Rose (Phu Tran)

Tran, Phu
Adams, Sara
Difficulty Level: 
High intermediate
Model type: 
Mother's Day
Valentine's Day
Flowers & Plants
Paper ratio: 

I decided to give Phu Tran's rose a try today. Here's a picture of my first fold. I still have to work on the finishing touches, but I'll have to ponder on what those finishing touches should be.
This rose is a variation of Kawasaki-san's new rose. I fear Phu Tran hasn't found the time to diagram his model yet. But if you know how to fold Kawasaki-san's new rose, you're almost there. The crimps that round the rose are farther in the center, and some extra folds are added to form four additional petals.
I've found the locking mechanism not to be quite as stable, and a bit harder to establish than with Kawasaki-san's rose, but do think that the shape of Phu Tran's version is more beautiful. Of course, the "original" is already beautiful in itself.

Paper: 19.5cm square of stiff paper, 115gsm
Finished model: ~5cm height, 8.5cm diameter

Paper: 15cm square of Kraft paper, 80gsm - obviously too big for the rose
Model: just a simple bird base


Someone made diagrams from the crease pattern, and Phu Tran is very displeased about this. He has also stated that the diagrams are incorrect, and definitely illegal. This was very frustrating for Phu Tran, and I think it caused him to withdraw the crease pattern.

I'm not sure whether this is the true or full story, but it's what I've come to believe. So I fear the only source for the crease pattern is Phu Tran himself.

Unfortunately Phu Tran has not made any effort to publish anything about the rose.
Yet he refused any other people publishing anything about it.
In 2005 he said " I will diagram my model correctly, but you will have to wait."
This is almost 4 years ago...That's quite some time people have been wating now.
Anyway, I read comments that said the socalled Phu Tran rose is more a kawasaki variation than a independant development of Phu Tran himself.
So, if that is true, Mr Tran's attitude is very unpleasant.
I read one of his comments in the The Origami Forum and he was very unfriendly to the whole community just because someone made a diagram of the rose as mentioned in the comments above.
A diagramm that at most a few hundred people will ever see.
Now i know that there are different opinions on this subject, but if he has no personnel interest in publishing a diagram or at least has not done so in the last 4 years, I can't even understand why he is so determined about this.
The guy who made the diagram was only trying to help the people who were begging Mr Tran to make a diagram which he coldheartedly refused.
He explained it with lack of time, but then why not make a video which takes all in all about an hour or 2?
And frankly, if he has not had the time to do so in the last 4 years, he must be the busiest man in the world, prior to The President.
He instead said things like "well, come to a convention", regardless there are people who can't just travel a few thousand miles to learn how to fold a piece of paper.
Also he said "there are disappoinments in life, learn to live with it".
He gave the impression to be rather self-opinionated and arrogant.
And he also contradicted his own statements.
He said "xy made diagram to my rose from the CP. He does NOT have my permission to distribute it." while he also said "...his diagrams are WRONG. "
If they are wrong anyway, what is the fuss about?
And as i already mentioned, i believe his rose is not an independant development, I have seen some of how it is done, and it looked in great parts like a combination of the kawasaki rose and other basic stuff.
So it is even somewhat irritating that Phu Tran is so confident that this rose is his property and his only and may not be made by anyone who has not learned it by him or someone he taught.
Not even to speak of publishing a diagram.
If Origami artists had been like that in the past, this would be an extinct tradition and certainly Mr Tran would have never even known what you can do with a piece of paper.
And I know Sara, that you will probably disagree with what I finally will say, but still let me just say that in my opinion in this rather small world of Origami fans outside of Japan, people should be less hostile to each other, and not be so determined with insisting on "this is my invention, noone may show how it is done but ME ME ME".
I am not gonna argue about that, I respect other people's opinons but i do certainly find nothing wrong if someone for example makes a non commerical video of a magic rose and puts it on youtube.
If the designer has a problem with it, he or she is free to press charges.
If that is not the case or has no chance to be successful, then there is no way to morally judge the person who made a noncommercial tutorial for the design.
If you say "It's not nice to make a free tutorial of my design" then i might say :
If you really love what you are doing it is not about the money or the fame you get from it, but the happiness it gives you and the people you share it with.
And these people acutally then will give you something you can't buy, respect and affection.
If Mozart had taught me to play the "The Magic Flute" I would certainly be both legally and morally entitled to teach others how to do it.
In person or over the internet, at least as long as i do that without making money from it.

As you will have guessed from my project, I am very much in favor of sharing. I also agree that Phu Tran's rose is a variation of Kawasaki-san's rose. [Some variations can be quite elaborate, though.] And, yes, I also think it's not the best way for Phu Tran to go to say that he'll diagram his rose sometime in the future, not find time for several years, but also not want to accept help. But at the same time I do respect his choice. That is, even if I don't think his approach is the best, he has the right to have that approach, and I don't want to go against his wish.
As to how illegal the diagrams that were produced are, or how illegal it would be to make a video - that's a different discussion. In my opinion (and that's not necessarily correct) it's not illegal at all. [It's a different thing with videos on how to fold Valerie Vann's Magic Rose Cube, because she's actually selling a video on how to do it.] Something being legal doesn't exclude it being questionable to do, though.
Finally, as I do see Phu Tran's rose as a variation of Kawasaki-san's rose: I have contacted Toshikazu Kawasaki, and he is opposed to sharing on the internet. As I understood it he is afraid that once something has been released with his approval all hell might break loose. Sadly enough, I think right now his designs are already the ones most presented in videos on YouTube (and at that, most are in low quality). His roses are the most popular subjects, of course. And while I'm not sure about Phu Tran's approach, Kawasaki-san is very willing to share. He's published several books, diagrams are available for lots of his stuff, and he's happy for others to teach his models in person, rather than online. So even if I were happy to disrespect Phu Tran's wish (which I'm not), Kawasaki-san's wish is one I couldn't step on at all.

