Is inverse taper a deal-breaker for you?

Joe Dupre'

Joe Dupre'

Omono
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
4,301
Location
Belle Rose, La.
USDA Zone
9a
Would inverse taper make you pass by a gnarly tree that is truly a great find in all other aspects? I collect much of my material on the roadsides and other disturbed areas. I get some really killer, character-laden trees that sometimes have a bit ( or a lot ) of inverse taper. It doesn't bother me in the least if I like the movement and character of the tree. To some, that "flaw" would be a glaring fault they would be turned off by every time they look at the tree. No right or wrong answer here...........just seeing how y'all feel about it.
 
I think at this stage, I wouldn't really know what to do with it. In other words, I'm trained by what I've seen and done to avoid inverse taper, so I don't really think about how to hide or highlight it in a way that would be artful.

I know Michael Hagedorn calls it out as a bonsai myth, but I feel that there would need to be both imaginative intent and conviction to make it work, which I think I would lack at this stage.

I guess I'd have to start looking for examples of bonsai with "good" inverse taper to start thinking about how it could work effectively for me.
 
This mulberry has a rather chubby mid-section. Excuse the ratty leaves. I just went out and took a quick pic. This is two season's growth from a complete stump. The top definitely has to grow into a more gradual taper, but I like the vibe the tree puts out. I really can't carve any of the inverse taper out of it because most of the back side of the tree is already carved out from a huge branch that died out.

unnamed - 2021-10-19T191253.837.jpg
 
It depends, on collected conifers , you really either accept it ,hide it , or accentuate by developing a shari etc. On deciduous I’d see it as an opportunity to hide , air layer, ground layer for raft , or root graft depending how low that inverse taper is. It all depends my d00d
 
In material that I am willing to pay money for, yes, inverse taper is a dealbreaker. In material that I can collect from nature, no, inverse taper is a reality of the growth patterns of trees in situ. Transforming collected material into bonsai is a large part of what collecting is about. But, when I get out my wallet, one of the key things I am paying for is to not have to fix inverse taper problems in order to produce a bonsai that meets my aesthetic standards.
 
Lorax7 said:
In material that I am willing to pay money for, yes, inverse taper is a dealbreaker. In material that I can collect from nature, no, inverse taper is a reality of the growth patterns of trees in situ. Transforming collected material into bonsai is a large part of what collecting is about. But, when I get out my wallet, one of the key things I am paying for is to not have to fix inverse taper problems in order to produce a bonsai that meets my aesthetic standards.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. :cool:
 
Personally, I don't think of the rules when styling a tree. I mean, some of the things I do ARE part of the rules, but I do them because I think they look good. I'll carve away inverse taper if it's warranted and possible. If carving it diminishes the soul of the tree, I have no problem leaving it.
 
Joe Dupre' said:
Would inverse taper make you pass by a gnarly tree that is truly a great find in all other aspects? I collect much of my material on the roadsides and other disturbed areas. I get some really killer, character-laden trees that sometimes have a bit ( or a lot ) of inverse taper. It doesn't bother me in the least if I like the movement and character of the tree. To some, that "flaw" would be a glaring fault they would be turned off by every time they look at the tree. No right or wrong answer here...........just seeing how y'all feel about it.
Click to expand...
It is generally a deal breaker for me, unless I feel the tree is outstanding in spite of the inverse taper. Even then I would want to have a plan to deal with the issue so it was corrected or did not stand out!
 
So, for the people that don't like inverse taper, is it mostly because you genuinely don't like the look or is it the "rule" thing...........not traditional in some way? A friend tries to go by most of the rules and ends up with trees that are technically "right" but maybe could have been better for leaving some flaws. The ERC in my avatar has two branches coming out of the trunk in almost the same area. The rules say I should remove one of them for that reason. To me, the whole soul of the tree would be compromised.
 
Joe Dupre' said:
So, for the people that don't like inverse taper, is it mostly because you genuinely don't like the look or is it the "rule" thing...........not traditional in some way? A friend tries to go by most of the rules and ends up with trees that are technically "right" but maybe could have been better for leaving some flaws. The ERC in my avatar has two branches coming out of the trunk in almost the same area. The rules say I should remove one of them for that reason. To me, the whole soul of the tree would be compromised.
Click to expand...
For me it is the "look" not the rule. Many fine trees ignore one of the "rules" . As some say" not a rule, merely a suggestion"
 
smjmsy00 said:
l like it!

Here's a photo of the pine I was talking about:
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that'll do. I mean, that's inverse taper, but it totally accentuates the weight of the movement, it makes sense, it's not just a lump in a trunk. I'd love to see what it looked like raw. It isn't cartoonish in this instance but it kind of reminds me of cartoon drawing instructions from either Walt Disney or Warner Bros, to over-exaggerate motion for effect.
 
Joe Dupre' said:
So, for the people that don't like inverse taper, is it mostly because you genuinely don't like the look or is it the "rule" thing...........not traditional in some way? A friend tries to go by most of the rules and ends up with trees that are technically "right" but maybe could have been better for leaving some flaws. The ERC in my avatar has two branches coming out of the trunk in almost the same area. The rules say I should remove one of them for that reason. To me, the whole soul of the tree would be compromised.
Click to expand...
It’s the look. Of course, that means that there could be a few exceptions if aesthetic harmony and the appearance of advanced age are achieved anyway, despite, or perhaps because of, the inverse taper.
 
Depends. If it is already kind of knotted up, I wouldn’t care, or if that’s the look you’re going for

If it’s supposed to be some sort up upright, then maybe a pass
 
Last edited:
Joe Dupre' said:
This mulberry has a rather chubby mid-section. Excuse the ratty leaves. I just went out and took a quick pic. This is two season's growth from a complete stump. The top definitely has to grow into a more gradual taper, but I like the vibe the tree puts out. I really can't carve any of the inverse taper out of it because most of the back side of the tree is already carved out from a huge branch that died out.

View attachment 403767
Click to expand...
Do not pass, keep🧐. Will different angle reduce effect of reverse taper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Greenpoint Vince
Inverse taper on JBP
Replies
6
Views
236
Greenpoint Vince
Greenpoint Vince
RoadManDenDron
Does this count as character or inverse taper?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
RoadManDenDron
RoadManDenDron
BobbyLane
Inverse taper or not?
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
BobbyLane
BobbyLane
Drekula
Coastal Redwood w/ Inverse Taper
Replies
4
Views
758
PowerTap
PowerTap
J
Inverse taper pine puzzle
Replies
2
Views
573
rockm
rockm
Back
Top Bottom