1 February 1913 “A Simple Breakfast of Bacon, Eggs, & Toast: 1913 & 1955 Not So Simple”

I was thinking the other morning as I prepared our breakfast of bacon, eggs, and toast how vastly different was this activity for my 1913 self to my 1955 self? And I began to consider in what ways they would differ. In both circumstances I would be at home, that would be without question, I am assuming. Though I feel my 1913 counterpart would have had the benefit of at least a ‘maid of all work’. But, a middle class homemaker in 1913 would most likely still be the main chef in her own kitchen simply having the maid serve as her assistant.

Let’s start with toast. That simple joy of warmed and crispy bread There they sit brown and lovely waiting for their lashings of butter and jam. I love them cut into little strips, (soldiers) to be dipped into my 3 minute egg.

My current toaster is, in fact, a 1950’s model. So my 1955 self would quite easily pop her pre-sliced bread into the slots and press down the lever without a second thought. In fact in many movies of the times such as 1930’s/40s Dagwood movies and Leave it to Beaver in the late 1950’s we see the toaster on the breakfast table. Homemakers often followed this example. Even mother at home alone with baby enjoyed her table top luxury of toast at the ready.

While toast for my 1913 self might be a different animal all together.

Most likely I used wither a stove top toaster or a fork before the fire. Here is an example of a 1909 Edison toaster with Edison screw fitting. Such fittings would screw into a central hanging light fixture which was a sort of early outlet. As electricity made it into some kitchens the outlet overhead was often the source of ‘plugging in’ any appliance. Usually an adaptor would be screwed in to hold a light bulb and either a place to plug or screw in such appliances as this toaster.

Of course a homemaker in 1913 would most likely use either the old manner of a toast fork holding the bread over the range grate opening and turning to brown or else a stove top toaster such as this. I actually have one of these for a gas range which Bessie uses in her little cottage today rather than a modern electric toaster.

One needs bacon and therefore we would need to have that stored somewhere. In 1955 the rashers would come wrapped in plastic or brown paper from the local butcher and live in the refrigerator. My 1913 homemaker would most likely have a slab of salted and cured bacon in her pantry from which she might cut her daily rashers or she would simply get them cut, as needed, from the local butcher and keep them in her icebox. Though not for as long as a 1950’s homemaker may consider with her option of freezer.

So, onto refrigeration:

 Although this type of refrigerator here was used in 1913 it would have only been used on a commercial scale. Therefore the ice box would have been my means of keeping foods in 1913. The electric refrigeration available in 1913 would have been considered not only too expensive but too dangerous for home use and it wasn’t really until the use  in the 1920’s of Freon (the DuPont patented name for chlorofluorocarbon, which today has been phased out as it depletes the ozone layer.) that refrigerators in home use was prevalent in this country

This would have been more likely my kitchen companion. A wooden exterior but metal lined and insulated ice box. The ice would sit at the top, as cool temperatures will fall below the rising heat. And this gentleman would have been my weekly visitor, the iceman. Though rural homes may have kept an ice house, an outbuilding often partially in the ground or a shady north facing area to house larger quantities of ice packed in sawdust or straw and usually harvested locally from ponds and lakes.

If one had the money and space the approaches to improving the use of icebox (even being called refrigeration) were available. Here we see the homemaker or servant not even having to deal with the ice man and his dirt as he supplies the cooking blocks through an outdoor opening.

For myself in my current location, which would be even more rural in 1913, I feel I may have had a combination of both ice man and some outdoor storage of ice collected from the mill pond in my little village.

This would be the ideal for my 1955 counterpart and much more a reality for the American middle class homemaker. Interestingly enough, as I have mentioned many times in my 1950’s posts, I would most likely still refer to my modern miracle the refrigerator as the ‘ice box’. In fact, I took up the habit in my ‘55 year and find it hard to stop to this day. I recall my own mother (I had older parents) often referred to it as the ice box.

Being a homemaker in 1955 I would certainly have remembered the change over from the ice box to the refrigerator in my 1920’s childhood. And perhaps would have still seen one as a secondary device in my childhood kitchen or perhaps relegated to the basement.

