Pinus uncinata in a classic Japanese style

Looking good !!!!

Hi Law,

I like the work from a technical point of view, yet I am not convinced by the design, in particular by the front branch as it completely hides the main trunk. Furthermore there is no depth feeling, the tree very much looks 2D, at least in this only image. Could you please include other views?

Thanks

David

love it ...looks like it belongs on a snowy mountain...i like the first branch growing along the trunk but davids has a good point, the trunk and branch are competeing for attention and no ones winning . maybe just a simple pot repositioning can bring the branch above the trunkline

-keith- wrote: maybe just a simple pot repositioning can bring the branch above the trunkline

And/or maybe just a dark background. ... it does look a bit 2D but after branches get more ramification, i see the pads forming. nice and interesting.

yeap

Strong feeling emanating from this one.

lovely tree,

nothing like 'classic japanese style' - this has far more unique and European indivuality - the low, dropping, trunk crossing branch makes the tree totally un-japanese in my eye.

It looks great newly styled, if the pads fill out too much it may hide some of the interest in time, but then its easy to thin out again.

really nice styling, not the obvious choice by a long way.

cheers Marcus

beautiful, really enjoy all the foliated ones you've been hanging out with

Just my opinion, but why would you want to hide such a basically decent trunk?

Maybe because we like it like this. We will finish it like on the drawing (thanks Vev).

We are not going to keep this tree for a long time. So the owner will remove or cut this branch if he feels it's better. It's a living art so everything can be changed in every moment just a question of choice.

Can't argue with that answer. On the surface I may see something different but that's just my opinion and means nothing.

I have a question though. It was mentioned that this Pine is some sort of species of Mugo Pine. I have not seen this form or heard of it before. Could I bother you to tell me a little about it; where it is native, cultural elements and anything else that departs from the normal Mugo Pine? I would be most appreciative of any information you could provide. By the way; I think the work you have done so far is very nicely done.

It's a Pinus uncinata, very close to the mugho pine. It grow in the Alpes (France/Italy) or in the Pyrénées (France/spain) arround 2000 meters altitude. I only use "pouzzolane" as substratum but you can use "pumice" to. Hard to collect 'cause it grow on the rock. This specie grow very slowly.

This one is arround 50 to 60 years old an approximation done by the circles i have counted in the biggets branch i've cutted.

Really interesting specie.

Vance, if you're interested in taxonomy, you could look it up on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pine ). Cutting long story short, there are two takes on the subject: some say there are two subspecies of pinus mugo: pinus mugo mugo and pinus mugo uncinata. For others there are two separate species: pinus mugo and pinus uncinata respectively.

Speaking of the habitat, I found what law just wrote about the species interesting because in my neck of the woods, in Poland, the species grows only in three places and they are all bogs (the highest one of them lies at maybe 600m asl). As far as I know it's a similar story in the Czech Republic - it also inhabits only bogs there. In nature, the tree looks similar to mugo: it's got long lanky branches often growing out from one place near the soil, and only a few meters tall.

You're asking about the differences with mugo. My impression is that uncinata has thinner and more delicate needles which also have a slightly lighter green tinge. The uncinatas from Czech Rep. which I have seen, have more flaky and silver bark in comparison to the ones from Poland. I'd also risk generalising and saying that among bonsaists, uncinatas also have a reputation for backbudding better than mugo.

Thank you very much for your responses. I realize I could have used Wikpedia but I would rather get my information from someone with first hand experience with the tree and I don't really trust Wikpedia that much. I realize I may be a majority of one but to me Wikpedia is only one step above going into a public rest room and looking for information scrawled on the walls.

Vance Wood wrote:Can't argue with that answer. On the surface I may see something different but that's just my opinion and means nothing.

I have a question though. It was mentioned that this Pine is some sort of species of Mugo Pine. I have not seen this form or heard of it before. Could I bother you to tell me a little about it; where it is native, cultural elements and anything else that departs from the normal Mugo Pine? I would be most appreciative of any information you could provide. By the way; I think the work you have done so far is very nicely done.

