is Ishizuki shohin considered shohin?

jamie11

Yamadori
Messages
82
Reaction score
1
Location
Australia, QLD
USDA Zone
5-6
hi people,

i have just recently put an elm on a rock in the root over rock style, now the tree itself would be of mame size, but with the overall composition it would be of shohin size, after having a bit of discussion with Pup we havent been able to come up with a solution and he is as stumped as i am.

basically from what pup has said he doesnt think that Ishizuki should be considered shohin or mame size but we are unsure why?

if any one could clear this up that would be greatly appreciated :D

jamie :)
 
Is there some reason why it even matters? We get so hung up on classification!
 
Is there some reason why it even matters? We get so hung up on classification!


its not about being hung up on classification, its my curiousity... it seems i have struck a nerve for some reason, why is it when a topic like this comes up there is always these sort of comments?

the reason why it matters is that i have asked a question as i would like to know an answer. if there isnt anything you can comment on about the actual topic then what is the point in responding with an answer like that???

jamie, the inquisitive bonsai-ist :)
 
I find it easier to think of bonsai size classification in terms of human anatomy.

Mame is "palm-sized" bonsai, or bonsai that fit in the palm of your hand.

Shohin is "one-hand" or "hand-sized" bonsai - trees with pots about the size of your hand, or trees that can be easily moved around using one hand.

But for the most part size classification doesn't matter, unless you are entering in a show. Even then, I have not heard of judges being sticklers for size classification unless your tree clearly does not fit in the category in which it was entered.
 
It's difficult sometime to classify the size of the smaller trees, I have shohin and chuhin, I just call the smallest shohin and the others chuhin, most people don't really care that much as long as you get close, but there is always that one guy..................................


keep it green,
Harry
 
but there is always that one guy..................................


keep it green,
Harry[/QUOTE]

:D
Wood
 
Sizes are not static. There isn't a "mame can only be six inches tall and shohin can only be 12" tall." The lines between each category blur considerable, I think. In the end, I'd think it would be about the tree's size, not the rock's...
 
i thank you for putting your thoughts in with decent responses. since posting this and and having more discussion over here in Australia we have come to a very similar conclusion, there is some blur between the sizes but generally it is about how it fits in, rock included, so measurement from soil level for root over rock, and from nebari level foor root on rock.

thank you ;)
 
Personally, I find the"finger-sized, palm sized, one-hand, two-hand, two-man, four-man" method of measurement more helpful, as the effort needed to lift a tree is becoming more of a significant factor for me as I get older.:D
 
i have to agree with the size factor rockm, im only twenty four and pretty much restricted to small chuhin size at the moment or smaller, i fell off a ladder nearly a year ago standing at 6 feet high landed badly and have prolapsed discs in my spine, i cant lift trees of large weight because of this and have moved on most of my larger trees on bar a couple sentimental ones. in this happening it has opened my world to the shohin trees which have become my main focus now, i still dable with a few slightly bigger but only have one tree that is above a foot and a half tall now.
 
Milehigh, dont feel bad I thought it was funny! I got the pun right away, not all was lost :)
 
The problem with these classifications is they're used only the West, apparently. I've heard from more than one person who's familiar with Japanese bonsai that growers there kind of laugh at the categories we put trees into...
 
Back
Top Bottom