AusBonsai

You can't say you like both. Which of these J. procumbens do you prefer, and why?

Number 1
It looks more refined and elegant than the second one.
The second one the deadwood is too "busy" and non harmonious, The lower left apex is triangular which is not in sympathy with the top and right of the tree.

Ken
on a second look, the lower one has the apex tilting to the right, thus with the lower left branch lower then the right it seems to be unbalanced

On first study I personally find the second my preferred tree.

Although amazing I seem to find a lot of J. Procumbens like the first, far too similar to the next. They all seem to be a little too... 'Perfect' for me, with one melding into the next.

I personally prefer that busy masculine trunk of the second. For me its both because of its busy jins and showing of the grey bark over the red. Granted I'd prefer the foliage be slightly repositioned but not quite as maniqured as the first.

If I were to see them both at a show, I know I'd spend far more time studying and inspecting the second over the first, as for me it is far more intriguing.

In saying all this, don't think I am for even a split second saying I don't like the first. Both trees are amazing in their own right.

Cheers,
Pearcy.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I prefer the first as it is more balance than the second in my opinion. It was a hard choice as I'm def not a cookie cutter fan. If the branches on the second didn't appear so awkward I would probably have changed my vote.

Squizz

Prefer No.1 - more refined.
No.2 doesn't look finished to me - and the isolated cloud that forms the apex is unbalancing.

Treeman, neither tree grabbed me as is, but on potential the clear winner for me is #2.

Tree #1 to me looks like the proverbial pile of green doughnuts or a the silhouette of a track cycling helmet. The deadwood is mundane and resembles a glued on appendage that bulges mid trunk and as such qualifies as reverse taper in my book, especially annoying when accompanied by a lower trunk that is mostly taperless . The base does not cut it for me either, the trunk's exit from the soil is poor. The first branch appears to be an apologetic repeat of elliptical blobs. And don't get me started about the polished cinnamon brown bark!

Tree #2 is a bit of a poodle, needs a thin and a design wiring, but the trunk is rougher in texture and more muscular with it's fluting. Nebari and taper are markedly better than the first tree. I am bothered by the spiraling "waterslide" of deadwood that rises mid trunk, but if the tree were mine this could be de-emphasized by wiring the branch profiles to break up the line of the trunk a little more. There is a bit of a rounded shoulders thing going on and there are clumsy elements in the silhouette with this tree as well, but I think these faults could be overcome. In my opinion, a much better tree than #1.

Cheers,
Mojo

The second tree looks like it was never touched by a human and for a lot of people that is the ultimate compliment. It looks like a tree that actually grows in the wild. Pulling that off is extraordinarily difficult.

However on an emotional level I prefer the first. Hard to explain but it's obviously the product of a human who is trying to communicate something, an idea, an emotion.

Big can of worms here Mike! Different people look for different experiences in Bonsai and I look forward to the discussion.

Matt.

...and now that I look at them again, the deadwood and bark are much better on tree #2. However I assume that this discussion is more about the natural vs refined.

For me number 1 ticks the box. Beautifully formed apex, pleasant deadwood and excellent balance.

The second one looks unfinished to my eye.

That is my opinion. If either one turned up at my front door I would happily take it.

Theo


Sent from somewhere on planet earth using an iPad!

Number 1. I like that style of juniper. It's man made, and doesn't pretend to be anything otherwise. It's a piece of art, a live caricature-type representation of a wild tree in the distance. Number 2 rises naturally out of the soil, but then has some very uniform curves, spiralling which makes it look as though it was fattened up then styled out of one leader. I don't think it looks like a natural tree, it doesn't have that random uniformity that result from a trees resistance to natural pressures. To me, it just looks messy.

Adam

Matt S wrote:Different people look for different experiences in Bonsai.

Hit the nail squarely on the head there Matt.

I'm liking this thread, a bunch of people from all over the country, with different visual triggers, pulling apart a couple of trees we would sell our mothers for.

It's refreshing I wish there was more of it!

Cheers,
Mojo

Matt S wrote:

Different people look for different experiences in Bonsai and I look forward to the discussion.

Yep. Very interesting to see different peoples perspectives. Another interesting question might be: Which would you have prefered 2, 5 or 10 years ago?

I prefer tree #1 as it flows better to my eye even though the look is a bit too refined for my taste.
The second tree looks very messy. The jins in the middle of the tree seem to poke me in the eye and as for the coiled spring in the middle of the trunk well it just looks weird. It reminds me of two trees, the lower half a slanting type (which I really like) and the top half reminds me of a slinky starting to go down the stairs!

#2 looks more like a tree. #1 looks like the stereotype Bonsai. #2 is the one I prefer as it looks unique, tells more of a story and has potential.

I am a number 2 man. I find it more visually pleasing ,especially the nebari. Agreed it is a little messy but that's what trees are about. John.