Possible to have a forest where trees are technically the same age? (Trident Maples)

[Forsoothe!]

A group or clump is three or more and all can lean outboard, as they all grew together from a young age. A forest is too many to count without study, the individual trees are the product of too many generations to count, and the trees are all upright,-straining to reach the sunlight through the top of the canopy. The outboard trees can lean outward, just a little, to soften the sharp edges.

 

[sorce]

let’s see one of YOUR forests, if mine are so poor.

Oh, sorry, I forgot you don’t really have any..

And me happy to have gotten that far without you insulting someone.

I never said yours were poor, just what they are. In that category between group and forest, as brought on by American laziness and Ignorance.

The phenomenon is so deep, even the greatest of us suffer from it.

Sacrifice branches work just as well in a forest as they do on individual trees.

I would agree "just as well" if they are grafted.
To keep proper taper segment proportions, it is hard to have correct sacrifice position on an individual tree, let alone a whole forest, where the difficulty goes up exponentially.
Add difficulty to get in to make grafts, and there you have limits again.

These groups have poor lifespans, poor sustainability.

They will be on top of each other before and girth change happens.

There simply isn't enough time.

I think it is hard for man to fathom time in this manner. Especially Americans.

Sorce

 

[penumbra]

A group or clump is three or more and all can lean outboard, as they all grew together from a young age. A forest is too many to count without study, the individual trees are the product of too many generations to count, and the trees are all upright,-straining to reach the sunlight through the top of the canopy. The outboard trees can lean outward, just a little, to soften the sharp edges.

I think this is an excellent definition.In fact this entire thread has been excellent with many valid points about what defines a forest or a grouping in the bonsai world. One thing that "bonsai" rules disallow however, is that most forests have multiple species. Now I don't know if most of you consider this as penjing or miniature landscapes, and I guess the idea pleases me enough that I will expand on it this spring.
I know that some of you consider this a"shitty" idea, but this description is not helpful in the least. It is a strong reactionary statement but in this instance it is of no use to me.

 

[Forsoothe!]

I think this is an excellent definition.In fact this entire thread has been excellent with many valid points about what defines a forest or a grouping in the bonsai world. One thing that "bonsai" rules disallow however, is that most forests have multiple species. Now I don't know if most of you consider this as penjing or miniature landscapes, and I guess the idea pleases me enough that I will expand on it this spring.
I know that some of you consider this a"shitty" idea, but this description is not helpful in the least. It is a strong reactionary statement but in this instance it is of no use to me.

Wrong headed and won't work. I have accidentally tried this with 'Too Little' fig varieties which are almost indistinguishable from each other and the problem is they grow at different rates. That makes it nearly impossible to keep the whole in balance. Size matters, and when some species' leaves are up close and personally touching other species it will look goofy. I wish you luck, and keep us posted.

 

[Adair M]

Wrong headed and won't work. I have accidentally tried this with 'Too Little' fig varieties which are almost indistinguishable from each other and the problem is they grow at different rates. That makes it nearly impossible to keep the whole in balance. Size matters, and when some species' leaves are up close and personally touching other species it will look goofy. I wish you luck, and keep us posted.

It’s difficult to keep a “mixed forest” balanced as you say. It can also be difficult due to varying light requirements, and water requirements and fertilizer, etc.

 

[Adair M]

And me happy to have gotten that far without you insulting someone.

I never said yours were poor, just what they are. In that category between group and forest, as brought on by American laziness and Ignorance.

The phenomenon is so deep, even the greatest of us suffer from it.




I would agree "just as well" if they are grafted.
To keep proper taper segment proportions, it is hard to have correct sacrifice position on an individual tree, let alone a whole forest, where the difficulty goes up exponentially.
Add difficulty to get in to make grafts, and there you have limits again.

These groups have poor lifespans, poor sustainability.

They will be on top of each other before and girth change happens.

There simply isn't enough time.

I think it is hard for man to fathom time in this manner. Especially Americans.

Sorce

All those issues you speak of are figments of your imagination, not based upon any experience or personal knowledge. It’s entirely possible to let a sacrifice branch grow without resorting to grafting! Lol!!! Really!!!

Stop just making bullshit up! And posting it as fact when you have no clue.

I’m not insulting anyone. Just speaking the truth. I’m sure you mean well. But you’re just making up objections, saying this and that “can’t be done”... Based on what???

