# Best-dressed President



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I'm curious to know who you think was the best-dressed American president. I am speaking in terms of how he dressed while "on duty", not during leisure, recreational, or vacation times.

I should point out that this can be considered both relative to the time period, or absolutely, without regard to the time period.

Feel free to nominate your worst-dressed candidates, too.


----------



## Gempro (Mar 3, 2005)

John F. Kennedy.


----------



## bestmastertailor (Aug 28, 2003)

Harry Truman


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Ronald Reagan.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I hereby nominate the only US president from the great state of Pennsylvania, James Buchanan. "The Old Buck" could sport some tasty threads.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

best: washington

worst: clinton


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I think Rambler's right. It's been downhill since Washington. And I know that Kennedy is a popular choice, but it would seem to be the romance of the era as much as anything. I could be wrong, I hadn't been reincarnated at that point.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Truman's a solid choice, as are both Roosevelts. My vote goes to FDR.

Dig FDR's collar bar here:

You think JFK had casual elegance?










Dude wore a _cape_ and looked good doing it.










And a Norfolk jacket.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I hereby nominate the only US president from the great state of Pennsylvania, James Buchanan. "The Old Buck" could sport some tasty threads.


Quite the _elegante_!

It's about time that we discuss the sartorial acheivements of the so-called lesser presidents, such as Martin Van Buren, James Polk, and John Quincy Adams.

I am a little tired of hearing about Kennedy, Roosevelt, Reagan, and the other gang of post-WWII boys.

It's about time to celebrate Millard Fillmore who only wore bespoke, hand padded suits made right here in the USA!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> best: washington
> 
> worst: clinton


Disagree. Clinton was/is not as bad as Carter, though Carter probably was adversely affected by the times.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The case for FDR's senior cousin rests, in no small part, on his vests/waistcoats.










Although the facings on the jacket lapels here are pretty sweet:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Many people cite JFK. JFK clothes were generally unremarkable. He was an _appropriately_ dressed man who was tall, relatively slender, and handsome (or so I'm told). Unfortunately, JFK's rise, conincident with that of television coverage of the presidency, pretty well marked the end of interesting dress for presidents.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Brian Keith played an excellent FDR.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

From the number of photos I have seen, U.S. Grant was often well attired (when not in uniform.) 
Unfortunately, in many of those photographs, that attire also appears vaguely "slept in."


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Best dressed president by Historians was Chester Alan Arthur - his nickname was Elegant Arthur.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Dude wore a _cape_ and looked good doing it.


First thing I thought of when I saw this photo was Dana Carvey in _Master of Disguise_:

Apologies, Mr. Churchill. :biggrin:


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Calvin Coolidge


Under appreciated now in so many ways.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

My votes goes to FDR, but I have to admit that Coolidge does dress very well.(that is a great pic. J. Marko)


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

gman-17 said:


> Best dressed president by Historians was Chester Alan Arthur - his nickname was Elegant Arthur.


I remember watching the Presidents series on the History Channel where they mentioned that shortly after being elected to office in 1881 Chester A. Arthur went on a shopping spree at Brooks Brothers causing a minor stir in the press after if was reported that he had spent a whopping $750 which at that time was a considerable amount of money. He was certainly considered a bit of a fop in his day.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

*Chester A. Arthur*

+1 for Chester A. Arthur. Most biographies of him mention his sartorial excellence, even those the muck rake about a "machine politician." Take a look, for instance, at Philip Abbott's_ Accidental Presidents_.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

President Obama; Not necessarily the most classical dresser, but definitely the sharpest!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Obama? You must be joking. I happen to like the guy, but he only looks sharp because he's tall, thin, and handsome, and rarely wears things that are egregiously bad. See my comment re jfk.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Obama usually gets anything more formal than a business suit horribly, horribly wrong.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Tom Wolfe claimed JFK got his clothes on Saville Row and that Lyndon Johnson began shopping there after comparing his own clothes and deciding they "lukked lahk i-ron boy uhveralls". That was back in America's pre-stupidocracy day when the trailer-trash voter didn't mind voting for a candidate who actually was better dressed (classier, smarter, better educated, etc.) than they and their Budweiser-swilling ******* friends were. Presidents are no longer so unconstrained in their sartorial choices. </soapbox>


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

camorristi said:


> President Obama; Not necessarily the most classical dresser, but definitely the sharpest!


Not even close. Barry dresses like a pol.

Truman was well turned out (he was a haberdasher), but he looked very affected IMO.

Reagan was a very stylish man. His tailors did a marvelous job of emphasizing his frame. He was at once a visually impressive and imposing man. And he pulled every outfit off effortlessly.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I wonder if President Regan was the last president to wear morning dress.

President Reagan seen here with Emperor Hirohito:


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> I'm curious to know who you think was the best-dressed American president. I am speaking in terms of how he dressed while "on duty", not during leisure, recreational, or vacation times.
> 
> I should point out that this can be considered both relative to the time period, or absolutely, without regard to the time period.
> 
> Feel free to nominate your worst-dressed candidates, too.


This raises an interesting question: Who was the first president to be depicted in leisure-wear?

My guess would be TR, given all his vigorous hobbies. Taft, coming just after, was photographed in shirtsleeves swinging a golf club. But maybe there's a pic somewhere of McKinley with his jacket off pitching horseshoes or something; I don't know.

Before them, was any president ever depicted (while president--so I'm not talking about woodcuts of Lincoln as a young man splitting rails) in anything other than 'formal' rig (including uniforms for the likes of Washington, Jackson, et al.)?

Obviously the development of cameras capable to taking snapshots would have been a big factor, but I suspect even then there was a lag caused by qualms about depicting leaders in informal poses and situations.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

A lot of people on this forum will mention Reagan, but personally I disagree. He wore very well-made clothes, but his fondness for brown suits disqualifies him. I think GHB was a sharper dresser, but still pales in comparison to FDR whose politics I might not agree with but whose Savile Row wardrobe was phenomenal.

CuffDaddy makes a good point about post-TV presidents trying to look appropriate for the cameras.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

JibranK said:


> CuffDaddy makes a good point about post-TV presidents trying to look appropriate for the cameras.


People often refer to the Nixon JFK televised debate as the moment people realized that appearance had become an important factor in elections on a mass scale.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

And it was one of the moments that led TV professionals to realize that their medium was a "cool" medium, requiring/rewarding restraint, "small" acting, etc. And that generally goes for the clothes/costumes, too. Extremely simple outfits - a 2 piece solid dark suit, dark shoes, light shirt, and the only color in the form of a tie (usually solid-at-a-distance) is what generally looks best on TV. It usually photographs well, too, although photos, like real life, can take a great deal more interest/complexity. 

I think TV has played a powerful (and negative) role in men's dress over the last 50 years. It really has encouraged a denuding approach, with detail/interest/variation being continually pruned away. Most men now watch so much TV that they learn how to dress (and how to talk, how to relate to their families and friends, etc.) from the boob tube.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Obviously the development of cameras capable to taking snapshots would have been a big factor, but I suspect even then there was a lag caused by qualms about depicting leaders in informal poses and situations.


James Polk (#11, 1845-1849) was the first President whose photograph was taken while he was in office (earlier presidents had photographs taken around the same time or later). While this early photographic technology wasn't capable of "snapshots" in the casual sense of the word, as you say, any president could have "posed" for a candid photo if he so chose. But your are spot-on, I believe, with your second point as to why there are no such photos.

Regarding the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates, my understanding (I'm not old enough to recall) was that those who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon won the debate, while those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won the debate.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> James Polk (#11, 1845-1849) was the first President whose photograph was taken while he was in office (earlier presidents had photographs taken around the same time or later). While this early photographic technology wasn't capable of "snapshots" in the casual sense of the word, as you say, any president could have "posed" for a candid photo if he so chose. But your are spot-on, I believe, with your second point as to why there are no such photos.


My understanding of the daguerrotyping process was that you had to hold completely still for a long period of time. Photographers literally had furniture with braces to keep people in place. Doing "action shots" or holding poses under those circs would be tricky.

Here's a posed PR pic of the period, showing John Wilkes Booth and his two brothers in costume for a production of "Julius Caesar." These guys are professional actors (JWB was famous for the athletic skills he brought to the stage), and even their pose is pretty simple (but try holding an arm out or maintaining a facial expression completely unmoving for several minutes like they are doing--not easy):


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Louis Daguerre's original camera required an exposure time of 10 to 30 minutes. This was in 1839. Within a year, the original lens design had been replaced by a new design from inventer Joseph Petzval on Daguerreotype cameras from Voigtländer. This new lens required an exposure time of about 15 to 30 seconds. As I said, this early photographic technology wasn't capable of "snapshots" in the casual sense of the word, but it was within the realm of possibility. I believe the reason why presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries weren't photographed in casual situations or less-than-formal attire is more related to your second point about the inappropriateness of the same rather than any insurmountable technical limitations.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> Regarding the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates, my understanding (I'm not old enough to recall) was that those who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon won the debate, while those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won the debate.


I've heard that, too. Although given the inability of people to agree on who won a debate they watched on the _same_ TV, I suspect that the above, if true, merely means that more Republicans listened on radio and more Democrats on TV.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I've heard that, too. Although given the inability of people to agree on who won a debate they watched on the _same_ TV, I suspect that the above, if true, merely means that more Republicans listened on radio and more Democrats on TV.


