I heartily endorse this strategy!Buy more trees.
Yeah, and promising not to post them on the Internet . . . oops!Just photos...famous last words.

Can we gather and update on this tree?
Hi guys. I'm in England for a couple of weeks, so I'm away from my trees at the moment (I hope they're still alive). This tree has not been separated yet - I decided to wait until spring. Right now I'm just letting the lowest branching and the new leader grow vigorously. I'll try to update with some pictures when I get back.Surely this has been separated?
Really nice work on the tree. The chops are progressing mighty fine. Do Elms in California lose there leaves in what you call a winter season? .....or is there not really a winter dormancy. Just wondering......Growing like a weed, so I'm just selectively keeping things in check. I reduced the most recent trunk segment a bit and selected a new leader too.
Yesterday:
View attachment 108423
Today:
View attachment 108424
Thanks!Really nice work on the tree. The chops are progressing mighty fine. Do Elms in California lose there leaves in what you call a winter season? .....or is there not really a winter dormancy. Just wondering......
The quick answer (though admittedly an oversimplification that doesn't tell the whole story) is that a new leader up top probably won't significantly thicken trunk below it until it reaches the same diameter as the lower section(s). In other words, letting it grow too much is probably more likely to ruin taper than improve it.Thanks. A few more questions.....
On the tree there was a long growth as you grew out more taper and a new apex possibly. The branch was heading up 3' or so. If you just that top shoot grow...and grow...and grow even taller, much taller....and as a result much thicker likely....
1. Would the trunk thicken significantly? From the soil level all the way up to the top?
2. Would this growth create the opportunity for more taper development that results in a taller tree?
Thanks. A good straightforward answer. I understand the growth process you described. I guess I thought....more growth...more leaves...bigger growth rings made by the tree from the roots upward. Bigger rings...thicker trunk.The quick answer (though admittedly an oversimplification that doesn't tell the whole story) is that a new leader up top probably won't significantly thicken trunk below it until it reaches the same diameter as the lower section(s). In other words, letting it grow too much is probably more likely to ruin taper than improve it.
Just look at the photos of the tree at the beginning of this thread when I first got it - the top section (that I ended up removing) had gotten away from the grower and was as thick or thicker than the segment below it. That's why it had to go.
I think the way to accomplish what you're asking about is strategic sacrifice branches at various heights; otherwise, previously chopped segments are pretty much the thickness They're going to be . . .
Yes. Exactly this.let the ground grown tree grow without chopping until the trunk is a desired thickness. Then, perform the first chop. After that chops continue at strategic intervals or bud positions. Each section of new trunk is chopped at a time when it is thinner than the trunk section below it....gradually becoming much thinner as the tree height grows. Something like this?
I should add that this is almost certainly how this tree's trunk was "built" by the grower for years before I purchased it.Yes. Exactly this.