I'm not sure what literature you were reading but the only thing downsized about this selection is the width - it is rather narrowly vase-shaped. Otherwise, it should grow to a relatively typical size of somewhere around 40'.

Frankly, anything that had the word "supersonic" in the name would lead me to believe it would produce fast and therefore large growth :-)

I'm strictly speaking of the width only. This plant is 4 years old and 5' wide. Its supposed to hit 10' wide in 25-30 years.

This plant is showing characteritics of reaching 30' wide in 25-30 years.

Its wider than my older Sun Valley that I have, which is supposed to mature at 25' wide.

When the cultivar has "zam" in the name that usually (always?) means it is from Jim Zampini at Lake County Nursery in Perry, OH. I think you will be able to find his depiction of it on his web site. Look for LCN Introductions or a similarly titled section.

40' is nothing for a red maple, I would consider that small rather than typical. Commercial and other sources claiming 20', 30', 40' etc. mature heights for non-dwarf clones are clearly understating the character and potential of this species. 145' is claimed for a wild tree, planted examples in Seattle (USDA 8) included ones 55', 92', 58', 55 1/2', 62 1/2' and 67 1/2' tall during or around 2005; a 'Columnare' there was 77 1/2' high at that time. An earlier (1992) record for what was probably the same specimen indicated it had an average crown spread of 21' when its overall height was 69'.

This post was edited by bboy on Fri, Jun 28, 13 at 22:13

Yes, that is where I've seen a pic and profile of the plant. Its mainly columnar.

Curious if there are other platns out there maintaining the true form or if I really just got the wrong plant (likely at this point).

If you look at the base you may be able to tell if you ended up with a rootstock sprout. If they are instead being grown from cuttings then of course there will be no graft union.

Nice, healthy looking growth regardless.

Acer rubrum really is not a "small" tree. By most standards, it's a medium to large tree, but large for most yards.

In fact, the only two North American Acer species that routinely get larger than Red Maple are Sugar (Acer saccharum) and Silver (Acer saccharinum). Well, Black Maple (Acer nigrum) as well if you count it as a seperate species. Acer floridanum (Florida/Southern Sugar Maple) and Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) probably come close, but overall probably average a bit smaller than Acer rubrum.

Red maple grows in many environments - in some, it will run smaller, such as dry soils, urban situations, understories of mesic to dry woods, etc, but in it's ideal environment - moist or even wet, good acidity and fertility, and in a full-sun environment, it's fully capable of being a 100' overstory tree.

The "max size" given by most nurseries assumes about a 25 year lifespan on a typical residential lot - assuming that after that point it will either be removed or die/decline due to typical urban stresses.

Big-leaf maple is vigorous and quickly grows large, and tends to occur in softer climates than wild living red maples. Even in the southern part of its range red maple will be affected by numerous days with blazing temperatures and recurring hurricanes that big-leaf maple does not have to cope with here (it does get hot during the summer in the southern and eastern edges of the big-leaf maple natural range).

158 ft. was claimed for a tree in a WA national forest during the 1980s, otherwise numerous drawn up examples in forest situations are 120-130 ft. tall or more. Big-leaf maples in good spots often have trunks more than 20 ft. around, I measured one myself once that was more than 33 ft. around.

That's pretty big. Like a lot of maples, Bigleaf's size must depend on a lot of circumstances.

Even the "small" Acer grandidentatum can top 60' in good conditions IIRC.

You guys are in two of the best growing climates in the United States. Although they are still considered fast growers, red maple is dwarfed substantially in our climate and alkaline soils. 30 year old trees, if they can survive are a measily 30' tall.

Hair, don't tell me you just pulled a Ken style rant without answering the question?

Sooner Plant farm just sent the wrong tree so I gave it away. They where kind enough to send me a Red Rocket. Damn thing died though. I think the soil was too dry for this location combined with the horrendous winter we had. However my Burgundy Belle is alive and that one is rated zone 5.

Burgundy Belle's a good one - underappreciated in my opinion.

Yes - our acid soils, milder winters, and probably more reliable rainfall probably means that A. rubrums are going to get larger here overall than WI, but even here, they're mostly woodland-edge and understory trees in the wild except in swampy or bottomland locations, where they can get huge.

There are also large landscape specimens around as well, of course.

And to answer the now-irrelavant original question - no, I haven't grown that cultivar of red maple.

This post was edited by hairmetal4ever on Wed, May 7, 14 at 15:33

Don't know the current data but awhile back the biggest red maples were being reported from Michigan. The figures were so large there was some questioning of their veracity, don't know how this has played out.

The current national champion red maple is a tree in Salem, NJ, measured in 2012 at 270" girth, 91' height, 82' crown spread, for 382 total points.

The Michigan champion red maple's measurements were updated around 2003 at 233" girth, 117' height, 84' crown spread, for 371 total points.

I've seen the Michigan tree, and to me it looks more like a freemanii maple than a straight red maple.

We've planted a few Supersonic maples, and they are similar in habit to Armstrong (relatively narrow upright) but probably faster growing than Armstrong. They will definitely be tall trees at maturity.