ABOUT BONSAI PRICES******
Lynn Boyd
think you were thinking -hoho. :)
\
> From: Edzard Teubert <teub...@CADVISION.COM>
>
> Subject: *Re: Highest Price for a Bonsai
>
> From:>> >From: Jim Lewis <jkl...@NETTALLY.COM>
> >> ...and why is all this important??
> >
> > Helluva question. I've been wondering myself why this mercenary
> > thread has lingered as long as it has. Like the age of a bonsai,
> > it seems totally immaterial.
>---------------
A-a-ch!
In the big exhibits one of the most frequent questions I hear is
"How old do you think that tree is?".. . I'll bet it is 3-400 years,
etc.
Like at the Pacific Rim Weyerhauser Collection, for instance. Come on!
Many people are interested. The provenance of things, history, the age,
- it is all interesting -and then SOME people are even interested in the
"spiritual realm" . . . enlightenment et al. The age a tree represents and
actually is certainly seems relevant if not material. AND. you can bet
your dollars it counts for its value too. Sp-f-f-t! I want OLD looking
trees. Nice if they ARE old too. Good, relevant material.
If it is a helluva question and seems totally immaterial why do so many
people ask it? And why all the yamadori?
Howzat for a question, guys?
Lynn
-- Edzard says:
> [drily spoken] As we all wait for enlightenment with bated fingers poised
> over delete keys, I give thanks to Frank Hunt for providing deeper much
> needed understanding into the value of things,...
> and it is with _deep appreciation for this moment of satori, so much so,
> that I feel compelled to share it with all of you.... his missive...
>
> > $801,282.00
> >>...and why is all this important??
> >
> >
> > Edzard, I think it's not the $801,282 that's important, but those last
two,
> > to the right of the decimal. In this case they are appropriate.
> >
> > .00 ---- non-cents?
> >
> > Frank
> I sit enlightened, so much wiser than before....
> thankyou Frank...
> humbly
> edzard
> :)
>
> -- Edzard Teubert
> Millarville, Alberta
> Canada
>
> ----------
>
>
****************************************************************************
****
> +++++This list is supported, in part, by a contribution from Bill
Valavanis+++++
> >>-->> The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ <<--<<
> To leave the list, send SIGNOFF BONSAI to: LIST...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
--- Lynn Boyd
Oregon, Zone 8, USA
--- lynn...@earthlink.net
********************************************************************************
+++++This list is supported, in part, by a contribution from Bill Valavanis+++++
>>-->> The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ <<--<<
To leave the list, send SIGNOFF BONSAI to: LIST...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Daniel Avrin
lynn...@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
<< If it is a helluva question and seems totally immaterial why do so many
people ask it? And why all the yamadori?
>>
Lynn,
It may be a common question but it is not a totally appropriate one. While
inquiring about a tree's age may be the first question out of most people's
mouths, it is like asking how much someone paid for a painting before
deciding whether you like it or not. "Oh, you paid $10,000! I love it!" or
"Oh, you got it at a garage sale. Hmmmph. I've seen better." The painting
should stand on its own and the price should be irrelevant to its
appreciation or lack thereof. Before I'll reveal the age of a tree I ask the
viewer "Do you like it? How does it make you feel?" Only after they've
thought about this will I tell them how old the tree is. If you tell them
the age right off, they tend to fall into the "200 years old?! Wow, what a
great tree!" - "15 years old. Hmmm. That's not so old." Just as with the
painting, a tree should stand on its own without our age prejudices altering
the appreciation of its inherent value or beauty.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
Daniel Avrin
Yep, I'm the evil twin. No doubt about it.
Reiner Goebel
snip
> Come on!
>
> Many people are interested. The provenance of things, history, the age,
> - it is all interesting -and then SOME people are even interested in the
> "spiritual realm" . . . enlightenment et al. The age a tree represents and
> actually is certainly seems relevant if not material. AND. you can bet
> your dollars it counts for its value too. Sp-f-f-t! I want OLD looking
> trees. Nice if they ARE old too. Good, relevant material.
>
> If it is a helluva question and seems totally immaterial why do so many
> people ask it? And why all the yamadori?
>
> Howzat for a question, guys?
Way to go, Lynn!!! I especially liked the Sp-f-f-t!
Give'em hell!
