# Did Obama Just Change the White-Tie Dress Code Permanently?



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

I think we may have just seen a permanent change in Men's dress codes. At this evening's Inaugural Balls, President Obama upstaged his wife by daringly wearing a white-tie with his dinner jacket.



















Inaugural Balls are typically white-tie and Obama's decision to wear a tuxedo (a bad one, sadly) instead was reported as a signal of frugality in the economic crisis. But then he wore a white-tie with it!

This may be a situation like the creation of the dinner jacket by the Edward VII (while Prince of Wales) or the adoption of the soft collar and authorization of midnight blue by his son the Duke of Windsor (when he, in turn, was Prince of Wales). In each case - as in most changes to the male dress code through the years - they used their status at the very apex of the social pyramid as license to change the rules. I wonder if we have not just seem the same thing from the new phenomenon/President - the final banishing of the tailcoat and the adoption of the dinner jacket for white-tie.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

My late grandfather said that white tie with a dinner jacket was for the staff. With all of the implications of Obama being president, that's kinda ironic, huh?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

In a word, "no."


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Ouch! Now I wonder what the thought process was.....


----------



## Griff (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm hoping that he doesn't change white tie - at least not in the way he dressed today. I just don't think a Notch lapel dinner jacket and a white bow tie screams "appropriate for the most formal events" 

Then again, black tie is becoming a lost art. A recent survey of the neighborhood tuxedo shop yielded a sea of too many buttons and notch lapels. This seems to be a common trend in many areas. 

So... You may just be right. It would be a sad day, though. Just the newest casualty along the slow decline into a casual culture.


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

TheCormac said:


> This may be a situation like the creation of the dinner jacket by the Edward VII (while Prince of Wales) or the adoption of the soft collar and authorization of midnight blue by his son the Duke of Windsor (when he, in turn, was Prince of Wales). In each case - as in most changes to the male dress code through the years - they used their status at the very apex of the social pyramid as license to change the rules. I wonder if we have not just seem the same thing from the new phenomenon/President - the final banishing of the tailcoat and the adoption of the dinner jacket for white-tie.


The difference is that traditional dinner clothes are quite attractive, whereas President Obama's clothes tonight were, in my opinion, not. Vice President Biden, on the other hand, looked quite sharp, judging by the short glimpse I saw on television.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

He might be the biggest example of just how badly Americans dress on the whole. But the dress code itself lives on ...


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

A glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, as one man says.
Obama shines brightly tonight for all to see.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Huh?*



DougNZ said:


> My late grandfather said that white tie with a dinner jacket was for the staff. With all of the implications of Obama being president, that's kinda ironic, huh?


And just what "implications" do you find so "ironic," eh?

Moderator, please!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

No he didn't.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Invitations?*

Are invitations issued for the Inaugural (Inauguration?) Ball and, if so, is no dress 'suggestion' mentioned? How does anyone know what to wear?


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Unless he is an Oxbridge graduate attending a formal university ceremony/examination in full academic dress, no. What he wore amounts to evening subfusc which is is confined to said above situation and cetainly not a non-academic ball.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Subfusc*



Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Unless he is an Oxbridge graduate attending a formal university ceremony/examination in full academic dress, no. What he wore amounts to evening subfusc which is is confined to said above situation and cetainly not a non-academic ball.


I am not sure what 'evening subfusc' is, but you are right - he is dressed like an Oxford undergraduate who has forgotten his gown.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

As far as I am concerned it is hardly for the President of the US to change traditional rules of dress, especially in Europe.

This said I recall seeing pictures posted by Sator where you could see Victorian or Edwardian gentlemen wearing a dinner jacket with white bowtie and waistcoat. So it is not exactly a new thing.

What I would suggest is to wear a white waistcoat, wing collar and SB jacket with one button and peak lapels if you are going to try to wear a white bowtie.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## tbabes (Feb 28, 2006)

A white bow tie with a notch lapel, 2-button, center-vented dinner jacket? Didn't I see a drawing of that in a Flusser book as an example of what not to wear? Regardless, I was embarassed for him and the office.


----------



## gentleman amateur (Mar 2, 2008)

God, I hope not. From going tie-less with a suit that he does so frequently to white tie with a DJ is very appalling.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

TheCormac said:


> This may be a situation like the creation of the dinner jacket by the Edward VII (while Prince of Wales) or the adoption of the soft collar and authorization of midnight blue by his son the Duke of Windsor (when he, in turn, was Prince of Wales). In each case - as in most changes to the male dress code through the years - they used their status at the very apex of the social pyramid as license to change the rules. I wonder if we have not just seem the same thing from the new phenomenon/President - the final banishing of the tailcoat and the adoption of the dinner jacket for white-tie.