This of course brings to mind consumption. My 1913 life would not have the ability to have the vast quantity of food bought at once and stored for months. With no freezer and only basic cooling from the ice box, food was addressed in a more daily fashion. With the aid of canning and preserving for long storage, such things as eggs, milk, and butter would have been treated and viewed quite differently by my 1913 me than my 1955. In fact my 1913 me would happily keep my eggs out on the counter and not bother with the ice box space for them while my 1955 me may have an egg portions specifically built into my new refrigerator.

That is why the real me, in some ways, actually has more in common in these few things with the 1913 me. I keep chickens and have a fresh supply of eggs for the picking in my back yard. This would have been true even for a more suburban woman in 1913 but very rare for the 1955 woman unless she was a farmer. And I too keep my eggs out on the counter in a wire basket or wooden egg holder rather than take up my own small refrigeration space. I gave up my large refrigerator last year in lieu of a small under counter dorm size fridge. This allows me to keep my shopping costs down and to force me to be more creative in meal planning and weekly marketing.

Post WWII in America the modern notion of consumerism was born. That was slowly and sometimes painfully revealed to me as I continued to live and learn futher in the 1950’s. As the years passed from 55-58 the sheer number of pre-packaged foods, soft drinks, products for health, beauty, cleaning, clothing, bedding, furniture, appliances, cars, homes, carpeting, the list could go on and on continued to appear. To my pre World War self the very concept of such things would not only be hard to grasp but seem wasteful beyond belief. Items bought to be disposed of would have not only seemed odd but sinful to my 1913 counterpart.

As I continued to imagine the differing process of my simple eggs, bacon and toast breakfast I also began to consider how I would be cooking those eggs. Most likely my cooking would be done on a stove similar to this. It would be either wood fired or more than likely coal fired.

I would empty my ash pit by hand. Were it a wood fire it would go onto the garden, as compost, but most likely the coal would simply be thrown out as it contained toxic waste even a 1913 wife would know was no good for the garden. My warm water for the house would be in the water tank. It would be either spouted for simply pouring into pans or plumbed into my one bathroom to have the ‘luxury’ of hot water on tap for basin washes and a once a week bath.

Though some stoves, as this ad here depicts, would have been also plumbed in for easier ash removal.

You can see how it is designed to go through the floor boards into a cellar or basement into an ash receptacle.   

If there was electricity in my town I might be lucky enough to have a stove similar to this electric model from 1900. This look will become more the norm as we move into the later teens for gas and propane style stoves. And the move to gas over coal/wood was certainly happening at this time. And I may have even been lucky enough to have such a gem as this stove here.

This manual is free and available in the Library under Vintage Magazines & Manuals Here.

The choice for my 1955 counterpart would be far greater and with so many styles and colors to choose from including pinks and blues and in broken up configurations for stovetop/hob and ovens

Of course in my 1950’s kitchen I may simply make my eggs and bacon on my easy to use plug in electric skillet. In fact I could prepare the eggs and bacon and toast all easily at the table while I visited with hubby and my electric percolator would also happily be chugging away. Certainly there is far more conveniences in my 1950’s kitchen and morning prep work.

This also made me consider fuel costs. I found this online book which outlines fuel costs from 1913.

Here we see cost of coal powered stove in 1913 would have been around $7.73. Adjusted for inflation that would be around $180.00 dollars in 2013 money. The cost of the average utility bill monthly in 1955 would be around $10 or in today’s money, $85.47.

The average gas prices, which one could also have some gas heat and cooking, would be around .95 cents a month in 1913 or about $22.00 in today’s money.

I could find no data for 1913 for electricity costs as it was relatively new and often provided locally at varying rates. It had not been made a unified monopoly under single company ownership as it would do in the future.

In some ways costs for fuel would be less in 1950s Post War prosperity but many more uses for the power and newer more open homes and less clothing meant a greater use of that fuel. A 1913 family would not have known the heated home in the same way as their 1955 counterpart and when it was cold they simply put on more layers over their already ample ones.

