AusBonsai

The amount of interest that was created with the discussion on ratio's has prompted me to go out and change a Maple that has needed doing for a long time. It is quite an old J.M (probably 12-15 years) from an air layer. Go through the attachments and you will notice the tree's proportion's are very incorrect. In the first photo the trees proportions are 720 mm tall, 60mm at the trunk beginning, and 105 mm at the root flare. Way to leggy and i always knew that. 110mm was taken off the top and a branch was wired over to fill in a space at the top. The proportions of the tree are better but removing the top has made the trunk look longer and i think an aerial layer 100mm up the trunk is now in order. Isn't it interesting when you change a tree all of a sudden other things start hitting you in the eye and need to be changed to. Feed back would be appreciated. See what you think.

Hey Bodhi,

I think your spot on about needing to shorten the trunk line. If you layer off as you say 100mm further up would you be able to use the bottom section to grow a new tree from or would you just bin it?

Matt

I think you are right Bodhi, a layer 100mm up the trunk would produce a better proportioned tree.

It would also give you the opportunity to get a better base started, less like the current 'fingers'

gday bodhi

personally when i see a japanese maple a couple of things come to my mind, elegant and dainty, and i think this tree is just that, i would like to see it in full leaf, i think the air layer 100mm up would work but then what will not sit right next, and then after you fix that? we could go on forever is what i am saying, i think if this one was left to grow on with your care it will fill in to itself and work.

jamie

I would layer it off but not because it is too tall, but only because the bottom section of the trunk is too straight and out of place against the top section

Ken

I like it the way it is, I would love to see it in full swing .
Picking the same type of maple up from ray nesci tomorrow, This thread has got me all excited and i need to sleep

id try a layer about half way up then have two small trees grow new branches on the stump and shorten the ones on the top

Another day another bonsai body blow. If thats what it takes to get through to maybe even one artist, im happy to to put myself on the line!

Now here we have a classic numbers game; 720mm by 105mm ( real time measurements as far as i am concerned, the 60mm part dont work for me ) 1:7 A reasonable ratio one would think, although still too tall for my liking. So if we layer 100mm up on the trunk and chop 100mm off the top. By my standards we are getting down to 1:5. Only 2 more problems left that wont allow this better ratio to work. Ken has got the first one and most obvious correct, but still understated. The second and biggest problem for this ratio is the fact that the trunk that remains, has no graduating taper. The first third to half of the tree would still be very linear (parrallel).
So we got line character in the trunk that doesnt flow and we got a trunk with no taper. With these scenario's doesn't matter what ratio, it wont work!

Jamie nothing elegant here, clunky is a better word.


Bodhi sorry for the honesty but i know you're a big boy and this needs to be said in order to teach the young. I think the good tree is somewhere around and between these two lines. A good shohin perhaps. Then you have a well proportioned trunk with good movement and taper.

anttal63 wrote:Another day another bonsai body blow. If thats what it takes to get through to maybe even one artist, im happy to to put myself on the line!

Now here we have a classic numbers game; 720mm by 105mm ( real time measurements as far as i am concerned, the 60mm part dont work for me ) 1:7 A reasonable ratio one would think, although still too tall for my liking. So if we layer 100mm up on the trunk and chop 100mm off the top. By my standards we are getting down to 1:5. Only 2 more problems left that wont allow this better ratio to work. Ken has got the first one and most obvious correct, but still understated. The second and biggest problem for this ratio is the fact that the trunk that remains, has no graduating taper. The first third to half of the tree would still be very linear (parrallel).
So we got line character in the trunk that doesnt flow and we got a trunk with no taper. With these scenario's doesn't matter what ratio, it wont work!

Jamie nothing elegant here, clunky is a better word.


Bodhi sorry for the honesty but i know you're a big boy and this needs to be said in order to teach the young. I think the good tree is somewhere around and between these two lines. A good shohin perhaps. Then you have a well proportioned trunk with good movement and taper.