Two observations from me - one pedantic the other provocative?

First the Duke of Windsor was the grandson of Edward VII (his father was George V).

Second it is deemed OK for a Prince of Wales to 'break the Rules' because he knows better! President Obama does not!


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

That's why I was wondering what it said on the invitation. If it said 'Black Tie' or 'White Tie' he clearly got it wrong. But if it said something like 'Formal Dress' or even 'Evening Dress' then he might be said to have created (or proposed) a new rule. After all someone in the US ought to be able to do that.


----------



## choirmaestro (Aug 27, 2008)

Relax guys. Saying Obama has permanently changed "white tie" is like saying that JFK killed the hat - it just ain't so. If you all have taught me anything in my short time on this forum, it's that timeless style is just that - timeless.

That being said, the staffer assigned to his waredrobe yesterday should be SHOT! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*He Knows the Rules, He Chose to Break Them*



Brideshead said:


> Two observations from me - one pedantic the other provocative?
> 
> First the Duke of Windsor was the grandson of Edward VII (his father was George V).
> 
> Second it is deemed OK for a Prince of Wales to 'break the Rules' because he knows better! President Obama does not!


Of course, you are quite right on the first point. Thank you for the correction. (I don't think you need ever apologize for being pedantic in this forum.)

On the second point, this seems to me an assumption too far on your part. There is no reason to believe that Obama doesn't know black-tie means black-tie. He has likely attended literally hundreds of such events over the course of his career and while I obviously cannot speak for them all, I have seen may pictures of him in black-tie. Press reports have stated that he intended to wear black-tie (which was the dress code for the evening) but changed his mind because he thought the white-tie complimented his wife's gown.

I know it is a reflect for us Americans to "dis" our Presidents as clueless, but the evidence suggests that is not the case here. I may not agree with his choice (I don't, in fact) but I think we should credit it as a conscious choice.


----------



## choirmaestro (Aug 27, 2008)

TheCormac said:


> Press reports have stated that he intended to wear black-tie (which was the dress code for the evening) but changed his mind because he thought the white-tie complimented his wife's gown.
> 
> I may not agree with his choice (I don't, in fact) but I think we should credit it as a conscious choice.


Well put.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Any one know where I can e-mail him?


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Andy said:


> Any one know where I can e-mail him?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Blueboy1938 said:


> And just what "implications" do you find so "ironic," eh?
> 
> Moderator, please!


Gheeze, Blueboy, do we need to spell it out? For crying out loud, neither the notion that white tie and dinner jacket screams staff nor pointing out that historically African-Americans were disproportionately represented among "staff" is offensive (unless one unfairly assumes that DougNZ was pointing it out with some sort of approval); and nor is the observation that for the first African-American president to appear on the day of his inauguration (presemably unknowingly) in a manner that suggests "staff" is ironic. It is not a major point, and it is admittedly one appreciated only by those of us who care (perhaps too much) about things sartorial, but there was nothing offensive in DougNZ's post, unless one chooses to take very unwarranted inferential liberties. It is uncharitable and unfair to do so. I would think you owe DougNZ an apology actually.


----------



## Penang Lawyer (May 27, 2008)

Please note that at the Alfred E. Smith dinner President Obama wore white tie and tails.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

To me, the only thing President Obama's formal rig had going for him last night was it's fit. As others here have mentioned, I'd have that style consultant up on charges. 

The jacket itself was the worst part of the outfit. Notched, flap pockets, single-vented, two-button... only an odd color could've made it more of an abomination. The white tie and no waist covering was also unfortunate, but at least he kept the coat buttoned. The collar on the shirt was turned-down, wasn't it? I've never seen that put with a white tie before.

The defense that he chose the white tie to go with his wife's outfit? Kind of 'high school' IMO.

In the end, the kindest thing I can call his look last night is unconventional....

My Score - 4.5/10 AAAC cedar hangers


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Trimmer said:


> That's why I was wondering what it said on the invitation. If it said 'Black Tie' or 'White Tie' he clearly got it wrong. But if it said something like 'Formal Dress' or even 'Evening Dress' then he might be said to have created (or proposed) a new rule. After all someone in the US ought to be able to do that.


The invitation said "black tie."


