A Twin Trunk Sierra Juniper

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
Here is another project - I really like this Sierra Juniper. It's a beautiful tree with a lot of deadwood interest. I like both sides. Frist question - which front do you like? Tomorrow, I'll be doing some grafting. I'll graft kishu, replacing the native Sierra foliage and lowering the height of the tree. So second question - how tall should the final tree be and which should be the taller trunk?

Scott
 

Attachments

Last edited:

sorce

Nonsense Rascal
Messages
20,916
Reaction score
28,146
Location
Berwyn, Il
USDA Zone
6.2
Nice material Marky.

I guess its a tough call until the grafts take.
Seems you could do a little carving afterward if you need too.

Is this the final planting angle?
I would work that out first. Place grafts appropriately, and see what happens.

Good skill.

Sorce
 

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
Nice material Marky.

I guess its a tough call until the grafts take.
Seems you could do a little carving afterward if you need too.

Is this the final planting angle?
I would work that out first. Place grafts appropriately, and see what happens.

Good skill.

Sorce
Hi Sorce. This is the more or less the final planting angle. No carving - the deadwood is natural and at least 100 years old. Planting height has to be decided now to position the grafts - need a new apex. Should this be a short tree or a tall one?

Scott
 

Bunjeh

Chumono
Messages
713
Reaction score
409
Location
DuPont, WA
USDA Zone
8a
Which side

I am drawn to the second picture. As for lowering the height, you could do that by making this into a fukinagashi.
 

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
I am drawn to the second picture. As for lowering the height, you could do that by making this into a fukinagashi.
Probably not going to go with a windswept. But I have to say I hadn't considered that idea - thanks. I find that style difficult to pull off well.

I will say that think that the more vertical trunk is the primary tree and the more leaning trunk is secondary.

Scott
 

ChrisV

Shohin
Messages
273
Reaction score
440
Location
The Netherlands, Europe
Second picture as the front and the left tree the tallest. Pretty cool material you got there I would keep it as big as possible.
 

wireme

Masterpiece
Messages
3,492
Reaction score
7,341
Location
Kootenays, British Columbia
USDA Zone
3
Second picture as the front and the left tree the tallest. Pretty cool material you got there I would keep it as big as possible.
I agree, a shattered top on the right hand side making it obvious that it used to be much taller, the left side now taking over dominance. I think with the tall slender trunk and narrow lifelines that the sparser nature of the native foliage could work just fine.
 

Poink88

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
8,968
Reaction score
60
Location
Austin, TX (Zone 8b)
USDA Zone
8b
2nd pic for me is the front with the left as the main trunk. I like it smaller but leave as much deadwood as possible above the canopy...
 

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
No votes for a shorter tree? Interest and deadwood are at the base. A tall tree could draw the eye away from there. Try to imagine something shorter.

Scott
 

Vance Wood

Lord Mugo
Messages
13,071
Reaction score
14,401
Location
Michigan
USDA Zone
5-6
No votes for a shorter tree? Interest and deadwood are at the base. A tall tree could draw the eye away from there. Try to imagine something shorter.

Scott
I was going to suggest a shorter tree but I guess I feared the criticism. I am always loath to cut existing dead wood but in this case the rhino horn on the right of the first photo is too dominating to the image of any tree. In fact; it is this feature that draws one's attention on first sight. This element has to be dealt with either by reducing it drastically or growing out the rest of the tree to some imaginary image in which this element plays a major part. It is a conundrum that is the nexus of the entire artistic debate about this tree. I can see a much shorter tree by 50% that could be an excelent bonsai. The rhino horn would have to be reduced down but there you have my opinion. You cannot make a omelet without breaking some eggs.

With collected trees it is always the natural dead wood that is the most important aspect and should be dealt with respectfully. It was for this reason I was hesitant to suggest the rhino horn needs to be reduced. To some this is blasphemy.
 
Last edited:

wireme

Masterpiece
Messages
3,492
Reaction score
7,341
Location
Kootenays, British Columbia
USDA Zone
3
No votes for a shorter tree? Interest and deadwood are at the base. A tall tree could draw the eye away from there. Try to imagine something shorter.