What is unfortunate for us today as that many have a larger style home more familiar to the 1913 middle class but with the open floor plan of the 1955 home and with an increases desire for luxury and heat of the 1950’s as well as vastly increased prices in fuel and certainly far less clothing. An odd mix, when one considers it.

This would be a ktichen set up I may have in 1913

While we know the 1950’s counterpart had every choice from ultra modern such as the Monsanto corp version at 1950’s Disneyland

   To an attempt at the 1900s look but with modern conveniences:

Even then, in the 1950’s, we were looking back amongst our conveniences to a simpler time.

And despite all the cutting edge, easy to clean kitchens of the 1950’s the comforting home allure of wood-fired cooking, big rag rugs and hand pump sinks were still in the consciousness of the country and could be called upon to sell an idea and a product. The processed machine made chicken soup of Campbell’s was made all the more appealing in this 1950’s ad by drawing on the memory of Grandma’s warm kitchen filled with love and antiquated appliances.

Today, rather we are more drawn to the nostalgia of the chrome and vinyl of the 1950’s kitchen or the wooden hearth of the 1913 version, we may want to stop and ask ourselves, “what is really behind the draw?” Is it simply a need to acquire and re-decorate or are we inside longing for a time which we feel was simpler and more honest. And rather or not that time truly was what is in our imaginings of it, is it not still a valid goal to try and simplify our lives with less money worry and the safety of more knowledge.

Understanding where we come from and how we got to where we are is important. Seeing the flaws of the present and the flaws of the past can aid us in finding ways to change those. A simple band-aid over a heart-attack seems an ill planned solution to a serious diagnosis. So, simply acquiring the past in objects to sit on shelves may not be the real solution to a problem we may feel our present currently suffers from. I think we owe it to ourselves to see that real solutions can come at our own hands, be they simply growing more of our own food, keeping chickens, or simply turning off that TV or saving that $5 rather than buying one more inferior product we don’t need. The pull of the past can be strong and the desire to surrond ourselves with their objects may help and be a boon to the real solution of simply asking ourselves how can we do the more sensible and logical things that once happened in the past? It doesn’t have to stay buried there, we live in a time of so many choices why not start making the right ones.

I hope all have a lovely day.

27 January 1913 “Mother and Child: Wings and the Child by E. Nesbitt, Maternity Clothes, Nursing & Life and Death Then and Now and Read and Watch “The Railway Children”

Today we look at mother and child in 1913.

Mother hood certainly had its differences in 1913 compared to today, the SUV filled with TV screens or hand-held computers were a long way off from the mother in 1913.

I wanted to share this adorable and interesting book. It was written by Edith Nesbitt and is entitled: Wings and the Child. E. Nesbitt was an English author and poet, who wrote or collaborated on more than 60 works of fiction for children, several of which have been adapted for film and television and are still popular today.

This book, Wings and the Child, is so interesting. It contains cities and little tableaux built from household things. It is also thoughts and considerations on raising children and fostering their imgaination. This was a very new concept at the time, focusing on imagination as an important part of education. This book is well worth a look and you can download it for Free. I will put it in the Library under Children's books Here.

Here is what Nesbitt said of the book herself:

"When this book first came to my mind it came as a history and theory of the building of Magic Cities on tables, with bricks and toys and little things such as a child may find and use. But as I kept the thought by me it grew and changed, as thoughts will do, until at last it took shape as an attempt to contribute something, however small and unworthy, to the science of building a magic city in the soul of a child, a city built of all things pure and fine and beautiful." -- E. Nesbit

And here is an interesting bit from the book that I thought was worth reprinting here. I like how she discusses the ‘new’ availability of mass produced clothes and toys and how they are not in fact boon to imagination. This really struck me as we often discussed this in my 1950s blog as well.

