Personally 300 years gives tree venerability with all this entails, intrinsic value, genuine instead of "created" age in appearance, personal responsibility to treat tree with greatest care. 50 years=meh by comparison....and most importantly, age is almost completely irrelevant when it comes to bonsai. It doesn't matter how old a tree is. What matters is how old a tree looks.
Any time I go to a bonsai exhibition and I see "ages" posted with trees, I wince. First, because in most cases it is only the roughest of guesses. Second, because the number is meaningless. If I say my tree is 50 years old versus 300 years old... how does that make a difference?
Yep. New people care about age of trees. The more “age” you have in bonsai, the less you care about actual age of trees, and instead, creating the illusion of age.In the end. Who cares about age. The older I get the less I want to think about it.
I'm impressed by age in bonsai because it ain't easy keeping a tree alive in a tiny pot, handed down for several generations.The age of the tree is important to bonsaiists when acquiring a tree and influences the price. After that, it's all about the training, like who and how long. Just being "old" impresses the uninitiated, and how well trained impresses bonsaiists.
In the end. Who cares about age. The older I get the less I want to think about it.
One of the best explanations as to why the public award for bonsai at a show rarely is for a good bonsaiJust being "old" impresses the uninitiated, and how well trained impresses bonsaiists.
I too wince at the display of age next to a trees decription. What matters to me is appearance, and age is just a distracting thing.. It makes me wonder more about the methods of age verification than about the tree on display. Who the hell is counting and why does it matter? Why should it matter?
It's like displaying the age of a pearl necklace.
Because the age is usually a very rough guess, so you can call a tree roughly 300 years old for 20 years if you want.(also, why would someone fabricate a static "age: 300 years" label instead of saying "born in 1721" ? this seems common)
normally something like "in training since"What would even be a better way to convey (to the general public) the magnitude of / long arc of human effort that went into a given tree
I am not the least interested in the age of a botanist.but what about a botanist?
I don't know .... I have met a few that might change your mind.I am not the least interested in the age of a botanist.