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Penang Lawyer said:


> Please note that at the Alfred E. Smith dinner President Obama wore white tie and tails.


Good point. He has also worn white tie and tails to the Gridiron dinner in DC, which he attended as a senator.

My guess is that the off-white tie he wore yesterday was intended to complement his wife's dress, and was not intended to be a "white tie" in the tailcoat sense. In other words, if Michelle had worn blue, his tie would have been blue.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

TheCormac said:


> I think we may have just seen a permanent change in Men's dress codes. At this evening's Inaugural Balls, President Obama upstaged his wife by daringly wearing a white-tie with his dinner jacket.
> 
> Inaugural Balls are typically white-tie and Obama's decision to wear a tuxedo (a bad one, sadly) instead was reported as a signal of frugality in the economic crisis. But then he wore a white-tie with it!
> 
> This may be a situation like the creation of the dinner jacket by the Edward VII (while Prince of Wales) or the adoption of the soft collar and authorization of midnight blue by his son the Duke of Windsor (when he, in turn, was Prince of Wales). In each case - as in most changes to the male dress code through the years - they used their status at the very apex of the social pyramid as license to change the rules. I wonder if we have not just seem the same thing from the new phenomenon/President - the final banishing of the tailcoat and the adoption of the dinner jacket for white-tie.


Lets hope he doesnt have that kind of influence.
PS its been done before. I've seen grooms do it to distinguish themselves from their attendants/groomsmen.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Penang Lawyer said:


> Please note that at the Alfred E. Smith dinner President Obama wore white tie and tails.


With a laydown collar shirt.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Penang Lawyer said:


> Please note that at the Alfred E. Smith dinner President Obama wore white tie and tails.


Yes, one obviously hastily rented by his staff that didnt fit. The jacket collar rode up off his neck and the collar was flat not wing. I shudder at what may have been on his feet.


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*Biden was Good, but Example Not Heed*



Steve_C said:


> The difference is that traditional dinner clothes are quite attractive, whereas President Obama's clothes tonight were, in my opinion, not. Vice President Biden, on the other hand, looked quite sharp, judging by the short glimpse I saw on television.


A good point and I agree with you aesthetically, although I am not entirely enamored of the attached wing collar.

Since Biden was chosen partially for his knowledge of the protocol and conventions of the DC establishment and international diplomatic circles, the President's sartorial choices last night - and his departure from Biden's example - may indicate his counsel will not be highly valued by his new boss.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> The invitation said "black tie."


In which case it would have been inappropriate to have worn 'White Tie'. 

I now read, however, that the President did not in fact wear a 'White Tie' white tie but an 'off-white' one, in which case he might not have broken any rule at all. 

'Black Tie' does not always require the tie worn with a dinner jacket to be black. It could be a club or 'honours' colour (such as an Oxbridge blue).


----------



## Jordan (Mar 2, 2006)

The dinner jacket last night didn't fit right. Too short, too tight. Pulling in weird places.


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*Or Maybe Not*



Trimmer said:


> That's why I was wondering what it said on the invitation. If it said 'Black Tie' or 'White Tie' he clearly got it wrong. But if it said something like 'Formal Dress' or even 'Evening Dress' then he might be said to have created (or proposed) a new rule. After all someone in the US ought to be able to do that.


It was a great question. Invitations are issued to the official balls and my understanding is that the invitations for the official balls this year said black-tie.

That being the case, Peter Marshall of blacktieguide.com made a compelling argument to me via email this morning: That since the occasion was announced as black-tie and not white, it is the black-tie dress code that is challenged, not the white-tie one.

To put that another way, to have properly challenged the tail coat in the white-tie rule, Obama would have to have worn a dinner jacket when all others were arriving in tails - not worn a white tie when others were in black-tie.


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*There is no such thing as a notched-lapel dinner jacket.*



Jordan said:


> The dinner jacket last night didn't fit right. Too short, too tight. Pulling in weird places.


True. One could also argue that it was not a dinner jacket at all, since a notched-lapel dinner jacket is an oxymoron. I wasn't going to belabor it because the white-tie thing was more shocking.

And did he really not wear a cummerbund? Is that true? He had his jacket buttoned in the footage I saw.


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*It May Be For Him to Change the Rules*



Phileas Fogg said:


> As far as I am concerned it is hardly for the President of the US to change traditional rules of dress, especially in Europe.
> 
> This said I recall seeing pictures posted by Sator where you could see Victorian or Edwardian gentlemen wearing a dinner jacket with white bowtie and waistcoat. So it is not exactly a new thing.
> 
> ...


