Thought-provoking thread.
When determining whether or not to keep or discard a certain material, there are some factors pertaining to each individual, that will help in deciding.
* Is there a design solution exciting enough that the tree keeps me interested?
* If yes, what will it take to achieve it (how much time, what kind of growing conditions, etc.)?
* Lastly, but most importantly: how high on my priorities list is this tree? In other words, if I have dozens of trees, of much better quality, that are waiting for me to work on, then I will simply not have the time to get to this inferior stock. Therefore, I can't afford to spend time on it.
Considering the above criteria, some of us will say that yes, this tree is worth working on, while others will discard it faster than what it takes to pronounce Allotta Fagina.
In Will's case, before we recommend a course of action, we need to know all the answers to the above mentioned criteria, as they pertain to Will. It's easy for me to say "No,this tree is a waste of time for me", but that doesn't mean that Will should not work on it. It may be that working on this tree would be a great learning experience for Will, so this alone would require further consideration.
Here are my thoughts on the John Naka sketches provided by Will:
Yes, those are great models to be followed. But, there is always a BUT: the material presented lacks some important characteristcs that those drawings have:
1) The drawings display impressive and flawless nebari: they create the impression of great age. The material in question displays a juvenile root-base (it is not a bad one, by the way, but just not good enough). This alone disqualifies it from any further comparison.
2) The drawings create the impression of massive and tall trunk. Some of them have great taper. Others don't have much taper, but the impression is still of tall and large trunk. In comparison, the trunk of the material in question lacks the above described qualities. This is the second insurmountable probmem, in addition to the deficient nebari.
The above two elements - nebari and trunk - are the main focal points of the sketches drawn by John Naka. Those are what make the trees drawn by him, magnificent. And the lack of these elements, is what makes Will's material unsuitable.
In adddition, there are two more important elements in Naka's sketches:
3) Jin and shari - in the case of the sketches, they are subdued (nothing spectacular), but provide a solid support of the overall image. The material presented has the potential to display lots of deadwood, but of inferior quality. The reason being that there is not much trunk to work with, in the first place. A strong truk is always a good candidate for great deadwood. A weak trunk is much more challenged in this regard. There are exceptions, when a thin and fragile trunk displays great deadwood, but it is very rare.
4) The last characteristic that I want to mention is the quality of the bark. This is not so evident in Naka's sketches, but it is implied. The trees displayed in the sketches are very old. The impression of age is only complete if the quality of the bark reflects that. If Will's material was a craggy old pine, with some fine bark texture, that would be a huge bonus, in spite of the other deficiencies. But it is not. In case of a juniper, there is no aged bark, but the interplay of live vein vs. deadwood creates the same effect. To a certain extent, this can be achieved with Will's material, but the potential is very limited, the reason being described in my comment about the weak trunk.
In summary, is the material presented at this stage, suitable to achieve the models provided by the Naka sketches? Based on the 4 criteria described above, the answer is a resounding NO. In bonsai, the devil is in the finest details. A quality bonsai displays quality details. We can always strive for a very superficial resemblance, but the problems will be glaringly obvious.
Since the material in its current stage is not suitable for a bonsai of acceptable quality (note: "acceptable quality" is highly subjective - see my opening comments in this post), the second question is: can we create quality stock from this, that will be suitable for the models presented?
The answer to this is: highly unlikely. There is a particular reason for this, namely, the tree has minimal foliage. In order to develop a powerful nebari and trunk, the tree needs lots of foliage. So, if we wanted to develop more character, we would have to re-grow all the foliage that was previously removed. And that would be a total waste of time, since there is plenty of cheap material available, that already has lots of foliage. Why would someone spend years of re-growing it, when one can buy one for 6 bucks?
So, my answer is exactly what Will said in the title of this thread: this tree would be a waste of time for me. I could have said this from the beginning, without any explanation, but an answer with no explanation is of little use. I apologize for being too elaborate in my response. I know that Will asked for a design solution, if we can offer one. Since this post has none, it is useless in that regard. But I hope that the value here lies in suggesting why there is none.
But again, the tree may be worth keeping, as far as Will is concerned. I don't know his circumstances, how many trees he is currently working on, what is "acceptable quality" for him, etc. etc.
By the way, I don't agree with those who say that this thread is a waste of time, due to the quality of the material presented. Stock selection is one of the most important skills in bonsai, and any thread that deals with stock selection can be highly educational. The strong merit of this thread is that Will presented a deficient material, and then suggested some models that may or may not be worth pursuing. The challenge for me was to think about whether those models are realistic.
