Branch or not branch, that´s the question

.

I voted to keep the branch (as I suggested in the original thread). I like the tree overall much better with the branch. However, I don't like some of the sub-structure of the branch (mainly the part that goes directly downward) and would like to see it simplified and maybe shortened a little, like this:



Chris

.

My feeling from the previous thread was to remove it, and it still is. Too heavy, too long and too low for my eye. The space between it and the next branch bothers me, and I don't like that much weight on the left side for a tree that moves to the right. I think Littleart fx said it best in the last thread - the tree "dances" without it. Change the pot and the placement in the pot too.

My out-voted 2 cents.

The tree would be out of balance without the bottom branch.

mike page wrote:The tree would be out of balance without the bottom branch.

Sorry, looks perfectly balanced and far more graceful to me.

.

Then why are we bothering with a poll????

It's hard to make a decision based on tiny photos. In person, you may be right.

.

David,

If it were mine I'll keep the bottom branch, removing it probably is not the only solution. It is just over extended. making it shorter and reducing a bit the second branch would be more okey, then fill the gap/void on the left side between the 1st and 2nd branch by the extending the second branch to the back and showing a portion of it to the left side.

regards,
jun

Keep the branch and extend it by about another third of its current length. Then enjoy the view for a while. In the meantime, grow another branch above it. Then in a few years, after the current ichi no eda has thickened the bottom trunk some more, remove it. The new branch that you are developing will become the ichi no eda.

David Cortizas wrote:Hi Russell.

I´m not going to cut that branch. But in the previous thread a lot of people tell me about cut that branch and I would like to know your opinions.

Thanks!

I'm sorry, that wasn't really a fair question to ask. As for opinions, I think it's a more interesting tree without the branch - judging from the small pictures. I do like it better the way Chris cleaned it up. To be honest, I wish you had removed it a long time ago and air-layered it a little higher. And I think eventually you'll cut the branch.

It's far easier to make judgements from a distance than it is to stand there in front of the tree with a saw in your hand....

.

David Cortizas wrote:The tree today without wire.

Yep, I'd cut off that branch and change the pots so fast your head would explode!!!!

.

Russell Coker wrote:

David Cortizas wrote:The tree today without wire.

Yep, I'd cut off that branch and change the pots so fast your head would explode!!!!

Now, I'd PAY to see a demo like that!

From looking at your last photo I'm wondering if some (or all) of what appears to be downward growth on that branch is just due to the photo perspective? You're definitely looking downward into the pot on the last photo. Can you re-take the photo from a distance using zoom to get close, and from a level near or just below the mid-point of the tree? I think that's the standard way to take photos that have minimal distortion.

Or you can just ignore me! I don't mind...

Chris

.

Thanks for posting those! Amazing how much different that branch looks from the various viewpoints. The last photo shows that it's really quite flat. So I guess how you treat that branch depends on where you expect people to be looking at it from...maybe it doesn't need much adjusting.

BTW, I did like the suggestion that was made to bring some of the back foliage over more to left, to help fill the gap above the lowest branch.

Chris

In the style that you are making this tree I think you should keep the low branch - without it the tree is quite mundane IMO. However, there is a branch near the apex that goes up-and-to-the-left which I find very distracting even in foliage. From the picture I think the tree would be much better if you just cut it off but there may be a better way to be rid of that "up-and-to-the-left thingie".

I voted to keep the branch but I don't see it working with your present style of tree. In my opinion the branch structure is far too flat in the horizontal and for a deciduous tree this is wrong. I would personally re wire the whole tree and lift/ prune the branches to give them some vertical movement. You can then create more of a secondary head or tree from the new stucture in that branch. It would then tie in better with the rest of the tree. I have done a quick sketch to better explain my idea.

Ah... Have just seen the other thread of the same tree which originally had the kind of thing I was talking about........ I'll get my coat

I agree with Will,the bottom branch only works if you create the tree like his picture.

mike page wrote:The tree would be out of balance without the bottom branch.

I agree with Mike, without the branch the right side of the trees looks heavier, if you cut the tree you have to reposition the tree (till to the left a few degrees)

.

David Cortizas wrote:

I'd vote to lose it... However the only other solition for me would be to approach graft a whip onto that branch. Giving it its own roots. Cut the branch off and peg it back in slightly higher up the trunk(an inch or 2 depending on the size of the tree)
They'd be information on doing that on the web somewhere for sure!!!

Thanks
Bryan