years ago on another forum. I vaguely remember someone doing a virt with just that branch. I will have to try and hunt it down.

Leigh Taafe wrote:Hi Grant,

Do you still have the pictures I had Robert Steven do for this tree? I also remember getting a bunch of other people to offer virts on this years ago on another forum. I vaguely remember someone doing a virt with just that branch. I will have to try and hunt it down.

Hi Leigh,

I found a sketch I did when I bought it from you but I had left a branch above the right hand cluster.

After one years growth it would easily cope with the extra reduction. I don't like to take of 90% of foliage off an old tree at a first sitting.

Grant

i would even be tempted to leave only the last back branch and rebuild. that would also give roots an oppertunity to be restyled and grown. ( ducking now)

ok ok ok !!! lets do some more!!!

all I can say is artists make the worst art critiques.

chrisatrocky wrote:all I can say is artists make the worst art critiques.

Thats cool, but to expand on this, would help us understand where you are coming from. Im not sure i get what you are saying.

This one here is my new definition of elegant; approx 6:1 i would say. In my opinion there is no need to be taller full stop. Or else the question then arisies is it bonsai ???

anttal63 wrote:This one here is my new definition of elegant; approx 6:1 i would say. In my opinion there is no need to be taller full stop. Or else the question then arisies is it bonsai ???

Of course it is Bonsai
Bloody nice tree if you ask me

But I am confused slightly Ant. You post all these trees, but no comment on each one. Do you like them ? or are you showing what should not be done?
What is the ratios of each? This last lot, there is quite a few that are nearer to 6:1 than Sumo to my eye?
Ken

Also Ant mate, can you draw a line across where your measuring nebari/trunk? Interesting topic!

How do you work out the diameter of a trunk short of cutting it down? Do you have to work from c=pi x d equation each time or do you get experienced at estimating?
Also could someone explain the thinking behind work such as Salvatore's? Seems to be a whole new ball game - would you say living sculpture rather than miniaturisation of a tree?

By Brett
You could write a book expanding on just this one simple rule before you covered all bases and where able to say the rules are never broken. That could be volume one in the Encyclopedia Bonsai.
If we all had to sit down and read that to create great trees bonsai would be pretty boring.
The fun comes when you work out what has been said in so few words means so much more

I agree Jarrod where you measure the trunk is an interesting topic in itself. It is not rocket science though Ellen. Although I was never shown where to measure the trunk I had always presumed it to be the widest point above the root base. I think I was just happy that I was not silly enough to try to use the circumference of the trunk
But some trees have such amazing nebari that it is hard to ignore them when considering the height ratio.
So like i said we could right a book on an endless list of hypothetical trees and where you should measure the diameter but that is not really feasible. This is where you must use your artistic ability. Where do you think the tree would be best represented by the Diameter to height ratio.
This is how I was doing it and never gave it much thought until I started to discuss such things with other people and I had to wonder if they where doing it the same as myself.
In our discussion on Understanding design principles I found it interesting when Steven stated what he found to be the ratio of two natural trees when we where comparing the natural ratio to the bonsai rule ratio. His numbers where so close to what I had worked out and also his description of where he was taking the measurement.
You can find discussion on this at the very beginning of this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=96&t=807&hilit=understanding+principles

But this is going to cause some variation in peoples measurements and cause some difficulty in discussion but I think in general it will be very minimal. It had caused some confusion in at least one discussion in the past as Antonio was measuring across nebari of the tree but it seems maybe after seeing Salvatore he is not doing it that way anymore but Jarrod and KC are right in Discussions such as this we need to clarify where the measurements are being taken from to avoid any confusion.

But really it would not matter anywhere near as much on a personal note because if you where trying to create a bold stout tree then you would analyze a bold stout tree and the dimensions you came out with personally would translate over to your work in the same manner. So KC finds tree A at 1:5 I found it at 1:6 I copy the dimensions of tree A into my tree and KC measures my tree and gets 1:5 I measure it and I get 1:6 We both see the tree for what it is but we have a different epresentation of the tree. Yet only when we start discussing the dimensions does it become a problem.

Again I would have tried to clarify this with Salvatore in any discussion and I can only guess the Guys at the conference did as circumference has already been ruled out.

I would be very interested in knowing if Salvatore clarified where he was measuring.

I gave up trying to measure the trunk on Grants tree that is a difficult one to envisage how the base will affect the ratio and complicated by not knowing if you would change the planting angle. In it's current Height I could only envisage it becoming a world class tree as literati. I would have some questions on the proposed fix. My feeble ability would be looking for a literati in that. In fact I have a similar pre-bonsai JBP trunk that I was planning on making literati out of!

ellen wrote:How do you work out the diameter of a trunk short of cutting it down? Do you have to work from c=pi x d equation each time or do you get experienced at estimating?
Also could someone explain the thinking behind work such as Salvatore's? Seems to be a whole new ball game - would you say living sculpture rather than miniaturisation of a tree?

Simple way is to just measure across with a ruler
More accurate is to use a Vernier gauge or calipers to measure it

Measuring the circumference is no good as the trunk may be wider in one direction than the rest.

Trunk Girth, is usually measured across the lowest part of the trunk above and Nebari / Root flare

Ken

I do notice that all the trees in the pictures of Exotics. This information was passed on as the new way to go, was it not. In 1995 I collected two trees from a farm in the southwest of WA.

The trunk is at soil level 9inches ( 23cm ) at 2inches ( 5cm ) above that it is 8inches ( 20cm ). The height is 30 inches (76 cm ) which gives a ratio of at 8 inches 3.75,
at 9inches it gives us a ratio of 3.333333333333333333333333333.

Is this what the new thing is.

I have also noted that a lot of people are now going to sell there trees because they do not meet the requirements. So we perpetuate the wrongs!! instead of fixing them pass them on to the uneducated!!. Do these old trees fit in the new vogue?. As I said at the beginning of my first post old Potato.

Cheers Pup

Just found one I have to get rid of!!. I could call it penjing though and keep it, but would I be happy?!

Pup wrote:Just found one I have to get rid of!!. I could call it penjing though and keep it, but would I be happy?!

P1090954.JPG

you are cracking me up Pup. But if you feel that strongly that it breaks the ratio rules and, after careful consideration, you cannot possibly keep it, can i have it. I dont mind being a "lil ol rulebreaker"