This is going to be a very subjective comment as I don't have time right now to do any numerical analysis. With that said...and not knowing which of these is the actual bonsai and which 2 are the modifications, image 2 seems best to me. The length of the cascading canopy seems right in some way. Image 1 looks too short, perhaps because of the width of the bottom of the pad - maybe if that was made narrower (increase the "taper" of the cascading foliage mass) it would also seem right. The tail on number 3 seems too long.
No numbers, please! Just your "gut" impression of the three designs.
One thing that I am finding, is that is is very hard to do an "apples to apples" comparison of three trees, because the stands, pots, planting position and angle, were all created with the one design in mind. I am worried that these aspects will tilt the design comments in one direction or the other. However I am trying to get to a point where everyone says all three designs would be amazing bonsai - but each one gives a slightly different impression.
The comments seem to show that we all have different tastes? One observation that I have is that the "feeling" (IMHO) from this type of classic design is that the foliage is too perfect (young in appearance) for the battered trunk?
G
The comments seem to show that we all have different tastes? One observation that I have is that the "feeling" (IMHO) from this type of classic design is that the foliage is too perfect (young in appearance) for the battered trunk?
G