Does that say something, though, in and of itself? Such as Republicans, being conservative, were sticking to the tried-and-true technology of radio while Democrats, being liberals, were more willing to try the new-fangled technology of television? :biggrin:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Nixon's problem was makeup: his dark HFreeman suits were always presidential-looking, but the beads of sweat that kept forming on his upper lip were less than confidence inspiring. JFK might have been the best of the modern era: he continued the aristocratic, anglophile WASP look of FDR, but added a softer, natural shoulder silhouette and a slightly trimmer 2 button lapel that had enormous influence. 

Having just looked at a photo of Jimmy Carter in a doubleknit houndstooth jacket and an enormous windsor knot, and throwing in his long sideburns, I think I'll change my "worst" vote from Bill to Jimmy (both have recovered, sartorially speaking, as ex-presidents).


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Consistently the best-dressed IMO (admittedly an older gentlemen less inclined to casual appearances, but remember that he was also a haberdasher prior to entering politics)...









Consistently the one who made me cringe (especially with his casual wear, check out the Presidential ankle socks/Crocs combo)...


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Regarding the first president to be depicted in leisurewear: I have not found the photogrpah on the Internet (yet), but in more than one book I have seen a rare photograph of President Lincoln in what passed for leisurewear during his presidency: a very light-colored linen suit, which he wore during the summer at his vacation home in Georgetown. I remember the first time I saw the picture--it was startling to see President Lincoln dressed completely in a light color instead of the familiar black.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Charles Dana said:


> Ra rare photograph of President Lincoln in what passed for leisurewear during his presidency: a very light-colored linen suit, which he wore during the summer at his vacation home in Georgetown.


This the one?


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Yes! Thank you! Oops--I guess Mr. Lincoln wasn't yet the president at the time the photograph was made, since he doesn't have a beard. Well, perhaps he was the president-elect.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Google images is awesome. "Lincoln linen" got nothing, but "Lincoln white suit" did the trick.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> Louis Daguerre's original camera required an exposure time of 10 to 30 minutes. This was in 1839. Within a year, the original lens design had been replaced by a new design from inventer Joseph Petzval on Daguerreotype cameras from Voigtländer. This new lens required an exposure time of about 15 to 30 seconds. As I said, this early photographic technology wasn't capable of "snapshots" in the casual sense of the word, but it was within the realm of possibility. I believe the reason why presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries weren't photographed in casual situations or less-than-formal attire is more related to your second point about the inappropriateness of the same rather than any insurmountable technical limitations.


Given that info, I'd have to say you're right--it wasn't technical issues. Very interesting bit about the lens; did not know that such a quick improvement was made. Thanks.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Charles Dana said:


> Regarding the first president to be depicted in leisurewear: I have not found the photogrpah on the Internet (yet), but in more than one book I have seen a rare photograph of President Lincoln in what passed for leisurewear during his presidency: a very light-colored linen suit, which he wore during the summer at his vacation home in Georgetown. I remember the first time I saw the picture--it was startling to see President Lincoln dressed completely in a light color instead of the familiar black.


Summer home in Georgetown?

Never heard that. Thought AL's "Camp David" was the Soldiers' Home, which is located pretty much due north of the White House, and well east of Gtown:

The white-suit photo is indeed pre-presidential; it was taken in Beardstown, IL, on 7 May 1858:

PS: The suit is not leisure-wear; it's a warm-weather business suit. AL had been arguing the famous "almanac" case.


----------



## saratoga77 (Jun 23, 2010)

JFK gets the nod from me for attention to detail, and for arguably being the only President to actually win the office partly on the basis of appearance. Although hair and tan don't strictly speaking come under clothing, they do come under appearance and JFK paid very close attention to both. In the case of his tan, he had to since his natural skin colour was quite yellow on account of his Addison's disease. In the case of his hair, apparently he had someone on hand every morning to blow-dry it just the way he liked it. 

Then you look at his 2-button suits with both button nearly always closed even when seated, colours nearly always either black, navy or charcoal, his insistence on nearly always wearing a white shirt (possibly to emphasise his tanned healthy appearance), his simple black brogues, cuff links and slim ties. He never dressed flashy or gimicky, kept it very simply, yet still managed to appear glamorous even when not accompanied by his wife. Sticking with attention to detail, he can often be seen in photos getting off a plane with a hat held in his hand (but hardly ever seen on his head), and the pair of wayfarers were never far away, although I've no idea what he's up to in these aviators in this photo from 1961:



I think actually people have also overlooked Gerald Ford. He wasn't there for long, but he dressed very well too. 

Jimmy Carter easily is the worst dressed for me. You can use the excuse that it was the seventies and that if he'd dressed like Kennedy or Johnson, people would've thought he was a relic of the 60s or 50s. Then again, Reagan didn't really change the way he looked between the 50s and the late 70s and didn't suffer for it. Robert Kennedy showed how you could still dress like JFK but grow your hair a little and create a great late 60s look.

Nixon dressed pretty well except for the odd way his trousers always looked like they were pulled up way too far.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

saratoga77 said:


> I think actually people have also overlooked Gerald Ford. He wasn't there for long, but he dressed very well too.


...Not always.....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Here's a posed PR pic of the period, showing John Wilkes Booth and his two brothers in costume for a production of "Julius Caesar." These guys are professional actors (JWB was famous for the athletic skills he brought to the stage),


In his last act, he really "broke a leg!!"


----------



## saratoga77 (Jun 23, 2010)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> ...Not always.....


This thread is specifically about while on the job. Coming back from golf doesn't count. Thankfully

https://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/usa/images-3/gerald-ford.jpg
https://geraldfordbiography.com/images/gerald_ford.jpg

You could park a car on some of those lapels, but I think he looks damn good - kept the colours dark which was a rare thing in the 70s.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> In his last act, he really "broke a leg!!"


Jumping out of the presidential box onto the stage (abt an 11-ft drop, IIRC) was very much in character for Booth, who was known for his stage leaps. He also insisted on making stage fights as realistic as possible, and was wounded by prop weapons.

As James Swanson says in _Manhunt, _Booth was very much a thrill-seeker. Also, the path from the stage to the back door on Baptist Alley where Booth had his getaway horse placed (Ned Spangler, the hapless stagehand whom JWB ordered to hold it, would go to jail) was by far the shortest way out of the theater.

FWIW (and this is getting into real Lincoln-assassination geekery here, I know) Michael Kaufman suggests in _American Brutus, _his recent life of Booth, that the leg injury might have occurred when Booth's horse fell on slippery ground (it was a rainy night).

A final, clothing-related note: Booth was known for his fine dressing, and did clothes-shopping for his band of conspirators (including the large and somewhat rough-hewn Confederate veteran Lewis Powell) presumably to help them blend in better in downtown Washington and not look so out of place in the elegant Booth's company.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

saratoga77 said:


> Then you look at his 2-button suits with both button nearly always closed even when seated,


Kennedy favored "paddock" jackets, a 2btn style where the buttons are placed a bit higher than normal and both meant to be worn fastened (not just the top button):

https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2007/06/jfks-paddock-model-jackets.html


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> Tom Wolfe claimed JFK got his clothes on Saville Row and that Lyndon Johnson began shopping there after comparing his own clothes and deciding they "lukked lahk i-ron boy uhveralls". That was back in America's pre-stupidocracy day when the trailer-trash voter didn't mind voting for a candidate who actually was better dressed (classier, smarter, better educated, etc.) than they and their Budweiser-swilling ******* friends were. Presidents are no longer so unconstrained in their sartorial choices. </soapbox>


JFK had his suits made by Morgan & Co. on Savile Row where his father was a customer and became one during his tenure as the US Ambassador to Great Britain. I've also read that he wore bespoke shirts by Charvet and that he had the White House maids cut out the tag so that when he changed his shirt throughout the day no one would see he was wearing a French shirt. Of course he was also very fond of Brooks Brothers especially their OCBDs and Repp stripe ties and wore a BB suit on the day of his inauguration.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

saratoga77 said:


> This thread is specifically about while on the job. Coming back from golf doesn't count. Thankfully
> 
> https://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/usa/images-3/gerald-ford.jpg
> https://geraldfordbiography.com/images/gerald_ford.jpg
> ...


Actually he was _very much_ on the job at that moment.
That photo was taken at the Camp David helipad. The President had met the arrival of (then Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger, whom he had summoned for what the UPI refers to as "high level talks" to prepare the President for upcoming talks with Japan, South Korea and the USSR.

And while some might say that Camp David is a more relaxed climate, that certainly did not stop other Presidents from dressing well while there.

The above photograph also taken at the Camp David helipad.

It is interesting to note, too, that all of the photos you link to are posed portraits. None of them are candids.

I distinctly remember the Ford Presidency, and images of him in news footage, as well as still photos. He was often well turned out, but there were other times in which there was quite a bit of room for improvement. (After all, his Presidency did span the heart of the leisure suit era.)


----------



## Theoden (Dec 16, 2009)

If any of you folks would vote for JFK and you live around the NYC area, I suggest you visit* Paul Winston*. He's a member of our forum. He and his father made JFK's and Robert Kennedy's suits.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Warren G. Harding

*W_B*


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of Abraham Lincoln, was the only U.S. president to have been a tailor. His character flaws aside, he was considered to be a very fine dresser.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> Actually he was _very much_ on the job at that moment.
> That photo was taken at the Camp David helipad. The President had met the arrival of (then Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger, whom he had summoned for what the UPI refers to as "high level talks" to prepare the President for upcoming talks with Japan, South Korea and the USSR.
> 
> And while some might say that Camp David is a more relaxed climate, that certainly did not stop other Presidents from dressing well while there.
> ...