:-))
Reiner Goebel Support the IBC with your donation.
Toronto, Canada Email me for details.
http://www.tbs.game2.com
David Crighton
news:70.914f6b...@aol.com...
> appreciation or lack thereof. Before I'll reveal the age of a tree I ask
the
> viewer "Do you like it? How does it make you feel?" Only after they've
> thought about this will I tell them how old the tree is. If you tell them
> the age right off, they tend to fall into the "200 years old?! Wow, what
a
> great tree!" - "15 years old. Hmmm. That's not so old." Just as with
the
> painting, a tree should stand on its own without our age prejudices
altering
> the appreciation of its inherent value or beauty.
Glad to see a valid reason for this. I've rarely run into anyone that had a
problem with providing the age of their tree. The few times I did, it was
from the "elitist" type and they gave no reason, just an astonished
expression. IMHO, elitism is for the birds, but that's just me.
We often provide the age of the tree during displays (not necessarily
exhibits). I believe viewers are encouraged when they find out that the
tree that looks 200 years old has only been trained for 5 years or is
actually only ten years old. For me, half the fun of this hobby is
encouraging new hobbyists.
--
David Crighton
Formerly TOO close to Branson, Missouri, now
Opining from Milwaukee, Wisconsin
RickB...@aol.com
dcri...@ASAPNET.NET writes:
<< Glad to see a valid reason for this. I've rarely run into anyone that had
a
problem with providing the age of their tree. The few times I did, it was
from the "elitist" type and they gave no reason, just an astonished
expression. IMHO, elitism is for the birds, but that's just me. >>
I have a problem with providing the age of my trees, because I rarely know
what it is. Personally, I could care less about the actual age of a tree,
being more interested in its appearance and length in training.
Rick Choate <RickB...@aol.com>
S-most, Tx
Alan Walker
folks. Unless you raise your bonsai from seed, the best you can do in response
about the age of your bonsai is to guess. I've heard some mighty inflated guesses
which sounds like hucksterism to me. Most of the time when people avoid a direct
answer to the age question, it's done in the same manner as Dan describes. I agree
that it is annoying if someone deals with questions in a snobby way, but that's
really their problem, not mine.
When pressed for the age of any of my bonsai, I first ask how old does it
appear, then I share how long it has been in training. I don't have any which I
have grown from seed, so I truly don't know the age of any of my bonsai. Any number
given is clearly posed as a guess.
Alan Walker, Lake Charles, LA, USA
> > Before I'll reveal the age of a tree I ask the
> > viewer "Do you like it? How does it make you feel?" Only after they've
> > thought about this will I tell them how old the tree is. If you tell them
> > the age right off, they tend to fall into the "200 years old?! Wow, what a
> > great tree!" - "15 years old. Hmmm. That's not so old." Just as with the
> > painting, a tree should stand on its own without our age prejudices altering
> > the appreciation of its inherent value or beauty.
>
> Glad to see a valid reason for this. I've rarely run into anyone that had
> a problem with providing the age of their tree. The few times I did, it was
> from the "elitist" type and they gave no reason, just an astonished
> expression. IMHO, elitism is for the birds, but that's just me.
> We often provide the age of the tree during displays (not necessarily
> exhibits). I believe viewers are encouraged when they find out that the
> tree that looks 200 years old has only been trained for 5 years or is
> actually only ten years old. For me, half the fun of this hobby is
> encouraging new hobbyists.
> David Crighton
Dusty G
found people tend to assume they are seedlings or under 2 years old cause
they are less tham 6" tall compared to the rest of the club's trees that are
usually 12" and up, mostly in the 20"+ range. I also get a kick out of
people's faces when they read the 4" tall tree is actually 8 years old. Then
they tend to really look at it & start studying the other trees instead of
just glancing at them.
Dusty
>I have a problem with providing the age of my trees, because I rarely know
>what it is. Personally, I could care less about the actual age of a tree,
>being more interested in its appearance and length in training.
********************************************************************************
Herb L. Gustafson
old.
*************************************
Herb L. Gustafson Eugene, Oregon
> I usually have a good idea of the ages of my trees, but I like mame &
have
> found people tend to assume they are seedlings or under 2 years old cause
> they are less tham 6" tall compared to the rest of the club's trees that
are
> usually 12" and up, mostly in the 20"+ range. I also get a kick out of
> people's faces when they read the 4" tall tree is actually 8 years old.