Your views are a fascinating mix of populism and European snobbery, but I'm not sure I quite get why you don't think the POTUS ranks socially. The occupants of the White House have long been regarded as the titular leaders of U.S. society. This is where the whole terminology of "first family" and "first lady" comes from. While I would not draw a total equivalency between the global cultural influence of the US today and that of the UK a century ago it is analogous and Obama, in particular, is already an icon beyond US borders.

As for the various permutations that went on when black-tie was first evolving in the late-Victorian and Edwardian period, I hardly take your point. Yes, when the dinner jacket first emerged, there was some debate over when and with what it was worn. But the very existence of the current dress codes - and their longevity - demonstrate that to be as closed a chapter in history as the wearing of doublets and breeches. The Inaugural Balls are not masquerade.


----------



## TheCormac (May 14, 2006)

*Biden looks bad too.*



Steve_C said:


> The difference is that traditional dinner clothes are quite attractive, whereas President Obama's clothes tonight were, in my opinion, not. Vice President Biden, on the other hand, looked quite sharp, judging by the short glimpse I saw on television.


OK, wait. I just saw photos of Biden's outfit (which I only saw in passing on television last night) and it is also a so-called "notched-lapel tuxedo." As I noted earlier, Biden pairs this with a somewhat questionable attached wing collar. I think he looks awful too. This is depressing.


----------



## Cary Grant (Sep 11, 2008)

White tie "rules" such as they are have been relatively unknown/uncared for for many many many years. Obama wasn't the first to break these "rules".


----------



## Steve_C (Aug 23, 2007)

TheCormac said:


> OK, wait. I just saw photos of Biden's outfit (which I only saw in passing on television last night) and it is also a so-called "notched-lapel tuxedo." As I noted earlier, Biden pairs this with a somewhat questionable attached wing collar. I think he looks awful too. This is depressing.


Did he wear any sort of waist covering? The notched lapels don't seem as odd as the white bowtie and lack of waist covering on the President, to me.


----------



## paul winston (Jun 3, 2006)

Although those of "influence" have the ability to cause change, at least temporarily, the change need not be permanent. When Attorney General Robert Kennedy was allowed to dine at the "21 Club" wearing a turtleneck, they changed their rules. Management said if they let one individual wear a turtleneck they would let anyone wear a turtleneck. Shortly thereafter turtlenecks were worn to "Black Tie" functions. When was the last time you saw one worn at a Black Tie function? You can bet there will be white ties at the next Black Tie function you attend. Will that still be the case 10 years down the road? Only time will tell.
Paul Winston
Winston Tailors
www.chipp2.com


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

paul winston said:


> You can bet there will be white ties at the next Black Tie function you attend. Will that still be the case 10 years down the road? Only time will tell.


I think the same will be true of the HSM tuxedo that Obama wore last night. I can't imagine that they won't make marketing hay of that model. I think it sells for about $900.

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I have remarked in the past that most male wedding attire has devolved into eclectic costuming loosely inspired by by classic formal and semi-formal wear.

One sees the same regrettable tendencies at the ceremonies for the sundry showbiz awards.

Given Obama's unfortunate attire last night, this ghastly tendency seems to be spreading to the highest councils of state.

I also made the observation on SF that if I had seen a man--be he black, white or whatever--so attired at a formal or semi-formal function, I too would have assumed he was a waiter if I didn't know otherwise.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

The President of the US (POTUS sounds awfully like a a "pot of us") is probably the most powerful man on earth, still it is not enough to change deep rooted traditions.

My first comment was somewhat brief and perhaps too brief to be really explanatory.

About the populism I do not really see your point, about the rest, well...

You cite European snobbery and are correct, among some groups of Europeans nobody would even think of looking at the President of the US for sartorial advice for formal or semi-formal events (they could look at the Prince of Monaco perhaps but hardly at the President of the US). Power is not enough.

Surely some other Europeans will try to imitate the style of Mr. Obama, I cannot disregard this possibility altogether. 

Still in which group do you believe are those who wear a morning coat for weddings and a dinner jacket at semi-formal evening events? 

There are even some Europeans who wear dinner jackets for daytime weddings, which is enough to get you blacklisted among the first group.

