Friday, October 11, 2013

Japanese white pine #3 again

Todd Ellis in Internet Bonsai club has pointed out to me:
"This may or may not help, but there is a very similar bonsai in Yoshio Takayanagi's book Masterpieces of Bonsai, on page 23. The photo shows the bonsai moving right to left, the opposite of your tree's current front, but it looks very similar. The book I have is the third printing: June 1989. The original copyright is 1986 by Shufunotomo Co., Ltd."

This is very interesting. It would not be the first time a photograph was flipped horizontally in a Japanese book or magazine. While this group appears so traditional to most it brakes a major rule: it consists of EIGHT trees. I assume that this would be a rare coincidence that the image from the seventies , the image from the eighties and the image in 2012 all show a group with EIGHT trees and the main trees have very similar motions and proportions and not be the same group.  I have flipped the image (again?) and put it up for all to guess whether this is the same group.
So now what is the consensus?


Walter Pall said...

I thought about the flipping and remember well the good old days when high quality photographs were made with slides. A slide is easily turned around. The quality on print is exactly the same then from the other side. The picture is only flipped horizontally. I remember that this happened once in a while in some magazines with my trees and made me angry. So this could either be on purpose or more probably by accident.

Walter Pall said...

Btw, I am absolutely against the strict rule of uneven numbers for groups. This only makes sens e for inexperienced bonsaiists. An artist would know that it is not the number that is important, but the symmetry that even numbers can produce. If the trunks are very much different in shape and dimensions the uneven number does not matter. This group her is a good example for that. While we were led to believe that this rule is written in stone I was present when a very important Japanese master applauded once seeing a successful group of four in a tree critique.

Marc said...

I want to see it, but there's something that's making me to doubt about the trees. Yes, it looks like the trees from the picture book, but isn't there a chance that the maker could have created a second group?

crataegus said...

Hi Walter, in all honesty I dont think it is the same group. Please take some more time to closely compare the bases of the trunks and roots. The distances between trunks appears to be quite different; also in position if you compare very minutely. this cannot be changed by simply styling, nor does it change all that mucht with age (since its kept in pot all time). Also the highest trunk on your tree composition has not equally steep inclination as the one in the book. yes this can be changed, but if also the distances between trunks (measured on ground level) change, this is quite difficult to accept. all in all, for me the position of trunks measured on ground level differ too much. Also check (all) the rootparts, both groups do not seem to be planted very higher or deeper so you can compare the roots to a certain extent. I see differences too. The second big main trunk, how can this loose thickness compared to the group in the book? Also the positioning of this righter part of trunks does not match. Greetings

Walter Pall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Walter Pall said...


thanks anyway for your diligent insights. We will see. And in the end it is not all that important - only interesting.