On this forest, these trees have zillions of branches I could choose to let grow to become a sacrifice, if I wanted:



This little forest has been together two years. It’s just a baby. But each tree has lots of branches. Yes, I would like the tallest tree to have more girth. So, I’ll pick a back branch, and let it grow, no pinching for this year, and let’s see what happens, ok?

 

[penumbra]

Wrong headed and won't work. I have accidentally tried this with 'Too Little' fig varieties which are almost indistinguishable from each other and the problem is they grow at different rates. That makes it nearly impossible to keep the whole in balance. Size matters, and when some species' leaves are up close and personally touching other species it will look goofy. I wish you luck, and keep us posted.

We'll see. Late last summer I started one with a Japanese maple and two dwarf hemlocks. Then in the fall I started another with a Japanese maple, a dwarf spruce and a dwarf hinoki. I would not really consider them bonsai as much as miniature Japanese landscapes but they please me very much. Not much to photo now but I will keep you posted.
Years ago I had a mother and son planting of two spruce with a dwarf rhododendron. It was quite lovely but I knew the rhodo would die because its not completely hardy here. Still it lasted 2 years and the spruce are still doing fine.

 

[sorce]

Stop just making bullshit up! And posting it as fact when you have no clue.

You just misunderstood what I said.

Sorce

 

[sorce]

“can’t be done”

I don't say can't be done.

Can't be done without the effects of doing it is what I say.

I'm talking about another level of detail in.

Small details.

Sorce

 

[sorce]

I would agree "just as well" if they are grafted.
To keep proper taper segment proportions, it is hard to have correct sacrifice position on an individual tree, let alone a whole forest, where the difficulty goes up exponentially.
Add difficulty to get in to make grafts, and there you have limits again.

That may need clarification.

No argument required.

I don't have ability to edit photos so text is all I have....

Extremely, for ease of explanation, if your largest tree has a sac at 6inches up and your smallest tree has a sac at 12 inches, you are going to make the little one look stupid.

Proportion is difficult.

Proportion in relation to each other is that much more difficult.

Just stating facts to consider who building trees or forests of trees.

Sorce

 

[William N. Valavanis]

"Group plantings" describe the technique of planting several trees in a container.
"Forests" describe the image they present.

The image of a "forest" can be created with:
Group plantings of individual trees
Root connected trees (sinuous and raft styles)
Clump or multiple trunk trees (those are the same too)

 

[Adair M]

That may need clarification.

No argument required.

I don't have ability to edit photos so text is all I have....

Extremely, for ease of explanation, if your largest tree has a sac at 6inches up and your smallest tree has a sac at 12 inches, you are going to make the little one look stupid.

Proportion is difficult.

Proportion in relation to each other is that much more difficult.

Just stating facts to consider who building trees or forests of trees.

Sorce

Gee, Sorce, do ya think some degree of intelligence might be involved when deciding which trees get sacrifice branches, and from which point on the tree they should be?

I mean, come on, man! Slow down on the posting and actually THINK about what you’re saying. And before you hit that, “post reply” button, go back and read what you wrote and see if it makes sense!

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

"Gee guys, I can't see the forest for all these damn trees".
Thanks @William N. Valavanis for the definition. I think this thread is getting into the weeds over minute distinctions in definitions.

I won't claim any skill at creating forests. I have 6 eastern hemlock in a pot, that are too evenly spaced, just waiting for me to get around to re-arranging them. I have Dawn Redwood forest, that I took out of its tray, and broke into 2 clumps, with the intention of re-assembling them sometime in the near future. But I have dabbled. Those that have been rather dogmatic about how detailed a forest must be, I say "relax, there is such a thing as a useful approximation". In general, to make a pleasing image, a forest does NOT have to be as detailed as an individual tree. The group of trees will take the focus away from individual details of the component trees. You CAN get away with less than perfect branch placing, less than perfect taper, less than perfect arrangement. Of course we should all try our best at everything we do, but honestly, you can get away with a few lapses in a forest planting that you might not tolerate in an individual bonsai.

I like to encourage new to the hobby beginners to go ahead and try a forest, because it can be pleasing to the eye even though it is full of flaws.

More than one it has been said that a forest should all be the same species, and same cultivar if possible of a species. Those who said this obviously never visited the Ashville, North Carolina Arboretum. The collection there, curated by Arthur Joura includes a half dozen mixed species forests. These forests are world class, good enough for any public display or to be in a National level show. So to the requirement to use only a single species, I call bullshit.