In my "tribe" (joking reference from a relative) we do wear morning coats for weddings. Sorry.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

To answer the question that forms the title of this thread: Geez, I hope not.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As my wife and I watched the TV coverage of the inaugural balls and I took note of the President's chosen attire, I was reminded of the earliest days of my military service (as an enlisted member of the Air Force Reserve). During that period, I had the opportunity to attend a number of evening formal military functions and while wear of the Mess Dress uniform was specified for such activities, exceptions were made for enlisted personnel, who did not have (and perhaps could not afford!) a Mess Dress uniform, to wear their Class A uniform, with a white shirt (rather than the standard blue) and a black bow tie. Our President is a rather bright guy...he know the rules (sartorial and otherwise)...so much of what he does (and says) is symbolic. By his clothing choices, he was making an intentional statement!

We may disagree with President Obama's evening wear choices and it is yet to be determined, as to how those choice will be perceived on the world stage. However, make no mistake...his choice of attire was not left to chance.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Brideshead said:


> Two observations from me - one pedantic the other provocative?
> 
> First the Duke of Windsor was the grandson of Edward VII (his father was George V).
> 
> Second it is deemed OK for a Prince of Wales to 'break the Rules' because he knows better! President Obama does not!


Quite right too, Brideshead. On both counts. 
And I'm now reminded of a piece of royal trivia, which is a great question to ask people, especially supposed royalists.

"Who is the current Duke of Lancaster?" Or during a discussion on matters royal "I wonder what the Duke of Lancaster thinks about this?"

Also, just for info, Prince Edward, (formerly Eddie Eight and Prince of Wales) was the first and last Duke of Windsor, the title was created for him on his abdication by his brother George VI and died with him.

So, without referring to books or the net, who knows from previously learned knowledge who the Duke of Lancaster is?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The use of non-black ties (from cream to red to green and so on) with dinner suits is not at all as heavily fronwed upon in the UK as it seems to be in the US.Or perhaps it's just you guys on this forum that frown upon it. I'm sure 90% of the US populace didn't give it a second thought. I mean, cut the man some slack! He's the President not a mannequin! 

Next, you'll be complaining about people wearing cream coloured dinner jackets! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> I had the opportunity to attend a number of evening formal military functions and while wear of the Mess Dress uniform was specified for such activities, exceptions were made for enlisted personnel, who did not have (and perhaps could not afford!) a Mess Dress uniform, to wear their Class A uniform, with a white shirt (rather than the standard blue) and a black bow tie.


This is off topic, but at least you had an option to fall back on. I faced similar situations as a Navy Corpsman assigned to the Marine Corps. While serving in a Marine Corps unit Corpsmen wear Marine uniforms, everything from field utilities to service dress; however, we did not wear the dress blues. For those occasions we wore our Navy dress blues which is the same uniform that we wore for much more mundane purposes, such as flying on an airplane or working in an office.

As much as I love the Navy dress blue uniform (dixie cup hat and all) the couple of times that I wore it in the presence of Marines in dress blues I felt underdressed. And I'm not just referring to the fact that they were Marine Corps dress blues; I would have felt the same with any service's dress uniform. I always wished that the Navy had a different enlisted uniform for full dress wear. My aplogy for going off topic. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

TheCormac said:


> A good point and I agree with you aesthetically, although I am not entirely enamored of the attached wing collar.
> 
> Since Biden was chosen partially for his knowledge of the protocol and conventions of the DC establishment and international diplomatic circles, the President's sartorial choices last night - and his departure from Biden's example - may indicate his counsel will not be highly valued by his new boss.


No to venture in to politics too much, but Bidens formalwear was rather unimpressive. The notion that he is a sartorial standout in DC, I find a bit over stated. Use of a pocket square seems to be his only claim to such.

The further notion that he has some mastery of protocal and diplomacy has the lie put to it nearly every time he opens his mouth in public, which they dont seem to let him do too much these days. Dont even get me started on his hair.

Nothing particularly elegant about this bunch, JFK and RWR passed the elegance test and correct formal wear test.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Literide said:


> Nothing particularly elegant about this bunch, JFK and RWR passed the elegance test and correct formal wear test.


I believe that is part of the reason both continue to be held in esteem by the vast majority of the American public. Their elegant images endure long after the political battles have faded from memory.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So, without referring to books or the net, who knows from previously learned knowledge who the Duke of Lancaster is?


Her Majesty, isn't it?