DSCF1852.JPG

Yea Ant, i am a big boy and what you are saying is correct. The tree needs to be changed and i have no problem with that. I have hundreds of Maples to play with so i will experiment with this one. I have decided to think outside the square and try and do what everyone has seen but nobody has given me a solution to, except the obvious,(aerial layer) The trunkline itself. I like the light coloured bark and the striking red foliage so i am going to try and create movement in the existing trunk line. This will take the eye off the taper problem and, i figure it will not need too radical a bend, just something gentle to deceive the eye. The tree was a gift a few years ago from my friend Tom. I think it was a pass on job that he had tired of, and to see if i could do something with it. I will post it up if it works and if it doesnt you will never see it again

kcpoole wrote:I would layer it off but not because it is too tall, but only because the bottom section of the trunk is too straight and out of place against the top section

Ken

I agree with KC and Antonio here for me this is the issue with the tree. But when one person is using the root spread instead to represent the trunk width I think this is only confusing things.
This is how I appraise a tree like this in relation to trunk to height ratio.
The tree starts of at about 1:12 (I get 1:13 but close enough) We know that other trees are able to be very effective at this ratio so why is it not working for this tree?

First as stated the trunk at the bottom is too straight compared to the top it is also laking taper. This is exaggerated by the first branch being about half way up the tree followed by consecutive branches after that are close together. Taking the top of the tree is not the obvious fix for this. In fact it has exaggerated the problem in my eyes. The height is not the issue here it is the other aspects of the tree.

So I agree with Antonio although I get there from a different path The tree needs to be sectioned apart and I have been looking for a tree about where Antonio has. As the branches are so close at this section I was wondering if a "raft" I think is the word where the first branch becomes a trunk that grows along at soil level naturally growing its own roots would be a possible composition. The problem I have here is I am not sure I have seen this with Japanese maple but only with Trident Maple?
In any event I think there are three trees here. Either where Antonio has suggested or as my mud map shows giving three new trees. Some branches will also have to be removed. The top two could start to be refined after separation while the bottom was chopped down further to grow a new top.
I don't think there is much wrong with the root spread of the base I think with some work it could be a very nice Nebari.

If you read Peter Adams on Maples he shows how to get one in 15 years by cutting back and starting with a new leader. Chop on an angle at your preferred height.

Grow it on chop it at your preferred height, repeat till you have what you think is the right thing nothing new or rocket science about it.

The article I refer to is in Bonsai issue number 2 page 10 . This magazine was the precursor to Bonsai Europe which became Bonsai Focus.
This article was written in 1989. I have been called to task before when I quote articles from the past. What I am doing is pointing out these NEW ideas are not. They have been around for along time.
When an Australian Bonsai enthusiast points it out we are poo paad, but an international, that is any one who comes from overseas, says it it is the gospel.
So why do we bother! so we can try to educate the younger growers.

If you have plenty more Bohdi why air layer unless you need more stock.

JMHO opinion cheers Pup

I totally agree with you Pup and as i have stated...i am going to try and create more movement in the trunk. I have done this before with a wedge cut but i think it never looks really right. I think i can drill a series of very small holes up the trunk, wrap it, support with wires and bend it slowly over a period of weeks or even months to create some movement. I have done this before on pines with success so i cannot see why not

Oh i forgot to mention It might look great in a Forrest with a couple of branches removed Then you could use up more stock instead of creating new stock

Hi Bodhi,

I was reading one of the Bonsai Today mags (Issue #80 something..?)about Ebihara's technique, it could be worthwhile experimenting with, if you're up for it
It was discussed here viewtopic.php?f=103&t=1828&hilit=matrix

And more info here https://bonsaitonight.com/2009/07/29/ebihara-technique/

If I was gonna layer it (JMO), I would layer just below the first branch and keep the first branch for a couple of years as a possible sacrifice...maybe?

Elias wrote:Hi Bodhi,

I was reading one of the Bonsai Today mags (Issue #80 something..?)about Ebihara's technique, it could be worthwhile experimenting with, if you're up for it
It was discussed here viewtopic.php?f=103&t=1828&hilit=matrix

And more info here https://bonsaitonight.com/2009/07/29/ebihara-technique/

If I was gonna layer it (JMO), I would layer just below the first branch and keep the first branch for a couple of years as a possible sacrifice...maybe?

Sorry Elias, i got this late and i made a decision and now it is done. Read the new thread i posted