Hey Vance,

Nobody's opinion means nothing, it just means more to you than it may mean to others (I'm talking generally here, not specifically). Of course, the more respected you become in the world of bonsai, the more your opinion means to others. We all have our personal tastes, and that's the great thing about bonsai. Some of us like to work in a comfort zone, others push the envelope. Neither is right or wrong.

The question I have to ask myself when I view a tree like this is whether it pleases me visually, and not whether it conforms to the "common rules". I think this is a refreshing tree and I must admit that I kinda like it. So would I put this tree amongst my collection? Yip. Would I have styled it like that? Nope, I'd have seen something different.

Cheers,

Andrew

[quote="Andrew Legg"]

Vance Wood wrote:
Hey Vance,

Nobody's opinion means nothing, it just means more to you than it may mean to others (I'm talking generally here, not specifically). Of course, the more respected you become in the world of bonsai, the more your opinion means to others. We all have our personal tastes, and that's the great thing about bonsai. Some of us like to work in a comfort zone, others push the envelope. Neither is right or wrong.

The question I have to ask myself when I view a tree like this is whether it pleases me visually, and not whether it conforms to the "common rules". I think this is a refreshing tree and I must admit that I kinda like it. So would I put this tree amongst my collection? Yip. Would I have styled it like that? Nope, I'd have seen something different.

Cheers,

Andrew

I agree 100%, I hope you didn't think I was saying I did not like the design, I do, and I too would not throw it out of my collection for shedding needles. But I like the trunk and if the tree were mine I would not have thought of this design option solely on the power of the trunk. Again; only my opinion and in no way wishing to ferment an argument over it, just a discussion on aesthetics.

[quote="Vance Wood"]

Andrew Legg wrote:

Vance Wood wrote:
Hey Vance,

Nobody's opinion means nothing, it just means more to you than it may mean to others (I'm talking generally here, not specifically). Of course, the more respected you become in the world of bonsai, the more your opinion means to others. We all have our personal tastes, and that's the great thing about bonsai. Some of us like to work in a comfort zone, others push the envelope. Neither is right or wrong.

The question I have to ask myself when I view a tree like this is whether it pleases me visually, and not whether it conforms to the "common rules". I think this is a refreshing tree and I must admit that I kinda like it. So would I put this tree amongst my collection? Yip. Would I have styled it like that? Nope, I'd have seen something different.

Cheers,

Andrew

I agree 100%, I hope you didn't think I was saying I did not like the design, I do, and I too would not throw it out of my collection for shedding needles. But I like the trunk and if the tree were mine I would not have thought of this design option solely on the power of the trunk. Again; only my opinion and in no way wishing to ferment an argument over it, just a discussion on aesthetics.

Agree Vance. I think the first bit was an attempted veiled compliment to you. The rest was an independent opinion. :-)

Cheers,

Andrew

now those are beautiful pictures you've been hiking ;-). Oh how i long to go back to the Cévennes one day, now that is some mystic scenery there on the plateau's... wonderful hikings, A little bit wild and very desolate actually, not like the other surrounding areas which are more touristically exploited. Well, the Cévennes are mostly national park too. Where were these taken exactly? no, dont need gps coördinates

What a nice sunny day you had and pictures are wonderful...very nice.


Best...

Gašper

Hello!

Law has no internet at the moment, he asked me to give you news of his tree.
Here it is today with its new pot ...

You say : classic japan style

[img][/img]

I guess the branch that covers the trunk has been placed there because the trunk section it covers is straight? Personally, I think it covers too much of the trunk and abcd's virtual does the tree much more justice.

The branch on the left also looks "wrong" and if possible would be better placed towards the rear.

The tree is still very wo dimensional and needs some depth.

Finally, I don't think that the pot really suits the tree very well....

Just my thoughts

In my view, this branch is connected with the rest of the construction of the tree ...

Having seen the tree in 3D, this branch seems consistent even if it isn't "classic" and the tree is not two dimensional, there are several branches back you can't see with the picture but that give depth actually.

Here are some details of the branches back but unfortunately I didn't take enough ...