Scott
Tried, not seeing anything I prefer over the taller vision yet. Looking forward hearing your plan and seeing it eventually.
 

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
I was going to suggest a shorter tree but I guess I feared the criticism. I am always loath to cut existing dead wood but in this case the rhino horn on the right of the first photo is too dominating to the image of any tree. In fact; it is this feature that draws one's attention on first sight. This element has to be dealt with either by reducing it drastically or growing out the rest of the tree to some imaginary image in which this element plays a major part. It is a conundrum that is the nexus of the entire artistic debate about this tree. I can see a much shorter tree by 50% that could be an excelent bonsai. The rhino horn would have to be reduced down but there you have my opinion. You cannot make a omelet without breaking some eggs.

With collected trees it is always the natural dead wood that is the most important aspect and should be dealt with respectfully. It was for this reason I was hesitant to suggest the rhino horn needs to be reduced. To some this is blasphemy.
My thinking is the same on this one, Vance. The rhino horn has to be reduced significantly as it draws the eye away from the base where the interesting deadwood is. To me that is the secondary trunk.

Scott
 

Q-Bonsai

Mame
Messages
176
Reaction score
9
Location
Houston, TX
I can't be too decisive without seeing it in person but I'd take picture two and shorten until I hit interesting deadwood. I can't tell from the pictures but generally speaking, bigger trunk is the taller one...

If I had to keep it at the same height, wind swept would be the only good option in my opinion since the foliage mass wouldn't be as heavy and some attention could still be paid to the deadwood. Windswept would require some bending that would shorten it some too.
 

crust

Omono
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
1,657
Location
MN
USDA Zone
3A
I don't know how strong these Sierras are, but, what strikes me is that this may be a good subject for a advanced technique. I would take the clumsy trunk with the shaft at the top and remove much of the upper DW from the live band, wrap and coil the live band up dramatically in the back and flip it out with a triangle of green leaning in that trunks direction. Then make a top on the other trunk also leaning it that direction--keeping it lean. A little tilting would be needed. It would be a weirdo desert tree but cool.
 

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
Ok - here are the two possible fronts of my Sierra that we landed on with a closeup of the deadwood feature at the base. On one side, the deadwood is presented as a rugged feature and we thought the tree was best viewed from an angle with the main trunk in the back and extending over the top of the deadwood at the base. On the other side the deadwood is smooth and separates the live veins. From that side we thought the tree was best viewed from the side where it presented a broad aspect.

Scott
 

Attachments

markyscott

Masterpiece
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Houston, TX
USDA Zone
9A
I approach grafted five Kishu seedlings onto the trunk - it took me much of the afternoon to learn the technique, practice a bit, and carry out the task. We reduced the tall 2 year old shoots at the top. I'll attempt a virt later to show the final plan of the tree. But the grafts are low to focus on the deadwood at the base.

Scott
 

Attachments

crust

Omono
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
1,657
Location
MN
USDA Zone
3A
I approach grafted five Kishu seedlings onto the trunk - it took me much of the afternoon to learn the technique, practice a bit, and carry out the task. We reduced the tall 2 year old shoots at the top. I'll attempt a virt later to show the final plan of the tree. But the grafts are low to focus on the deadwood at the base.

Scott
It will be an amazing transformation!
 

Poink88

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
8,968
Reaction score
60
Location
Austin, TX (Zone 8b)
USDA Zone
8b
With the pics, both sides can be front depending on what size tree you like. I think the 1st set (on post #15) is better for a taller tree and the 2nd set would be easier to get a compact tree.
 

Poink88

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
8,968
Reaction score
60
Location
Austin, TX (Zone 8b)
USDA Zone
8b
Just saw the grafted tree...I think the 2nd set of post #15 pics would be the front then. (or choice #1 of OP) :D
 

Bonsai Nut

Nuttier than your average Nut
Messages
8,325
Reaction score
14,028
Location
OC, CA
USDA Zone
10A
You will need to change the planting angle first - at least have a plan for it. The tree as it stands has no future with two telephone pole trunks. So you need to go left, or right. I think your decision in this respect will also impact your grafting plans.

...I should probably have added - unless your plans are to reduce the trunks another 50% so you eliminate the vertical sections.
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom