Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Hobo, post: 314579, member: 11521"]These men looked the way they looked. Unfortunately, they were in office before photography was perfected so we are stuck with a limited number of portraits of them instead of nearly limitless photographs as with modern Presidents.  Styles (hair and clothing) were different back then. The earliest Presidents wore wigs (see Washington). The early hairstyles were also different from today. In 200 years today's hairstyles will probably look hideous (especially the greased mini-spikes style - ughh!).  The clothing of the day was also different. Men's collars were high and broad. They wore pants that stopped below the knees with stockings below. These coins depict the men as they actually looked during their presidency. Do you propose we modify their appearance to make them adhere to "today's standard"? I see nothing wrong with using a depiction of the Presidents as they actually appeared; in fact, anything else borders on deception.  These men were elected back when a candidate's views and convictions were more important to voters than how they appear on television (Kennedy - Nixon). I say the coins should depict the Presidents as they looked no matter how hideous they appear as compared to today's standards.  Does anyone else remember the hoopla surrounding the redesign of the $20 FRN a few years ago when Jackson's hair was reigned in to make it less wild looking? To me this is the same thing.[/QUOTE]