It is more difficult to mix species of trees in a forest planting, because of different growth rates, and differences in apparent scale of leaves. BUT IT CAN BE DONE, and IT CAN BE DONE WELL.

The following photos were taken from Wayne S's blog, Bonsai Bark, the blog of Stone Lantern. These are from a 2014 blog, and if you search the original credit is given to the photographer.

First 2 are a forest and a close up of same forest, rhododendron & it think juniper or maybe hinoki mixed. This I believe was created by Arthur Joura,
close up

Next are 3 more mixed species forests, not sure if they are all created by Arthur or just being maintained by Arthur.



Final photo is of a forest created by Saburo Kato, one of the great bonsai artists of Japan. Again, a forest of mixed species. So please, don't say mixing species can't or shouldn't be done. Yes, it is an added level of difficulty, but it certainly can be done and can be done well.

 

[penumbra]

Thank you Leo, they are amazing. I am encouraged that I am not doing something "wrong", though why I should give a damn if it pleases me, I don't know. The last one was a very bold move.
When I re pot my hornbeam group this spring I will incorporate some other plants, probably boxwood. I will take pictures of the process and post them.

 

[sorce]

I mean, come on, man! Slow down on the posting and actually THINK about what you’re saying. And before you hit that, “post reply” button, go back and read what you wrote and see if it makes

Don't demean me because you can't read under your Boon Rock with closed mind.

You were a dick to call your shitty forest better than forsoothes.
It's mathematically near identical with the same thoughtless beginning.

You on your high horse proclaiming that's a good forest.

You should be ashamed.

You probly are cuz you finally realized you paid too much.

Sorce

 

[Adair M]

Don't demean me because you can't read under your Boon Rock with closed mind.

You were a dick to call your shitty forest better than forsoothes.
It's mathematically near identical with the same thoughtless beginning.

You on your high horse proclaiming that's a good forest.

You should be ashamed.

You probly are cuz you finally realized you paid too much.

Sorce

Lol!!! Did you wake up with a hangover???

Yes, I bought my forests from Bill V. He’s rather the expert in making them. Yes, the same number of trees as Forsoothe’s, probably, but far more artistry is evident in their placement. My forests are very young, it will take a decade before they really settle in.

But the trees are not planted straight up and down, some are close together, some are farther apart, they’re all different heights, and different calipers, they’re not evenly spread all over the pot...

In one of Naka’s Techniques books, there’s suggested diagrams for the placement of trunks in the pot. And while the diagrams aren’t meant to be the only way(s) to do it, they show the same characteristics as Bill’s forests.

I make no claim to the design of these examples I’ve shown, I’m just responsible for their development from here on. If you want to insult the designer, you’re talking to the wrong guy!

You say my little forest is “shitty”. Ok, I was brave enough to post MY forest. Let’s see yours!

 

[BackyardBonsai]

I don't know about yall but given enough time ~ 10, 15 or 20 years they will look good. Some of the trees on the edges will start 'moving' away from the middle. Some branches will die do to shading. Some will grow faster once they start getting more light than others... Eventually the forest on tray will be look similar to the real forest. You can help by selective pruning.

 

[Adair M]

Lol!!! Did you wake up with a hangover???

Yes, I bought my forests from Bill V. He’s rather the expert in making them. Yes, the same number of trees as Forsoothe’s, probably, but far more artistry is evident in their placement. My forests are very young, it will take a decade before they really settle in.

But the trees are not planted straight up and down, some are close together, some are farther apart, they’re all different heights, and different calipers, they’re not evenly spread all over the pot...

In one of Naka’s Techniques books, there’s suggested diagrams for the placement of trunks in the pot. And while the diagrams aren’t meant to be the only way(s) to do it, they show the same characteristics as Bill’s forests.

I make no claim to the design of these examples I’ve shown, I’m just responsible for their development from here on. If you want to insult the designer, you’re talking to the wrong guy!

You say my little forest is “shitty”. Ok, I was brave enough to post MY forest. Let’s see yours!

Here are a couple pages from Naka’s Bonsai Techniques 1:

 

[sorce]

you’re talking to the wrong guy!

I'm not "taking someone on".

There's the problem with this whole communication.

You still believe that which is not true.

Sorce

 

[coh]

You're a cunt. For lack of a better term.

This is a disgusting response and in clear violation of the forum rules. And coming from someone who is a moderator on this site? Makes it even worse.

You are out of control and in need of a time out. @Bonsai Nut , you need to get this person under control. Your forum is going downhill in a hurry.