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The use of non-black ties (from cream to red to green and so on) with dinner suits is not at all as heavily fronwed upon in the UK as it seems to be in the US.Or perhaps it's just you guys on this forum that frown upon it. I'm sure 90% of the US populace didn't give it a second thought. I mean, cut the man some slack! He's the President not a mannequin!
> 
> Next, you'll be complaining about people wearing cream coloured dinner jackets! :icon_smile_wink:


Have to agree (as an American). I thought the jacket fit, but the shirt collar was too large (as is consistent with his previous forays into formal dress, Al Smith dinner). After all, he is a President without a turkey gobbler chin (so far...). Strange though, his usual dress shirts seem to fit him much better. The reason I'm not so up in arms with the non-black tie is that, like it or not, it did set him apart from 95+% of the other ball-goers.

I'm not nuts about the notch lapel, single vent stuff, but I called it on a previous post. I attribute it to a desire to look like a "man of the people", i.e. not a "man of the AAAC forum". Although that would be kinda cool... What do you suppose his screen name should be?

I didn't check, but someone please at least tell me he didn't have cuffs on his pants!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.luxist.com/2009/01/21/obamas-first-fashion-faux-pas/


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DougNZ said:


> Her Majesty, isn't it?


Full marks to you sir! :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ksinc said:


> https://www.luxist.com/2009/01/21/obamas-first-fashion-faux-pas/


My question then, as a European who wouldn't be seen dead in either a black lounge suit or a notched lapel dinner jacket, is this, who in the Sam Hill is advising the President's on what to wear? But more importantly who is determining the individual fashion details of their clothes, i.e. notched lapels? Is it the President's themselves do you think? Or clothing advisors?


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

I'm probably going to cop some flack over this ... but I think in America a lot of prominent people are so because they jump up and down the most or shout the loudest. How else do so many people become famous over night? The problem is that many of these people are bred by television shows and become famous for being famous (or infamous). They usually have few qualifications in the area of their new-found fame but that does not stop them from applying 'expert' opinion and using their star status to qualify it. Politicians therefore become ballroom dancing experts, actors become top chefs and comedians become sartorial geniuses. Add to that the connundrum that preaching 'old rules' is at odds with the reality-show-era's hunger for 'fresh' and 'new' and fashion will win out over style every time. Unfortunately, the predominance of American television means that the trend spreads ever outward.

Me, I like a man brave enough to do some research and put the 'old rules' in writing (preferably in the style of a centuries-old text). The President can have his glossy, tabloid-style advisors.


----------



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

DougNZ said:


> I'm probably going to cop some flack over this ... but I think in America a lot of prominent people are so because they jump up and down the most or shout the loudest. How else do so many people become famous over night? The problem is that many of these people are bred by television shows and become famous for being famous (or infamous). They usually have few qualifications in the area of their new-found fame but that does not stop them from applying 'expert' opinion and using their star status to qualify it. Politicians therefore become ballroom dancing experts, actors become top chefs and comedians become sartorial geniuses. Add to that the connundrum that preaching 'old rules' is at odds with the reality-show-era's hunger for 'fresh' and 'new' and fashion will win out over style every time. Unfortunately, the predominance of American television means that the trend spreads ever outward.
> 
> Me, I like a man brave enough to do some research and put the 'old rules' in writing (preferably in the style of a centuries-old text). The President can have his glossy, tabloid-style advisors.


I agree with this for the most part.

And what I am about to say is not necessarily intended as a political or bigoted comment, although it is going to start out sounding like one, I really am responding to the question in the OP...

Obama is by many accounts is the first postmodern American celebrity president. While I disagree with many of his policies and ideologies personally, I can respect them intellectually. Nonetheless, a good deal of his support isn't as much political as it is popular. This is confirmed by any number of exit polls and public opinion surveys - that many people either didn't know his positions or really didn't care - they were just voting for him because they wanted to vote for Obama. Not everyone who voted for him, of course, but a at least a very large portion of his support. Most of us can probably anecdotally recreate these results easily if we wanted to by polling coworkers or friends and neighbors.

(I recognize that many people voted against him for similar reasons, but I don't think it's quite the same thing and it's not nearly as many people, obviously)

Anyway, so the point I am trying to make is this: if a lot of people voted for Obama like they were voting for American Idol or a reality show on MTV, and didn't care so much about the issues as they do the celebrity, then they are not going to care one bit either about the quality or conformity of his ball ensemble. This type of voter ALREADY wears hideous white and multi-hued tie "tuxedo" ensembles in their weddings as part of popular culture and think it's normal. This type of voter ALREADY sees actors on the red carpet or rap stars in party photos and thinks, "________ looked really good in that 3/4 length black "tuxedo" with eight buttons and that banded collar white shirt!" As far as they are concerned, Obama was just dressing up normally for the ball, where lots of options and flexibility already exist in their mind, and they likely have no idea that black tie protocol even exists in the first place. And if they do, they probably think it's stuffy and more about conformity than about style. I have this argument with people all the time about black tie, so I know the attitude is common.