It's "gimmee, gimmee" entitlement attitudes like anon's that really grates on my nerves. The one being selfish here, is you. Furthermore, you don't even know Phu; nor have even made an attempt to respect or understand his side of things. He doesn't owe you anything. All we're left with are rumors, gossip, half-stories with jumbled timelines, and lop-sided perspective from the disrespectful "I demand you share" crowd. The internet's created some real, selfish asses out there and the last person on this earth who deserves to know how to make the Phu rose, is you.

Sorry to be so rude here myself, Sara. It's just that comments like anon's is what soured Phu. Before the "incident", he was quite generous in sharing all of his works and knowledge, eager to teach others his latest.


While I do think sharing is a good thing, I am also more worried about the lack of respect often observed on the internet. That is not to say most people are disrespectful, but I think those individuals are often more outspoken, and inflammatory comments tend to get more attention, or stick longer in our minds. They often have the greater potential to move people, including enraging or hurting them.

So while I do think sharing is great, the respect for others should always come first. And respect includes accepting a position that isn't your own. I am grateful to every designer that creates exciting models. I am grateful to those that give me permission to demonstrate them. I am grateful to those that publish diagrams, be it online or in books. I am also grateful to those designers that simply create models I enjoy looking at, irrespective of whether they are going to communicate how to actually reproduce such a result.

I see origami as an art, and designing models as an even greater art. I accept - and can understand - that some people do not want to share how to reproduce some of their art pieces. It does not matter what the reasons are. They may range from the obvious ones, such as lack of time or difficulty of diagramming, to the more disputed, as wanting to sell, or wanting others not to be able to replicate the design. In the end, the designer has every right to do with their design what they want. It does baffle me time and again how some people on the internet seem to think that's not the case. I think everyone should remember that you can do what you like with your design, and others can do with their designs as they wish. End of story. Disrespecting someone's wishes is just that: disrespect.

And it's always good to remember that the origami community IS thriving with many that share their designs. There are more superb designs out there that ARE diagrammed than you could fold in any case. And if you do happen to have folded everything [you think is worth folding], you probably have enough experience to design yourself, contribute yourself.
Yes, you might want to fold this or that exact [undiagrammed] model, but rather than pestering designers for it, why not appreciate the art behind it? We see so many extraordinary things every day we cannot replicate, and we live with it. Just as you will sometimes think "I wish I could do THAT, but I know I can't", you should view those creations as such. Something that deserves admiration, even though you might not be able to do it yourself.

By the way, there's no harm in trying to fold something like the undiagrammed model of your choice. As far as I know this is how many have started designing models. Seeing something, being inspired by it. And the beauty of it is: rather than asking - or demanding - others to share their creations, you can contribute one, you can enrich the world of origami.

I will have to agree with, well, everyone here. I'm not at the level to make my own designs but eventually I will be, I believe that many want to make ONE thing and they think that ONE thing will advance their abilities. Don't get meh wrong, I thought the exact same thing, some folks like to keep their work to themselves for whatever reason but I think it would be helpful for the creator to try and get more people to BE AT the level to be able to create your own stuff rather than frustrate people into giving up on the art or whatnot. Then again, who am I to talk, I'm just a school kid.

Sorry, there won't be a video on this rose. Both Kawasaki-san and Phu Tran would rather not have video material on their models online, and I respect that.

Did you refer it from any book?
If so please give me its details

I really want to make this beautiful rose but i cannot because of phu tran's condition...

I dont mind, but i really long to have it.
Please give me its details.

I think you have mentioned before that it was somewhat like kawasaki rose variation.
Well I know how to do that. Does it involve the same creasing to be done or different, because i found out that it looks just like a kawasaki rose variation.

I thank you a lot if you reply to me

There are no official diagrams for this rose, and Phu Tran withdrew the crease pattern after his wishes were disrespected.
It's very similar to the 22.5° rose by Toshikazu Kawasaki. The crimps are in a slightly different place to allow the forming of additional petals. I fear no instructions have been published, and am not sure they will be any time in the near future. You can try to reverse-engineer from photos, and that's about it...

-- Sara

Don't get me wrong, PT's rose is beautiful, but I have a question: since it is technically a variation of Kawasaki-san's rose, could PT publish it as his own original design? I saw something on the Origami Forums that a variation cannot be copyrighted b/c the "creator" did not go through the process of design; s/he only took someone else's work, changed it a bit, and called his/her own.
Like I said, don't get me wrong, I hold respect for all creators, PT included (and I might be wrong about the whole copyright thing), but that question is one that i still have yet to hear the answer to. Anyone with an answer, please respond, and thanks in advance!

so I can't comment on this much. But I can say that if you change/vary a model enough, it is in it's own right a work of your creativity and thus subject to the same laws as the original model that inspired it.

-- Sara

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <strike> <h2> <h3>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.