 

When people's lives were rooted in their houses and their gardens they were also rooted in their other possessions. And these possessions were thoughtfully chosen and carefully tended. You bought furniture to live with, and for your children to live with after you. You became familiar with it—it was adorned with memories, brightened with hopes; it, like your house and your garden, assumed then a warm friendliness of intimate individuality. In those days if you wanted to be smart, you bought a new carpet and curtains: now you "refurnish the drawing-room." If you have to move house, as you often do, it seems cheaper to sell most of your furniture and buy other, than it is to remove it, especially if the moving is caused by a rise of fortune.

I do not attempt to explain it, but there is a certain quality in men who have taken root, who have lived with the same furniture, the same house, the same friends for many years,[35]
[36] which you shall look for in vain in men who have travelled the world over and met hundreds of acquaintances. For you do not know a man by meeting him at an hotel, any more than you know a house by calling at it, or know a garden by walking along its paths. The knowledge of human nature of the man who has taken root may be narrow, but it will be deep. The unrooted man who lives in hotels and changes his familiars with his houses, will have a shallow familiarity with the veneer of acquaintances; he will not have learned to weigh and balance the inner worth of a friend.

FURNITURE TO LIVE WITH.

In the same way I take it that a constant succession of new clothes is irritating and unsettling, especially to women. It fritters away the attention and exacerbates their natural frivolity. In other days when clothes were expensive, women bought few clothes, but those clothes were meant to last, and they did last. A silk dress often outlived the natural life of its first wearer. The knowledge that the question of dress will not be one to be almost weekly settled tends to calm the nerves and consolidate the character. Clothes are very cheap now—therefore women buy many new dresses, and throw the shoddy things away when, as they soon do, they grow shabby.[37] Men are far more sensible. Every man knows the appeal of an old coat. So long as women are insensible to the appeal of an old gown, they need never hope to be considered, in stability of character, the equals of men.

The passion for ornaments—not ornament—is another of the unsettling factors in an unsettling age. The very existence of the "fancy shop" is not only a menace to, but an attack on the quiet dignity in the home. The hundreds of ugly, twisted, bizarre fancy articles which replace the old few serious "ornaments" are all so many tokens of the spirit of unrest which is born of, and in turn bears, our modern civilisation.

It is not, alas! presently possible for us as a nation to return to that calmer, more dignified state when the lives of men were rooted in their individual possessions, possessions adorned with memories of the past and cherished as legacies to the future. But I wish I could persuade women to buy good gowns and grow fond of them, to buy good chairs and tables, and to refrain from the orgy of the fancy shop. So much of life, of thought, of energy, of temper is taken up with the continual change of dress, house, furniture, ornaments, such a constant twittering of nerves goes on about all these[38] things which do not matter. And the children, seeing their mother's gnat-like restlessness, themselves, in turn, seek change, not of ideas or of adjustments, but of possessions. Consider the acres of rubbish specially designed for children and spread out over the counters of countless toy-shops. Trivial, unsatisfying things, the fruit of a perverse and intense commercial ingenuity: things made to sell, and not to use.

When the child's birthday comes, relations send him presents—give him presents, and his nursery is littered with a fresh array of undesirable imbecilities—to make way for which the last harvest of the same empty husks is thrust aside in the bottom of the toy cupboard. And in a couple of days most of the flimsy stuff is broken, and the child is weary to death of it all. If he has any real toys, he will leave the glittering trash for nurse to put away and go back to those real toys.

When I was a child in the nursery we had—there were three of us—a large rocking horse, a large doll's house (with a wooden box as annexe), a Noah's Ark, dinner and tea things, a great chest of oak bricks, and a pestle and mortar. I cannot remember any other toys that pleased us. Dolls came and went, but[39] they were not toys, they were characters, and now and then something of a clockwork nature strayed our way—to be broken up and disemboweled to meet the mechanical needs of the moment. I remember a desperate hour when I found that the walking doll from Paris had clockwork under her crinoline, and could not be comfortably taken to bed. I had a black-and-white china rabbit who was hard enough, in all conscience, but then he never pretended to be anything but a china rabbit, and I bought him with my own penny at Sandhurst Fair. He slept with me for seven or eight years, and when he was lost, with my play-box and the rest of its loved contents, on the journey from France to England, all the dignity of my thirteen years could not uphold me in that tragedy.