The only thing I remember of Gerald Ford's funeral was Tom Brokaw lampooning his plaid suits during his eulogy.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

JibranK said:


> A lot of people on this forum will mention Reagan, but personally I disagree. He wore very well-made clothes, but his fondness for brown suits disqualifies him. I think GHB was a sharper dresser, but still pales in comparison to FDR whose politics I might not agree with but whose Savile Row wardrobe was phenomenal.
> 
> CuffDaddy makes a good point about post-TV presidents trying to look appropriate for the cameras.


I agree: Reagan was awful. I'd never considered Truman before, but after perusing this thread, he has my vote.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

thefancyman said:


> JFK had his suits made by Morgan & Co. on Savile Row where his father was a customer and became one during his tenure as the US Ambassador to Great Britain. I've also read that he wore bespoke shirts by Charvet and that he had the White House maids cut out the tag so that when he changed his shirt throughout the day no one would see he was wearing a French shirt. Of course he was also very fond of Brooks Brothers especially their OCBDs and Repp stripe ties and *wore a BB suit on the day of his inauguration*.


 Untrue. Brooks Brothers has had that misleading story in their "history" section for years, despite being told otherwise and even shown evidence that he wore full morning dress. He also _did_ wear a hat at his inauguration (if not during the actual speech) contrary to some claims.

https://www.snopes.com/history/american/jfkhat.asp


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Mr. Mac said:


> The only thing I remember of Gerald Ford's funeral was Tom Brokaw lampooning his plaid suits during his eulogy.


Both photos taken in the oval office.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Untrue. Brooks Brothers has had that misleading story in their "history" section for years, despite being told otherwise and even shown evidence that he wore full morning dress. He also _did_ wear a hat at his inauguration (if not during the actual speech) contrary to some claims.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/history/american/jfkhat.asp


Thank you for the info. I didn't know that and I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that BB would put that on their website when it was not truthful.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

While reading this enjoyable thread, I couldn't help but notice that my nomination of George Washington for best dressed President went entirely disregarded, so I'd like to make a couple of points in the Father of our Country's favor:
1). when the Continental Congress was trying to figure out how to fight a war against the world's strongest power, Washington showed up every day in a military uniform of his own devising, which surely helped gain him employment as our commanding general (his military record wasn't much). 

2). When he became President, forms and usages were just being devised, and much debated. He could have chosen to dress 
like a king, in ceremonial robes to dignify the office, which was a valid concern. Instead he chose to dress in the relatively plain style of a private gentleman, a Virginia planter. The idea of Cincinnatus, who leaves his estates to save his country, then retires back to the countryside, as GW always longed to do, was important in determining the forms our democracy was to take.

What other president wore clothes so influentially?


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

*President Mackenzie Allen? (2005)*


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Chester A. Arthur was just well dressed because of the mutton chops, the most presidential of all facial hair!


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> While reading this enjoyable thread, I couldn't help but notice that my nomination of George Washington for best dressed President went entirely disregarded, so I'd like to make a couple of points in the Father of our Country's favor:
> 1). when the Continental Congress was trying to figure out how to fight a war against the world's strongest power, Washington showed up every day in a military uniform of his own devising, which surely helped gain him employment as our commanding general (his military record wasn't much).
> 
> 2). When he became President, forms and usages were just being devised, and much debated. He could have chosen to dress
> ...


I've been going to the Smithsonian since I was a small boy; one of my favorite exhibits has always been GW's uni:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=763

If you are fortunate enough to be able to visit the new museum at Mt. Vernon, one of the lifelike effigies of Washington portrays him taking the oath at his first inauguration, in 1789 at Federal Hall on Wall Street in lower Manhattan. He's wearing a suit of brown woolen broadcloth, brown being at that time considered a color eminently appropriate for businesswear.

IIRC, around the time that newly minted VP John Adams, not long back from years spent in and around the royal courts of Europe, was proposing that the president be styled "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and the Protector of the Liberties Thereof," he also proposed sashes for the president and VP, somewhat in the style that many Latin American presidents wear nowadays on high state occasions. JA was laughed out of court, with wags suggesting that he be called "His Rotundity."

You make a good point about GW's influence, but if I could be forgiven a bit of quibbling, we should be careful not to overstate GW's 'democratization' or 'republicanization' of the presidency either, however. He was history's first more or less popularly elected chief executive, and all the protocol he had to draw on was royal in nature. He also firmly believed in hierarchy. He expected to be bowed to and addressed as "Your Excellency," he held "levees" (tracking a royal/aristocratic custom from Europe), traveled the streets in a coach attended by liveried (slave) footmen, and IIRC did sometimes wear a sword with his civvies. There was criticism of some of this at the time from Democratic-Republicans, of course.

