I almost (or do) pefer the look of a common natural form because, let's be honest, you don't see those contorted, twisted, beaten tree forms except for When you go hiking which isn't very often.
I don't care much for the first two junipers. They don't look like trees to me. Green helmets on a mass of deadwood. Would I enjoy owning them? Yes I would. But do they deserve titles as being some of the best? Not really imho.
Burn me at stake.
I'm with you on this one.
I actually prefer trees that look like those I see around me. Gnarly junipers can be quite impressive, but those don't naturally grow around me like they do in the western US. I tend to prefer deciduous species myself, but a great pine or larch is always good too.
For me, the best indication of a great tree is whether or not everything works at the chosen scale. Does the ratio of trunk size to branch size work? Does it have realistic looking ramification and a leaf/needle size to match? Is it realistic enough that you can imagine yourself sitting underneath that tree on a warm summer afternoon?
Big gnarly deadwood, while technically impressive, isn't an automatic indicator of whether I like the tree. I need to be able to look at it and imagine how that dead wood got there, and not every tree needs to be an ancient methuselah. Sure, the ancient looking ones are great, but I actually like the look of mature, but not ancient, trees as well. Deadwood for the sake of deadwood can become gratuitous, and if not executed well, often makes me just want to cut it back (or off).
Maybe if I lived somewhere where there were lots of gnarly, deadwood junipers around me in nature, I might prefer the gnarly deadwood style. I can appreciate them for what they are (and like you, wouldn't turn them away if they showed up here), but I don't long to re-create them like I do with Walter's maples.
