"Flat Out" Larch

Hi Guys,
Due to my obsession to over pot my trees and the fact that the Stone Monkey Tardis was full to overflowing, I was unable to take this Larch to Burrs. I was wondering if the great & the good of the IBC could give me some pointers.

Front & Back


Left & Right views


Top View


As you can see it looks like it has been sat on by a "jelly-bump" and has no discernable apex. Do I lose the branches to the left and re-aline the branches to make a windswept tree or try and fashion some sort of apex?
Your comments would be of great help,

Okk, Okk,
Simon

This is my first attempt at a 'virtual', and I only have MS Paint to work with, so make allowances for quality, (I'm much better with pens and pencils!).
Not a brilliant representation, but you get the idea.....

My first thought was to remove the upright bottom branch but on reflection, I would let it grow unhindered for a couple of years to fatten up the base and give it better taper. In fact, the whole tree looks like it could do with some extension growth.
Harleyrider. I would much prefer to see your drawings of peoples trees. Much more spontaneous.

How about this for a rough virtual. It's so hard to figure out the details of a tree like this even with the nice photos you took.

But this seems to give the best trunk angle from the soil, taper and branch options I could see. It needs some balance to the left, maybe even more of a tilt to the right.

Don't forget to keep us informed of its development.

Hi everyone,
After much debate and study I finally had some inspiration yesterday for this tree. As you can see below the Larch had put on a lot of growth so I was happy to make a start................







................and here's where It went!!





This may not be a tipical Larch image but I would be intrerested in your feedback,
Ook, Ook,
Simon

Hi there

Nice job. I do honestly think you've achieved quite an improvement with this styling. But as you mention, you could propose a more 'larch-typical' styling. I hope this hopeless MSpaint virtual will show you in what direction I would like to see the tree go...had it been mine [IMHO]. I tryed to make as realistic a change as possible (from what the pictures offered and what litlle MSpaint allowed me to do), but the virtual bends might be a little exagerated on the virt's new apex. However I hope this virtual makes sence to you

Thanks for your positive feedback Loke. I like your virtual but I felt that I couldn’t go down this route as (a) there is a large set “knuckle” where you have indicated the new leader would go and I would have been unable to bend it and (b) I didn’t think of it!! I chose the branch with most potential & flexibility to create the new apex and although not perfect a more pleasing image than I had!!

Overall I’m happy with the image that I have created and I can’t wait to see it in leaf.
Thanks again for your interest,
Ook, Ook,
Simon

Hi Simon

...it just shows that creative confidence is always comming from within...not from virtuals and smileys

Ooooo someone has been a busy Monkey Looking good Simon

Regards

Andy

I like it Simon. I'd think about removing the left branch though.

Better???
Ook, Ook,
Simon

Will, I'll bring it along to our Club meeting next month for a better look!!

I've spent a bit of time looking at the Larches on the IBC and it looks like I've missed a trick - or have I?

It seems that most of the styled trees here have all/most of their branches "racked down" but I haven't - have I made a major mistake here? A lot of the UK styled trees seem similar(ish) but the majority of trees from mainland Europe are this way (some even have the sub branches below the main branch line). The way I have placed my smaller branches I will still end up with nice domed pads (when the buds break) but is this wrong?

So the main question I am asking is am I totally missing the point when it comes to styling Larch or is this more of a case of differing styles from country to country? I hope that I haven't lost the plot (as this is my first "major" non-topiery tree) but if I have please be honest enough to tell me!!!

(Un)Happy but Twisted,
Simon

Hello Simon. Firstly the branch I was talking about was tha one on the left of the photo.
Secondly, I didn't look at your tree and think it was styled badly. Your effort to lift up the branches from a flat plain has worked very well and the movement throughout the tree is very good. If you wanted to give it a "Larch look", you can develop this in the future.

will baddeley wrote:Secondly, I didn't look at your tree and think it was styled badly.

Hi Will,
I never saw that as the case and delighted with yours and Andy's comments
All I was trying to do yeasterday was try and understand the mechanics behind producing a good Larch image like those posted by the likes of Karl & Pavel. I understand that my tree is at a very early stage, and can be corrected later, but I was hoping to get a "feel" for what I should be looking to do next time I style a Larch.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from as sometimes my points do get lost in typing!!
Ook, Ook,
Simon

If I'm picking you up correctly, Simon, you are concerned that you have wired the tree to look like a deciduous broadleaf tree (e.g. elm) rather than as a larch which we associate more with a conical "drooping" outline. I'm guessing from the pictures that you have done this by twisting two of the side branches round and the other up to form an apex.

How about simply pulling the two side branches downwards and straightening them out (but only slightly on the straightening)? At this time of year my larch branches are reasonably malleable. If you remember the big larch of mine from last year, one of its problems was that the branches were ramrod straight and pointing upwards. To bring them down I wired and guyed and it achived the droop effect well. Rather than hijack your thread with pics of my own tree, HERE is the link back:

I think something similar could be achieved with Big Lurch's wee brother but with the caveat that I'm only seeing the tree in two-dimensions.

Hi Fiona, you understood my “drivel” perfectly (you must be telpathetic!!) although being a 2D image, as you rightly pointed out, it’s difficult to tell. Your tree proves my point perfectly as your branches, although racked down, and nowhere near as “acute” an angle as many I have seen. It seems that your Larch went down a bomb with the IBC members so I’m more hopeful with mine as all the branches have been dropped but I was worried by not enough. Below is a split to show how much I moved a branch (which is now at a low front level) and the decline – I hope this helps!! (Red is branch removal & arrows direction & height change)





I was interested to notice the picture with Marco and the change of potting angle as by accident I’ve done the same (raising the left hand side) and it’s helped the overall image greatly. When the buds have burst I’ll post the tree again at its new angle and see if this helps better to explain my concerns.

Better late than never.......................



Still a a way to go but I think its moving in the right direction at long last!
Ook, Ook,
Simon