Some of this "high-toned" behavior on GW's part was no doubt for political effect. He was leading a very weak and highly novel country based on principles that all the world's great powers hated and reviled. He knew he had to bring it strong and represent the dignity of his country and its high offices to the fullest.

In private life, GW did not always stand on ceremony. There is an anecdote by travelers heading to Mt Vernon (GW once said his home resembled "a well-frequented tavern" w/ all the tourists who came to see him) whose carriage had an accident on the road near the place. They were surprised when the tall older man in a big straw hat who rode up, hopped off his horse, and unceremoniously set to work pulling the rig back upright turned out to be none other than the master of Mt. Vernon himself.

It was Jefferson, a hater of ceremony who received guests at the White House while in slippers, who established that the chief executive would only be called "Mr. President" and greeted only with a handshake, the sign of a meeting between equals (no bowing, scraping, or tugging of forelocks).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Thanks for the interesting and learned fill-in, PJC. I, too, grew up in the DC area, and gazed at that uniform many times. Since I grew up I've marveled at the element of self-invention in GW, surely an American thing. While he was certainly no Jefferson, when it came to forms of greeting and address, to say nothing of a certain abstracted and gentlelmanly disorder in the dress, Jefferson never achieved the lofty disinterestedness of his predecessor, which may excuse a certain stiffness and formality on GWs part.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> Thanks for the interesting and learned fill-in, PJC. I, too, grew up in the DC area, and gazed at that uniform many times. Since I grew up I've marveled at the element of self-invention in GW, surely an American thing. While he was certainly no Jefferson, when it came to forms of greeting and address, to say nothing of a certain abstracted and gentlelmanly disorder in the dress, Jefferson never achieved the lofty disinterestedness of his predecessor, which may excuse a certain stiffness and formality on GWs part.


You might enjoy John Ferling's recent book, _The Ascent of George Washington. _It's not a debunking, but it's not hagiographic either, and it contains carefully documented accounts of some episodes in GW's career (including things that made his early military career, as you say, "not much" to write home about) that show both his disinterested and interest-conscious sides.

It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that GW was an extremely skillful and sharp-elbowed (when he had to be) infighter, and that he also knew how to keep himself out of the line of fire when blame was going around. (Then too, in his Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary careers he had around him a coterie of people--including Alexander Hamilton--who had attached themselves to his star, and who were capable of shielding GW and his reputation w/out GW having to do much directly and personally.)

Ferling, like you, stresses GW's mastery of a kind of self-invention, of which the uniforms were definitely a token. He also shows GW's capacity for learning from his mistakes (even if he avoided acknowledging the mistakes directly, an avoidance not uncommon among public men of all kinds, of course).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Thanks for the tip, PJC: I happen to be looking for a good book right now.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


>


I don't know about best-dressed, but she certainly has the finest cheekbones of any US president (with the possible exception of Chester A. Arthur, of course).

PS: Also the only US president to have co-starred in "Earth Girls Are Easy." Impressive.


----------



## GuardianXF (Dec 30, 2009)

Mr. Mac said:


> Not even close. Barry dresses like a pol.
> 
> Truman was well turned out (he was a haberdasher), but he looked very affected IMO.
> 
> Reagan was a very stylish man. His tailors did a marvelous job of emphasizing his frame. He was at once a visually impressive and imposing man. And he pulled every outfit off effortlessly.


Your political leaning is showing.

OBAMA is a fairly average dresser. No huge mistakes, but nothing superb.

Reagan was fond of Brioni suits, well-known for their powerful silhouettes, and one wonders what the "anti-elitist" voter would think of him were they to know this.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

GuardianXF said:


> Your political leaning is showing.
> 
> OBAMA is a fairly average dresser. No huge mistakes, but nothing superb.
> 
> Reagan was fond of Brioni suits, well-known for their powerful silhouettes, and one wonders what the "anti-elitist" voter would think of him were they to know this.


I'm willing to bet 80-90% of Americans could care less what brand suit a president wears.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> I'm willing to bet 80-90% of Americans could care less what brand suit a president wears.


Would they care about the brand? Maybe not. But they'd care about the price. Think of the unmerciful hell both Clinton and Edwards got over expensive haircuts. People expect their leaders to be effortlessly stylish, handsome, and frugal. We have some wierd values in this country.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

No bet - how about 99.9%? (since it's a bet, you have to watch your language - couldn't care less, or better yet don't know).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Would they care about the brand? Maybe not. But they'd care about the price. Think of the unmerciful hell both Clinton and Edwards got over expensive haircuts. People expect their leaders to be effortlessly stylish, handsome, and frugal. We have some wierd values in this country.


