I hope to see some people posting some pictures of work done with Yamadore or prebonsai over maybe a two year period, and I'll post a picture of a nursery tree worked over the same amount of time.
Thanks for the clarification and bringing things into perspective Vance. I don't want to sound argumentative here but I believe a little more clarification is required.
When we talk about collected material, the 2 year time frame is this after a suitable recovery period, because as we know some may take up tp 3 years in ICU, or once the recovery period is over and styling begins? I believe the latter is worthy of discussion as once again it plays on the time line, so to speak.
When we compare rare found nursery stock (one that has everything going for it e.g. nebari, trunk taper, movement and branch placement) to yamadori, in most cases the nursery stock with the exception of "age" can begin its bonsai journey sooner (no recovery period). That is why I did not include yamadori in my original response. I further believe that a level playing field needs to be established if we are to draw credible conclusions. e.g. pre-bonsai against nursery stock from the time of acquisition, with a deadline for comaprative purposes lets say 2-3 years down the road.
If yamadori is to be included in this debate, then I believe in order to level the playing field that the timeline for collected material commences only after a suitable recovery period has transpired.
There are many tangibles in this debate and these issues are not a simple thing to address. If we bring age into the discussion, although a bonsai can be made to portrait and old tree, when we come to collected material the exposure to the elements cannot be duplicated in that particular time frame with the other sources of material. IMO it's like experience which, cannot be replaced regardless of the amount of books, articles one reads. In presenting this bold observation, I mean good collected material vice "urbandori". As we know most folks that collect normally will not dig up the first tree they come accross but will search for that rare find, not unlike the "nursery hunter".
I would also like to clarify a point; I do not object to collected trees. When I frist started bonsai most of my trees were Yamadori collected from the California mountains, as to cultivated trees I have two. One is beautiful and the other is a dog on a leash. Again it is not the source or the nature of that source it is the choices made from that source.
... your closing argument in this paragraph is bang on the money. Having said that, it would seem to me that this particular opinion may be skewed and lacks objectivity. Let me explain my interpretation of what has been written.
I believe and correct me if I am wrong that your position is that great bonsai can be developed from nursery stock? I endorse that position 100%. What I fail to comprehend is your insistance that nursery stock will get there quicker, it's just impossible, not when we put a time frame on it. As I discussed previously, bonsais take time, regardless who and where this "time" was spent, from developing nursery stock (pre-bonsai) old collected material, or styling a "rare find" into a credible bonsai. Let me further explain...
This debate IMO contains far too many tangibles to categorise the three choices enthusiasts face. There has been articles written on how to create the illusion of age and maturity. There is no doubt that in the hands of a talented artist this can be accomplished in short fashion, but when we talk of the average enthusiast, this is not the case. Albeit, that a tree may have girth, good taper and reallistic deadwood, it takes years to develop decent bark on a given tree. Artistically the deadwood can be created with "SiDiao Techniques" and not everyone possesses these skills, but mature bark once again takes time, and although techniques to develop mature looking bark are out there, the latter takes time.
I think those who are being told that "this" is better than "that" deserve the right to choose for themselves and to have the opportunity to examine the results in pictures and not just the testimony of words. The problem I have with part of this argument is that the "Good Stuff" proponents in thinking they are encouraging the neophytes to obtain better stock are in truth discouraging them into believing that unless they collect or spend big bucks for cultivated stock are just not going to get anywhere, they are wasting their time.
... and I endorse your position with this argument 100%.
However Vance it seems that when you place a time line on it, that you are "flip flopping". The latter is not intended to offend you as this is indeed a thought provoking debate, but when you contradict yourself in your own debate, the clarity of your position becomes obscure.
As kind of a side bar I have to chuckle that the same group of growers are quick to let the same neophytes know about trunk chops, growing in the ground, air layering and a host of other interesting and educational techniques that are more suited to less than stellar material. At the same time they are not told how to harvest this material, how to care for it, how long to care for it, and that the care of an old tree is much more tricky than the care for a young tree. Yes; some collected and some prebonsai are better than some nursery trees but the cost of failure is substantially higher and more heart breaking.
I believe this whole statement sums up to cost, which although a valid argument seems biased, as your closing sentence seems once again to contradict your position.
My over-all point in all of this is to simply to get people thinking about what they are saying and teaching. There is a proverb out there, the author of which I cannot now remember, that says "What you know is sometimes the enemy of what you want to learn".
In closing this is what I believe this debate is about, and anyone feel free to debate any points I raise, as Vance has said, it is a debate:
Some proponents have stated that the only way to achive a credible bonsai is by the acquisition of yamadori or pre-bonsai material. My position on that avenue as previously mentioned is
rubish. Bonsai can be created regardless from which source the material comes from, providing good/great material is selected from either source.
To say that great material acquired from a nursery in comparison to the other two sources will become a credible bonsai sooner. To me this position is more a figment of someones imagination than anything else. There are far too many tangibles involved in making that statement credible. I may not be able to participate in this debate with the "show and tell" portion but will be interested to see the results of those who have chosen to pick up the gauntlet, and to further expand my knowledge with the responses of the members.
As I have mentioned this is an interesting discussion and, one that could be suited for the eristic forum at A of B. IMO I am finding it difficult to follow the obscurity of the discussion. Are we talking styling a tree from nursery stock in comparison with the other two, not unlike your Shimpaku submission, or creating a credible bonsai? Undoubtedly the former can be accomplished in short fashion and just as well if not better (at times), but the latter cannot IMHO. It takes time to create bonsai regardless of where this time is expended, from years of growing in the wild, years of development in the hands of a talented grower, or years expended allowing nursery stock to catch up to the other two.
Now if we talk solely money, which is the cheapest method outside of time and effort in creating a credible bonsai, then by all means nursery stock has the lead. However, folks will indeed have a difficult time of convincing me otherwise, as the other side of the debate encompasses more credible arguments.