It is a mistake to suppose that children are naturally fond of change. They love what they know. In strange places they suffer violently from home-sickness, even when their loved nurse or mother is with them. They want to get back to the house they know, the toys they know, the books they know. And the loves of children for their toys, especially the ones they take to bed with them, should be scrupulously respected. Children nowadays[40] have insanitary, dusty Teddy Bears. I had a "rag doll," but she was stuffed with hair, and was washed once a fortnight, after which nurse put in her features again with a quill pen, and consoled me for any change in her expression by explaining that she was "growing up." My little son had a soap-stone mouse, and has it still.

The fewer toys a child has the more he will value them; and it is important that a child should value his toys if he is to begin to get out of them their full value. If his choice of objects be limited, he will use his imagination and ingenuity in making the objects available serve the purposes of such plays as he has in hand. Also it is well to remember that the supplementing of a child's own toys by other things, lent for a time, has considerable educational value. The child will learn quite easily that the difference between his and yours is not a difference between the attainable and the unattainable, but between the constant possession and the occasional possession. He will also learn to take care of the things which are lent to him, and, if he sees that you respect his possessions, will respect yours all the more in that some of them are, now and then, for a time and in a sense, his.

THE TURQUOISE TEMPLE.

The generosity of aunts, uncles, and relations generally should be kindly but firmly turned into useful channels. The purchase of "fancy" things should be sternly discouraged.

With the rocking horse, the bricks, the doll's house, the cart or wheel-barrow, the tea and dinner set, the Noah's Ark and the puzzle maps, the nursery will be rudimentarily equipped. The supplementary equipment can be added as it is needed, not by the sporadic outbursts of unclish extravagance, but by well-considered and slow degrees, and by means in which the child participates. For we must never forget that the child loves, both in imagination and in fact, to create. All his dreams, his innocent pretendings and make-believes, will help his nature to unfold, and his hands in their clumsy efforts will help the dreams, which in turn will help the little hands.

I like how she points out that less is more for children concerning toys and imagination as too, is it for ladies and clothes. Now, speaking of clothes a newer advertised product for women of the early 1900’s was maternity clothes. Though various garments were worn during pregnancy by women, most often women, when showing, went into a ‘lying in’ phase where what she wore mattered little as she was seen by only some family and servants.

However, in 1904 Lane Bryant, the clothing manufacturer and retailer, advertised the first Maternity clothes. Prior to this, pregnancy was not discussed in fact the word ‘pregnant’ was never said in mixed company. In fact I even recall my own mother saying that her mother told her  ‘a lady doesn’t say ‘pregnant’ but ‘expecting’”.

Prior to this the new clothing store Lane Bryant wasn’t allowed to advertise maternity clothes. In fact clothes for pregnant women were made to give the woman a more slimming appearance so as not to draw attention to the fact that she was expecting. But after 1904 this had changed and so here in 1913 such advertising is more common. With 1913 fashions, in general, beginning to take a more looser style with a higher waist, maternity clothes are here to stay, though nothing like one would see today of course. Here we see such an ad for the new maternity wear at a cost of  8.50 (Today that would be roughly $430) and these clothes would be more for the upper and middle classes.

And by 1914 we already see the appearance of ready-made nursing ‘waists’. A shirt waist or ‘waist’ were a ladies blouse. And in many ways as of the turn of the century were one of the new manufactured and more affordable mass marketed products for women. Having mainly worn full dresses, the shirtwaist allowed more ease for the wearer and the ability to mix and match with skirts. This also allowed manufacturers to offer clothes at lower prices by simply have more simple shapes and less material. We already see what we see in spades today in that styles begin to be dictated not by what women want but what is less expensive and easier to mass produce. Today’s shorter and more shocking styles are as much about the ‘bottom line’ as they ever were about social commentary on the women’s freedoms or changing social mores.

It’s also of note in this advert that the women are clearly shown actually nursing the child. Not in any shocking way but such an image in an American 1950’s magazine would actually have been considered shocking. Though the general perceived sophistication of those in the 1950’s would have appeared greater than their 1913 counterparts, in fact such a display as a nursing mother would not have been considered ‘appropriate’ in a ladies magazine of the 1950s. We do seem an odd mix, we modern people, of contradictions.