I agree with that. It's been a long time since I've seen a president sporting working buttonholes on his suits, the obvious hallmark of custom made, wisely left off.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Would they care about the brand? Maybe not. But they'd care about the price. Think of the unmerciful hell both Clinton and Edwards got over expensive haircuts. People expect their leaders to be effortlessly stylish, handsome, and frugal. We have some wierd values in this country.


Effortlessly stylish and frugal are wierd values??


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

It's wierd to care about whether a president has _any_ of those values. And perverse to expect him to have them simultaneously.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Effortlessly stylish and frugal are wierd values??


I suspect that what CuffDaddy meant is not that those values are weird; rather, that it's weird to expect them in a president, in the sense that if the man does not live up to those values, then he must obviously be a bad president.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Ideally, it would be great if we could avoid prejudging a person based on his or her appearance, but sadly, this just isn't the case. Therefore, if we see that a man has taken care with his appearance, we expect that he'll also take care with other aspects of his life, and if he's President, that means he'll take care of running the country.

Or maybe CuffDaddy just meant that it's weird to expect "effortlessly stylish" and "frugal" to both be possible at the same time.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

JJR512, you are broadly correct as to my meanings. I had both points in mind. I must take issue with this, though: "Therefore, if we see that a man has taken care with his appearance, we expect that he'll also take care with other aspects of his life, and if he's President, that means he'll take care of running the country."

Set aside the question of whether there's any truth at all in the statement,* I don't think that's what people think or expect *at all*. On the contrary, American have a positive disdain for a man who focuses too much on taking care of his appearance. The emphasis is on being effortless. They want the man who is accidentally handsome. Look at the role of height in presidential elections. Height, of course, has nothing to do with presidential competence, yet it has become a _de facto_ requirement of the office that a president be tall (even more than being in shape is required). We still have some very primal notions about what a "winner" looks like, and we want a "winner" for a president. Of course, that kind of qualification-that-isn't leads to all kinds of perverse, counter-productive decision making about whom we elect.

Frankly, given the fact that we hire based on f***ed-up criteria that have no relation to job performance, treat those that we hire like garbage, and pay them comparatively poorly, it is a wonder that we have enjoyed the quality of chief executives that we've had.

*I don't believe there is... some of the most meticulous craftsmen I've ever met dressed like [email protected], and some of the most exacting dandies I know are thoroughly disordered in their thinking and in their general approach to life. Moreover, neatness of any sort and competence are not as closely linked as some people think. You should check out the book _A Perfect Mess_ if you are someone who believes that "taking care" to preserve order in one's environment is indicative of anything other than a preference for neatness.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I want to make sure it's clear that what you quoted from me is not my own personal statement. What you quoted me saying was an observation of the American public in general, and merely an observation, not necessarily one that is true of myself or that I agree or disagree with.

I also didn't mean to focus as much attention on the level of effort the man puts into his appearance as you did. In retrospect, it may have been more accurate for me to say, "The American public in general probably thinks that a man who looks good will be a good president, and part of 'looking good' includes being well-dressed, but in a subtle way that doesn't shout, 'Look at me, I'm well dressed!'" So that includes the perception of effortlessness.

On the other point, there _can be_, and very often is, a relationship between the level of care a man applies to one aspect of his life and another. This is why so many employers do credit checks on every prospective employee these days. This is why I'm having such a hard time finding a job. My credit is really screwed up because of some bad choices I've made in my personal life. Employers equate personal irresponsibility with professional irresponsibility. Perhaps this is true for many people, but not for all. I've been a damned good employee at every job I've ever had, because when I'm getting paid to do a job, I do it the way my employer is paying me to do it, and they're paying me to not screw it up, so I don't screw it up. Now I'm the one getting screwed because employers aren't looking past the credit score to see how good I really am. Anyway, end of that rant. You're right, there are many notable exceptions to this rule. In fact, I suspect that many of people who were truly excellent in some professional capacity had just as large a failing in some other area of their personal life.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

JJR512, it's probably cold comfort, but there are a h*ll of a lot of millionaires and billionaires who have declared bankruptcy at some point in their lives. Hang in there. 

I think a big part of how credit checks got to be fashionable for employers was to identify people who were more likely to be tempted to committ some sort of dishonest act in an effort to get out from under personal debts - embezzlement, kickbacks, etc. Then, because HR people tend to be a group that focuses on "best practices" (which usually just means "follow the herd") they started doing them on everyone.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Yeah, there's no question that I could greatly personally benefit by stealing money from an employer. The thing is, for me personally, there are two reasons I won't. The first is that I'm smart enough to know that I'm _not_ smart enough to do it and get away with it. The second, and more important reason, is just plain simple integrity. I've worked for an armored truck company, on one evening I had three million bucks pass through my hands in three wrapped bundles of a million dollars in twenties. And 50,000 bills isn't light, let me tell you. But aside from the actual armored truck work, I was also an ATM maintenance tech, responsible for being the first person to respond to an ATM that signaled it was out of order. I had keys to all of a bank's branches in a particular region, and alarm codes, and the keys and codes needed to get into the ATMs, including the machines' cash vaults (which is a separate section of the machine, like a safe, with a passage into the upper electronics section just big enough for the machinery to move bills in and out of). Servicing ATMs was something I did by myself, nobody else looking over my shoulder. And still, nothing ever went missing.

