My Nick Lenz Elm progression.

Why would it p*ss any one off? You honestly value ones opinion more than I thought...

Do a cemetery then...

But back to the white sheet over that lower branch on the right side of the tree. I had no idea the next thick/larger branch on that side has so much amazing movement. It's lost by that lower branch. But...honestly it's my own preference to twin trunks to have a clear distinction in the V between them.
 
Why would it p*ss any one off? You honestly value ones opinion more than I thought...

Do a cemetery then...

But back to the white sheet over that lower branch on the right side of the tree. I had no idea the next thick/larger branch on that side has so much amazing movement. It's lost by that lower branch. But...honestly it's my own preference to twin trunks to have a clear distinction in the V between them.

A lot is lost in 2D, I'll get a little video of this tree up once I can uproot myself from the couch again this morning:)
 
A lot is lost in 2D, I'll get a little video of this tree up once I can uproot myself from the couch again this morning:)
I grasp that...but as a personal preference. I have ALWAYS like twin trunks to have more division at the pot and some open space where the V is between them. Not saying it's a bad looking tree. Just my personal preference when looking at Google images. I admire and am drawn to ones as such. To me it offered a more dramatic story...
 
At first I agreed that the lowest right branch on the main tree might needs to go. But after looking at it a little closer, the angle of that branch matches the angle of the right tree and makes it seem more in harmony I think. I wonder what it would look like if that branch were even longer, extending upwards to parallel the smaller tree? It might be that branch above it that points to the front that is bugging me a little bit. Either way I like the tree.
 
It certainly looks better with those cutbacks. I think that with at tree like this you have to enjoy it for what it brings to the table. It has wonderful bark and great age. I would chase back the foliage as you go on, and get better inner ramification. The way the trunks are oriented isn't a big deal to me, nor is the angle on that bottom branch. Once more ramification is achieved, then it may appear more balanced.
 
It certainly looks better with those cutbacks. I think that with at tree like this you have to enjoy it for what it brings to the table. It has wonderful bark and great age. I would chase back the foliage as you go on, and get better inner ramification. The way the trunks are oriented isn't a big deal to me, nor is the angle on that bottom branch. Once more ramification is achieved, then it may appear more balanced.

I completely agree with your perspective:)
 
It certainly looks better with those cutbacks. I think that with at tree like this you have to enjoy it for what it brings to the table. It has wonderful bark and great age. I would chase back the foliage as you go on, and get better inner ramification. The way the trunks are oriented isn't a big deal to me, nor is the angle on that bottom branch. Once more ramification is achieved, then it may appear more balanced.

just going to 2nd this
 
The bark is exceptionally yummy...again, though...I just have a personal preference for twin trunks and what really appeals to me as to that section I discussed earlier more open... Judy offers valid points. At the end of the day...it's your tree. I ponder...since that branch tends to look to go towards the back in the video than out to the side. If a slight angle turn counter clockwise would offer that clearer V between the two trunks. (Seen it actually in the video tried to photo screen shot it. But it was to blurry to grasp if it would improve upon what is already there.) But, again your tree...your bench. At the end of the day...your decision.
 
I forgot to post up the measurements on this tree. Height is 28" from the soil line and the canopy is 33". This is actually my favorite size for a tree:)
 
Back
Top Bottom