I guess what I am saying is that he probably did do this on purpose as a political maneuver. We all know that he has dressed properly in black tie in the past and probably knows the rules, so ignorance is likely out as an explanation. I don't think he was purposely trying to stick a thumb in the eye of traditionalists or change dress codes, but I do think there was a concerted effort to connect with popular culture (his base) and appear in something more contemporary.

So the answer to the OP is that he really hasn't changed anything, he just did a really good job at reinforcing the changes that are already in motion. I don't like it, but it's bigger then me or even the President showing up at a single ball. It's a cultural thing that was already here and it's not going anywhere.

PLEASE don't construe my remarks as applying to all Obama voters. I am sure that there are plenty of people on this board who voted for him and are just as disappointed in his outfit as I am. All I am saying is that there is a very large portion of his base that supports him out of a contemporary culture of celebrity that has already trashed traditional rules of dress, and that his outfit is simply an extension of that. At least that's what I thought when I saw it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My question then, as a European who wouldn't be seen dead in either a black lounge suit or a notched lapel dinner jacket, is this, who in the Sam Hill is advising the President's on what to wear? But more importantly who is determining the individual fashion details of their clothes, i.e. notched lapels? Is it the President's themselves do you think? Or clothing advisors?


Probaby his Wife. It's off point, but I think she dresses horribly for all the hullaboo about how she's Jackie II. That white monstrosity she wore to the balls was worse than the inauguration costume. I read one media review that said how good she looked in off the rack. That's not really a compliment.

I wouldn't say it's cultural. That's too broad of a statement IMHO. I mean: Cruiser liked it !!!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cottonmather0 said:


> I guess what I am saying is that he probably did do this on purpose as a political maneuver. We all know that he has dressed properly in black tie in the past and probably knows the rules, so ignorance is likely out as an explanation. I don't think he was purposely trying to stick a thumb in the eye of traditionalists or change dress codes, but I do think there was a concerted effort to connect with popular culture (his base) and appear in something more contemporary.


This assumes that most of the people watching him were even aware of the things that are being discussed here. I think that to all but a tiny sliver of the U.S. population (such as those posting here) there is no difference in one type lapel vs. another. A tuxedo is a tuxedo is a tuxedo to most people.

I think we err when we analyze these things and make conclusions that are based on the assumption that people notice these details. I would bet that if 100 people were asked what kind of lapel he wore or how many buttons his jacket had, no more than one or two could tell you.

In other words if his selection of jacket style was a "political maneuver" it was an exercise in futility because not enough people notice such things to make it worthwhile. Personally I think the only "political" aspect of the clothing was the selection of HSM to provide the tuxedo.

Cruiser


----------



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> This assumes that most of the people watching him were even aware of the things that are being discussed here. I think that to all but a tiny sliver of the U.S. population (such as those posting here) there is no difference in one type lapel vs. another. A tuxedo is a tuxedo is a tuxedo to most people.
> 
> I think we err when we analyze these things and make conclusions that are based on the assumption that people notice these details. I would bet that if 100 people were asked what kind of lapel he wore or how many buttons his jacket had, no more than one or two could tell you.
> 
> ...


I think we are saying the same thing, Cruiser. Most people DON'T notice the lapel, but similarly, if he had shown up in tails and pique and gloves (or even basic black) they WOULD have noticed that and some might have thought it was either a bit stuffy or at least old fashioned. So he instead he went with something contemporary. Maybe it wasn't on purpose at first, but he most certainly didn't care if it was correct or not, and if someone were to have pointed it out to him - and who knows, maybe someone did - he very likely would have gone through the same calculus that I just did as to whether people would care or not and what would work better for him as a politician. It's what politicians do and you don't get elected President without being a good politician and figuring out what appeals to the most people.


----------



## chucklehead (Apr 27, 2007)

who cares what another worthless politician wears?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chucklehead said:


> who cares what another worthless politician wears?


No doubt the same type of people who care where their shirts are made or if their suits are glued together. ic12337:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I wouldn't say it's cultural. That's too broad of a statement IMHO. I mean: Cruiser liked it !!!


I did? That's news to me. I didn't particularly care for what either one of the Obamas wore the other night.