I understand there are "best practices" and generalizations that get made. This is why, I suppose, many women think that when a man starts talking to them out of the blue, the man only wants to get in their pants. This is why all of us have to take off our shoes when going to the airport. This is why I have to be discriminated against because of my credit score, because some people with bad credit would surely steal. But all the rest of us, all us good guys, get screwed because of the few bad guys...*sigh* OK, sorry about all the ranting lately.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Would they care about the brand? Maybe not. But they'd care about the price. Think of the unmerciful hell both Clinton and Edwards got over expensive haircuts. People expect their leaders to be effortlessly stylish, handsome, and frugal. We have some wierd values in this country.


The difference is that $1000 haircut is a _bit _more ridiculous than a $2000 suit. Also, I think some of the outrage was that Clinton's haircut held up LAX.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Look at the role of height in presidential elections. Height, of course, has nothing to do with presidential competence, yet it has become a _de facto_ requirement of the office that a president be tall (even more than being in shape is required). We still have some very primal notions about what a "winner" looks like, and we want a "winner" for a president.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heigh...ntial_candidates#The_taller_candidate_wins.3F

IIRC, Malcolm Gladwell claims in _Blink _that 30% of US corporate CEOs are 6-2 or over, vs. 4% of the general adult-male population. If you made the cutoff of "tall" just 6 feet, I wonder what the %ages would be.

This may not be so new; John Adams once complained that George Washington always got to be head man b/c he was always the tallest person in the room. (Disclaimer: JA had envy issues about other people as well, notably Jefferson, also tall, and Franklin, avg ht, IIRC.)

America has had short 'heroes' before: Stephen Douglas and George McClellan (neither all that fondly remembered by history, I grant you) were both short and sorta celebrated for being so (the Little Giant, the Young Napoleon). And Lincoln I believe was mocked for his height among other things, probably b/c he also seemed awkward and had an Ichabod Crane-like tendency (at least when younger) to wear 'high-water' pants and too-short sleeves. (Tall and gangling is not necessarily a winning social combination.)

But of course it's notorious that even women who aren't especially tall tend to prefer tall men. I've read that if you're under 5-10, Internet dating is nearly impossible simply b/c of the height requirements that so many women set up.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> Also, I think some of the outrage was that Clinton's haircut held up LAX.


Which turned out to be false, but that wasn't as exciting for the media to report.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Consistently the best-dressed IMO (admittedly an older gentlemen less inclined to casual appearances, but remember that he was also a haberdasher prior to entering politics)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You gotta love the presidential seals on the socks!!. That's the summer camp equivalent of your mom writing your name on the elastic of your underwear.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Grayson said:


> Consistently the best-dressed IMO (admittedly an older gentlemen less inclined to casual appearances, but remember that he was also a haberdasher prior to entering politics)...


But HST was known for his casualwear, especially his "Key West" shirts:


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

^^^ NICE! :cool2:

Methinks there would be a market for these shirts today as a counterpoint to the ubiquitous Tommy Bahama... the Coogi sweater of our era.


----------



## DR1V3N (Mar 8, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Ronald Reagan.


Agreed.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Much of this depends on period dress. Go back far enough and you find some truly magnificent clothes, as photos here show, but they no longer make sense and anyone wearing them would be thought of as an unelectable fop, who, among other things, reads and posts in this forum. Another variable is how much attention is paid to clothes. JFK, for example, wore 2-button suits and pointed collars because they flattered him, so even if his dress was unremarkable, it was carefully thought out. Bush, Sr., on the other hand, wore trad clothes with WASP insouciance, and looked terrific in them. Truman was a haberdasher and came to office in a time of bold style that today would be unforgivable. Poor Bill Clinton was clueless and had to be dressed to run for President -- and have his Arkansas big hair trimmed. Running for office, Gore tried too hard for a hipness that did not suit him. And Obama is in office at a time when the electorate, or at least the detail-obsessed media, does care what the President wears. Thus, his proper but boring clothes which, and this is the rub, are made in America. No President can get away with English or Italian tailors today. Still, Obama could do better, for his skinny tall frame is perfect for just about anything. But he would not dare. Look at the flak his wife gets for her very American designer clothes. If there's one thing an American President doesn't need today is flak of any kind. So it's the dark blue suit, the white shirt, the red (or blue) tie and the flag lapel pin. Compare with the late Ted Kennedy in his flash striped shirts. One thing he earned the day he gave up on running for President was wearing clothes with personality.


----------

