Inverse taper or not?

[BobbyLane]

I called it reverse taper in another thread, but I meant inverse taper. There is a swelling where the two trunks meet that will increase with time, its important to have a good base, that will also widen over time to offset the visual weight from where there the trunks meet.

Trying to load pics but painfully slow

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

Tree in question. Let the debate commence (if desired lol)

 

[BobbyLane]

Yes the tree is clearly wider above the base. its worse if you have a crappy nebari because then the eye is drawn even more to the bulge above base, but of course there are exceptions. It has to look good.
The resulting bulge that occurs is one reason so many are instructed to remove all trunks and leave one trunk line, to make a 'bonsai'. I do it too, but I can also realise if I have material that can be moulded into something more natural, in that case the nebari has to be pretty good. Like what we see with so many of Walter's naturalistic trees, with multiple trunks.

 

[Cajunrider]

Tree in question. Let the debate commence (if desired lol)
View attachment 496113

This is the kind of inverse taper that to me is natural. If we visually block off each branch, the tree has beautiful taper. When I observe a tree, my eyes naturally follow the line of each branch. If I don't see any inverse taper by following each branch, the tree is OK to me.

 

[BobbyLane]

With my old Hackberry, the wide basal flair offsets the two trunks as they become wider above the base

 

[Cajunrider]

With my old Hackberry, the wide basal flair offsets the two trunks as they become wider above the base
View attachment 496115

Perfect example of what I posted earlier. When I follow the lines of each of the twin trunk, the taper is beautiful.

 

[BobbyLane]

The Oak from another angle...not as desirable

 

[Cajunrider]

The Oak from another angle...not as desirable

View attachment 496116View attachment 496117

The branch on the left is most troublesome up top.

 

[BobbyLane]

The branch on the left is most troublesome up top.

Yes that would need to be cut back it has too much weight

 

[Cajunrider]

The branch on the left is most troublesome up top.

Yes that would need to be cut back it has too much weight

Down here with the live oak we often have branches like that. In those cases, the branch will droop down lower each year until it rests an "elbow" on the ground.

 

[BobbyLane]

Then theres this one where the left subrunk is more branch like

I have a Beech that I would like to try either option on, option 2 is only a matter of yanking down one trunk with guy wire and cutting back

 

[Cadillactaste]

I called it reverse taper in another thread, but I meant inverse taper. There is a swelling where the two trunks meet that will increase with time, its important to have a good base, that will also widen over time to offset the visual weight from where there the trunks meet.

Trying to load pics but painfully slow

I think the entire reverse taper/inverse taper predicts back to when a person began in the hobby possibly. I was taught to call it reverse taper. I won't call it any other thing. As I'm stubborn that way.

Sometimes it can be a deal breaker in the hobby this reverse/inverse taper. Sometimes 2D images make curves appear as such when they aren't. Sometimes one can do smoke and mirrors and hide the worst of it. But end of the day...I think more people get hung up on minor flaws...than enjoy what is the overall image. I clearly felt that early in my journey. That trees with faults were inferior. Then...I got Bill Valavanis 's book on Fine Bonsai...EYE OPENER... I began to look at bonsai with a larger viewing glass so to speak.

 

[BobbyLane]

I think the entire reverse taper/inverse taper predicts back to when a person began in the hobby possibly. I was taught to call it reverse taper. I won't call it any other thing. As I'm stubborn that way.

Sometimes it can be a deal breaker in the hobby this reverse/inverse taper. Sometimes 2D images make curves appear as such when they aren't. Sometimes one can do smoke and mirrors and hide the worst of it. But end of the day...I think more people get hung up on minor flaws...than enjoy what is the overall image. I clearly felt that early in my journey. That trees with faults were inferior. Then...I got Bill Valavanis 's book on Fine Bonsai...EYE OPENER... I began to look at bonsai with a larger viewing glass so to speak.

True, I get less hung up on some things now. It helps viewing other bonsai where the artist isnt bothered much by any flaws. You see inverse on the best of bonsai, its an inevitable part of the growth process for many trees.

 

[NaoTK]

Bobby remember this guy? I took your advice and did a V cut. I think in 20 years it will close up again, but for now the inverse taper is better

 

[jeremy_norbury]

Normal - I also have bonsai that do this. People are fixated on inverse taper whilst many high quality trees have it.

 

[Maros]

In case only trees without inverse taper matter I should toss away most my trees. Collected deciduous trees are rarely found without one.

 

[BobbyLane]

In case only trees without inverse taper matter I should toss away most my trees. Collected deciduous trees are rarely found without one.

True I have seen it on a few of yours, it looks natural and usually your trees have good bases which which help to tie everything together.

 

[dbonsaiw]

Great thread and seems to go hand in hand with the "we don't need no stinkin rules" threads. No inverse taper is a supposed rule. But here we have examples where the rule is presumably not followed and it looks great. I would posit that "no inverse taper" is not really the rule - it is more of a shorthand of the rule that we put in place for beginners or otherwise use as a convenient guiding factor. The rules of aesthetics are nevertheless still at work. The tree with reverse taper looks good for a reason and that reason can be translated into a rule. And whatever that rule is it was not broken because the tree maintains balance and is aesthetically pleasing. I think there is a rule and in explanation of that rule we can say that generally reverse taper is not what we are looking for, except .........

 

[BobbyLane]

Cool, yeh so I wasnt really asking a general question, the question was directed at one of my favourite trees in the park, in another thread it was said the tree doesnt have reverse taper, but it does indeed have inverse taper. and it looks good, and I think thats key right, it has to look good aesthetically if its going to be included in the trees design. not all trees with inverse taper look good for whatever reason.

 

[Gabler]

This is the kind of inverse taper that to me is natural. If we visually block off each branch, the tree has beautiful taper. When I observe a tree, my eyes naturally follow the line of each branch. If I don't see any inverse taper by following each branch, the tree is OK to me.