With regard to President Obama's attire, I don't like vents (I don't even have them on my business suits), I prefer one button for a tuxedo jacket, and I would have not have worn a white tie in that situation. His shirt also wasn't my cup of tea.

Having said all that, what he wore didn't bother me in any way. There is a difference between liking something and wearing it yourself, and not being bothered by something when someone else wears it. All in all I just didn't think it was that big of a deal one way or the other. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> This assumes that most of the people watching him were even aware of the things that are being discussed here. I think that to all but a tiny sliver of the U.S. population (such as those posting here) there is no difference in one type lapel vs. another. A tuxedo is a tuxedo is a tuxedo to most people.
> 
> I think we err when we analyze these things and make conclusions that are based on the assumption that people notice these details. I would bet that if 100 people were asked what kind of lapel he wore or how many buttons his jacket had, no more than one or two could tell you.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. 
I think that the overanalysis from cultural, political and even, as has been mentioned here with the serving staff comment, racial-history perspectives is unnecessary, way beyond what the majority saw & think, and is even negative and to a degree destructive.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> I think that the overanalysis from cultural, political and even, as has been mentioned here with the serving staff comment, racial-history perspectives is unnecessary, way beyond what the majority saw & think, and is even negative and to a degree destructive.


Of what is it destructive?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Cottonmather0 said:


> I think we are saying the same thing, Cruiser. Most people DON'T notice the lapel, but similarly, if he had shown up in tails and pique and gloves (or even basic black) they WOULD have noticed that and some might have thought it was either a bit stuffy or at least old fashioned. So he instead he went with something contemporary. Maybe it wasn't on purpose at first, but he most certainly didn't care if it was correct or not, and if someone were to have pointed it out to him - and who knows, maybe someone did - he very likely would have gone through the same calculus that I just did as to whether people would care or not and what would work better for him as a politician. It's what politicians do and you don't get elected President without being a good politician and figuring out what appeals to the most people.


I'd have to say I think Cruiser's assessment is closer to the mark. I am sure the overwhelming majority of people who saw Obama's outfit the night of the 20th simply saw him as wearing "a tuxedo." Had he been wearing a "proper" AAAC-approved black-tie ensemble, they likewise would have seen him as wearing "a tuxedo." Similarly, had he been wearing a sartorially correct white-tie ensemble, they still would have seen him as wearing "a tuxedo." A silk topper, a cape and maybe the white gloves might have been perceived as "over the top," however.


----------



## gentleman amateur (Mar 2, 2008)

It appears from an article here in Japan he wore the same black "notched lapel DJ" during the day, another _faux pas_, and with a black necktie, another _faux pas_. So, how many strikes does he have? What's the count?


----------



## gentleman amateur (Mar 2, 2008)

gentleman amateur said:


> It appears from an article here in Japan he wore the same black "notched lapel DJ" during the day, another _faux pas_, and with a black necktie, another _faux pas_. So, how many strikes does he have? What's the count?


Hmm. Too late to re-edit. Here's the article.　　Acutally, it was for dinner, so only 1 _faux pas._


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

paul winston said:


> When Attorney General Robert Kennedy was allowed to dine at the "21 Club" wearing a turtleneck, they changed their rules. Management said if they let one individual wear a turtleneck they would let anyone wear a turtleneck.


According to the 21 Club web site, it was Sammy Davis, Jr. He was given a tie to wear, which he tied around his head.

Also from their site:

"A woman who'd heard that *Katherine Hepburn* was allowed in wearing slacks decided to do the same. Informed that she wouldn't be let in with trousers, she went to the ladies room, removed them, wearing only her blouse and panties. Her daring earned her a one-night exemption from the no-slacks rule. "


----------



## woodenchair (Oct 21, 2008)

He may be the president, but nobody with any sense will believe that he is elegant and change his dress because of it. Pres. Obama is always vulgarly dressed.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Miket61 said:


> According to the 21 Club web site, it was Sammy Davis, Jr. He was given a tie to wear, which he tied around his head.
> 
> Also from their site:
> 
> "A woman who'd heard that *Katherine Hepburn* was allowed in wearing slacks decided to do the same. Informed that she wouldn't be let in with trousers, she went to the ladies room, removed them, wearing only her blouse and panties. Her daring earned her a one-night exemption from the no-slacks rule. "


Let there be no mistake: people like this are not trying to challenge rules they consider unjust. After all, rules pertaining to dress are hardly violations of natural law; Instead, they are telling the world that they are more important than the rules. It is, at bottom, about arrogance; not principle.


----------

