Reason for tie dimples?

[JR88]

Is there a historical explanation for dimpling a tie? Or not? I notice that current President Bush never dimples his tie, and never even looks like he's trying to. Why? He has very nice suits (http://www.ebbitt.com/main/home.cfm?...gory=Newsroom). Someone probably tells him not to dimple.

 

[lee_44106]

Strangely, most voters/Americans do not like their political representatives to "dress to well", i.e., dimple in tie, well fitted suit with shirt cuff-showing, elegant shoes, that type of stuff. Too dandy, fussy.

We like the politicians to be down to earth, to project that hometown boy/girl vibe, something trustworthy, even though deep down we all know that they are scumbags, each and everyone of them.

 

[grimslade]

Chris Dodd and John Edwards dimple. I bet Arlen Specter does too.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

To make up for the lack of those on each side of your face.

 

[Brian278]

Originally Posted by lee_44106

Strangely, most voters/Americans do not like their political representatives to "dress to well", i.e., dimple in tie, well fitted suit with shirt cuff-showing, elegant shoes, that type of stuff. Too dandy, fussy.

We like the politicians to be down to earth, to project that hometown boy/girl vibe, something trustworthy, even though deep down we all know that they are scumbags, each and everyone of them.

Exactly. I think it may also have to do with the tradition of rejecting leaders (the monarchy) that were entirely preoccupied with appearances, and the sort of "humble politician" ideal that we eat up and politicians love to feed us. There's a large chunk of America that distrusts wealth, and the stylists know it, even though the vast majority of our upper-level politicians are rich by almost any standard.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Brian278

Exactly. I think it may also have to do with the tradition of rejecting leaders (the monarchy) that were entirely preoccupied with appearances, and the sort of "humble politician" ideal that we eat up and politicians love to feed us. There's a large chunk of America that distrusts wealth, and the stylists know it, even though the vast majority of our upper-level politicians are rich by almost any standard.

Which is why dubya was able to market the idea that he was "˜a Washington outsider', when of course nothing could be further from the truth.

Jon.

 

[JR88]

Originally Posted by Brian278

Exactly. I think it may also have to do with the tradition of rejecting leaders (the monarchy) that were entirely preoccupied with appearances, and the sort of "humble politician" ideal that we eat up and politicians love to feed us. There's a large chunk of America that distrusts wealth, and the stylists know it, even though the vast majority of our upper-level politicians are rich by almost any standard.

If it's true (and it probably is) that he's not dimpling because his people are telling him that John Q. Jacksonian doesn't like it, then why spend 3000 on a suit?

Maybe buying nice suits is W's way of rebelling against his handlers. I bet he likes wearing nice clothes and secretly wishes he could dimple.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by JR88

If it's true (and it probably is) that he's not dimpling because his people are telling him that John Q. Jacksonian doesn't like it, then why spend 3000 on a suit?

Maybe buying nice suits is W's way of rebelling against his handlers. I bet he likes wearing nice clothes and secretly wishes he could dimple.

Or maybe he is more comfortable on the "˜ranch' and wishes he could shed all those suits forever?

Jon.

 

[lee_44106]

Originally Posted by Brian278

Exactly. I think it may also have to do with the tradition of rejecting leaders (the monarchy) that were entirely preoccupied with appearances, and the sort of "humble politician" ideal that we eat up and politicians love to feed us. There's a large chunk of America that distrusts wealth, and the stylists know it, even though the vast majority of our upper-level politicians are rich by almost any standard.


"Vast majority"?

I would say ALL of them scumbags are rich, by almost any standards.

If they were not rich going in, they sure are rolling in dough while incumbent, and certainly after they've finished their terms.

 

[SUPER K]

You can judge a politican by dimple placment, left center right

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by SUPER K

You can judge a politican by dimple placment, left center right

If only.

Jon.

 

[HomerJ]

Originally Posted by lee_44106

"Vast majority"?

I would say ALL of them scumbags are rich, by almost any standards.

If they were not rich going in, they sure are rolling in dough while incumbent, and certainly after they've finished their terms.

How do you figure? Why in 2004, you could vote for a multimillionaire from Yale or a multimillionaire from Yale.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by HomerJ

How do you figure? Why in 2004, you could vote for a multimillionaire from Yale or a multimillionaire from Yale.

Well, at least we get to choose from the full spectrum of American society. I mean, who better to represent everyone than multimillionaires that went to Yale. I mean that's a pretty diverse group, right, right?

Jon.

 

[j]

Originally Posted by JR88

Is there a historical explanation for dimpling a tie? Or not? I notice that current President Bush never dimples his tie, and never even looks like he's trying to. Why? He has very nice suits (http://www.ebbitt.com/main/home.cfm?...gory=Newsroom). Someone probably tells him not to dimple.
I'm surprised he can even tie it

 

[TCN]

Originally Posted by HomerJ

How do you figure? Why in 2004, you could vote for a multimillionaire from Yale or a multimillionaire from Yale.

Well c'mon, in all fairness the two multi-millionaires that were the VP candidates didn't go to Yale . . . did they?