The working classes, as was often the case, hadn’t the money nor time to have the shock and social faux pas to worry about pregnancy. When families often lived in very small proximity or were the children of farmers, the birds and bees and birth were much a daily part of their life. They would have also seen nursing mothers in a much more revealing way than their middle and upper class peers would have imagined. The children of the working classes would have rather opened the eyes of the innocence of the middle and upper classes had they had opportunity to chat; which of course they did not.

A harsh reality that existed for mother and child in 1913 was death. The mortality rates of children were still rather high and mother’s would, more so than today, face often the loss of one child. An interesting connection with breast feeding was the move in the upper classes to artificially feed their children. Up until the Edwardian Age, upper class women often had wet nurses to feed their offspring, thereby still giving them human made nutrition. But, by 1913 it was deemed more fashionable to use the new formulas and to bottle a baby much earlier than their Victorian or earlier counterparts would have even considered. This went on despite such findings such as this:

“A study of breastfeeding patterns in Derbyshire, England between January 1917 and December 1922 illustrates the connection between breastfeeding and infant health outcomes. It was found that most infant deaths occurred in the first few months of life and significantly increased in the first month of artificial feeding. In fact, twenty-two percent of infants died in the first month of life and fifty percent of
all infant deaths occurred in the first three months of life”.

This familiarity with death ran both ways, of course, and the child could often be left mother-less. Death in childbirth was part of many unfortunate children’s lives.

Here we see this illustrated in the 1900 painting by artist Edvard Munch (of the famous ‘the scream’ painting) He lost his mother as a child and this painting depicts that sad even with his little sister trying to block out the reality of their recently passed mother in bed.

Death and how burial and grief was dealt with in 1913 would seem very alien today. People often convalesced at home and when passed, rather in sickness, childbirth, or simply from old age, did so at home in their own beds. In many ways, though we have more ways to stave off death today, there is something to be said for passing surrounded by loved ones in your own home. In fact we may laugh today at those in the past not saying Pregnant or trying to hide it from others and children, yet we do something quite similar with children today in dealing with or being aware of death. Certainly children then, of all classes, were far more familiar with death than those of today. Though conversely the brutal fictional killings and torture seen on the big and small screen rather often by children today would certainly scare a child in 1913. The portrayal and in fact the down right celebration of torture and killing in our culture would seem like the worst horror fairy stories coming to light to a child of 1913. Actual death and knowing of passing and even a familiarity with a corpse would and could have been a part of a child in 1913 yet this very natural process would be inconceivable to present to a child of today. But that same child will most likely casually watch shows picturing brutal deaths and even serial killing in their own homes with their parents. Particularly if these children have teen siblings who will not know better than to have such things on in front of younger siblings while both parents are off working or simply distracted by their own forms of social media.

As usual I find good and bad in both the past and the present but I can’t help but wonder if in some ways we have our wires crossed today. We have the ability to keep people more healthy and to live longer, yet the costs become far too high for some. This isn’t even a matter of insurance costs but that cost of the actual medications, procedures, and hospital stays. Perhaps insurance coverage should be only part of the discussion but also include costs and how we deal with the act of healing and where it should take place. But, I digress.

Now, to end on a happier note, here is another free book available by Edith Nesbit, published in serial form in a magazine in 1906. It is entitled The Railway Children and is available to read or download for free and I will put it in the Library under Children’s Books here. It was also made into a wonderful film and here is the first part. The rest can be seen HERE on my channel. Have a lovely day all.

 

25 January 1913 “First Sedan Style Car, Electric Cars, the Model T, and William M. Burton Cracks Petroleum for Standard Oil”

  This year, 1913, Hudson car company introduced the first Sedan style cars. That is a car with distinct motor, passenger, and storage areas and looked less and less like a carriage with no horses.