Then
> they tend to really look at it & start studying the other trees instead of
> just glancing at them.
>
> Dusty
********************************************************************************
David Crighton
news:395938E3...@iamerica.net...
> When pressed for the age of any of my bonsai, I first ask how old
does it
> appear, then I share how long it has been in training. I don't have any
which I
> have grown from seed, so I truly don't know the age of any of my bonsai.
Any number
> given is clearly posed as a guess.
This is how I prefer to answer also. And, I also tell them the actual age
is an estimate. My issue is with the elitists that give even the public a
snobbish look or answer. That doesn't serve any purpose except to turn them
off of bonsai.
--
David Crighton
Formerly TOO close to Branson, Missouri, now
Railing on elitists from Milwaukee, Wisconsin
David Crighton
> I have a problem with providing the age of my trees, because I rarely know
> what it is. Personally, I could care less about the actual age of a tree,
> being more interested in its appearance and length in training.
Agreed. I, personally, care very little about the actual age of the tree
except in extreme circumstances i.e. 300 y.o. trees and old mame as Dusty
and Herb mentioned. Of course it is impossible to know the actual age of a
tree unless grown from seed, but providing the age to those not familiar
with bonsai lets them know that bonsai is not some unattainable art.
--
David Crighton
Formerly TOO close to Branson, Missouri, now
Pitching in from Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Herb L. Gustafson
planted as a foundation planting 72 years ago as verified by the owners of
the
house. I have many trees that can be dated quite accurately in this fashion.
I dug
up a Green Japanese maple from a yard recently. The tree is 41 years old
because
it was a Mothers Day present 41 years ago but had to be removed due to poor
performance in its location and to make room for a drainage ditch. My
airlayers
are all accurately dated because you can count the rings. Some airlayers of
collected stock are over ninety years old. I suppose the extreme example is
my oldest maple which was root layered and found to be 1392 years old
because
I was able to count every blasted little ring. It took an 8x loupe, two pins
and
some food color to do it, but by gum an hour later I had it accurately
counted.
*************************************
Herb L. Gustafson Eugene, Oregon
Of course it is impossible to know the actual age of a
> tree unless grown from seed, but providing the age to those not familiar
> with bonsai lets them know that bonsai is not some unattainable art.
>
Stephan Rubin
airlayers
of collected stock are over ninety years old. I suppose the extreme example
is
my oldest maple which was root layered and found to be 1392 years old
because
I was able to count every blasted little ring. It took an 8x loupe, two pins
and
some food color to do it, but by gum an hour later I had it accurately
counted.
Herb L. Gustafson"
******************************************************************************
********************
Who wants to debate the side 'that bonsaists are not obsessive
perfectionists'.
Herb, is this an example of 'pin and ink' bonsai art?
Steph Rubin
Eldridge Conyers
a quite old Japanese Boxwood from a demolition site....not knowing if this
was an original planting...when I got the tree home while working on the
rootbase I found what appeared to be a very tough root..upon further
inspection it was an insulated copper wire dropped from the lamp post when it
was installed in the planting bed....48 years before! So it's safe to date
the tree over 50 years old, in training for 5 years
In a message dated 6/28/00 3:38:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, h...@EFN.ORG
writes:
<< Ummmm. Not necessarily true. The 72 year old mame Rhododendron was
planted as a foundation planting 72 years ago as verified by the owners of
the
house. I have many trees that can be dated quite accurately in this fashion.
I dug
up a Green Japanese maple from a yard recently. The tree is 41 years old
because
it was a Mothers Day present 41 years ago but had to be removed due to poor
performance in its location and to make room for a drainage ditch. My
airlayers
are all accurately dated because you can count the rings. Some airlayers of
collected stock are over ninety years old. I suppose the extreme example is
my oldest maple which was root layered and found to be 1392 years old
because
I was able to count every blasted little ring. It took an 8x loupe, two pins
and
some food color to do it, but by gum an hour later I had it accurately
counted.
*************************************
Herb L. Gustafson Eugene, Oregon
*************************************
Of course it is impossible to know the actual age of a
> tree unless grown from seed, but providing the age to those not familiar
> with bonsai lets them know that bonsai is not some unattainable art.
>
> David Crighton >>
********************************************************************************