“The Hudson Motor Car Company was started in early 1909 by a group of Detroit businessmen headed by Roy Chapin. Chapin had previously worked with Ransom E. Olds (of Oldsmobile and REO fame) and had decided to produce an automobile that could be sold for under $1,000. Since this group was funded primarily by department store owner Joseph L. Hudson, the Hudson Motor Car Company was born. The first car, the Hudson Twenty was one of the first moderately priced cars in America and was very successful, with over 4000 produced in the first year. The company grew quickly thanks to several innovations like the first “idiot lights” rather than gauges to warn of oil pressure or generator issues. They were also the first to introduce a balanced crankshaft which allowed the Hudson engine to run smoothly at much higher RPM’s than their competitors. This rapid company growth also saw the Hudson price increase and Roy Chapin, realizing that they were straying from the formula that had brought them success, started the Essex Motor company in the late teens as a subsidiary of Hudson to provide a lower price alternative to the Hudson.”

This Hudson would be the last year they offered a 4 cylinder engine and would,starting next year 1914, begin the 6 cylinder. This car was an internal combustion engine as well.

In fact, in 1913 most cars were Electric. Most people actually preferred the electric cars as they were easy to operate (no cranking, and less parts such as no shifting gears) and they did not smell. In many cases they were preferred by ladies as they were thought to be more refined and generally more safe.

Here is Henry Ford and Edison with an electric car from this year, 1913.

Here are a few ads one would see this year in various periodicals.

This interesting article talks about a car going 104 miles, in bad roads then, as well, the did not have smooth interestate paved highways then, on one charge! (You can click on image to enlarge and read)

I had forgot that during my brief time in 1933 I stumbled upon electric cars. I had let it slip from my conscious that we had, indeed, rather reliable electric cars longer than we had gas driven.

And don’t think they were simply low powered compared to the gasoline engine, for their were also heavy duty pulling and carrying trucks as well. Here we see an ad for such an electric truck and that the prices are also going down.

The cost of cars were still such that they were mainly the province of the wealthy but the middle and upper middle classes were more likely to begin to afford them this year. A car could run from around $600 to $3000 depending on the make and model. Adjusted for inflation today that would run you around $14,000 to $70,000. Oddly enough that seems to be similar to car prices today for new cars. Yet, in the 20’s and into the 1950’s car prices were greatly reduced and even working class families in the 1920’s had no problem owning a car.

Henry Ford’s Model T was, however, a more affordable car. And his cars continued to go down in price as the years lead into and past WWI. Here is the assembly line in a Model T plant in 1913.

By 1914, the assembly process for the Model T had been so streamlined it took only 93 minutes to assemble a car. That year Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 50 percent of all cars in the world were Fords. It was so successful that Ford did not purchase any advertising between 1917 and 1923; more than 15 million Model Ts were manufactured, reaching a rate of 9,000 to 10,000 cars a day in 1925, or 2 million annually, more than any other model of its day, at a price of just $240. Model T production was finally surpassed by the Volkswagen Beetle on February 17, 1972.

Henry Ford’s approach to auto making was getting right, making a reliable affordable car and sticking with it. However, the other car companies began to offer more color options, different seating and other ‘extras’ while simultaneously building cars to not be as reliable and having more ‘bells an whistles’ than practicality.

Ford’s Model T was so well built and even used some innovative technology such as its use of vanadium steel alloy. Though Ford no longer makes parts for the Model T, many private makers still do to this day, as these cars continue to run and run and many owners simply replace parts to keep them on the road. A Model T in 1913 had dropped to $550 from it’s 1909 price of $850. By the 1920’s it had fallen to $260 (adjusted for inflation in the 1920s that would be similar to $3,400. We, unfortunately, have no similarly priced new cars in today’s market.)

 

Now, concerning gasoline, this year, 1913, on the 7th William Burton, a scientist and vice president of Standard Oil’s Indiana Refinery, patented a process for Cracking petroleum. Prior to this the production of gasoline was very inefficient. Only one fourth of crude oil could be turned into gasoline using the traditional heating method. That made the price too high.

The process he found used both high heat and high pressure which operated at 700–750 °F (371–399 °C) and an absolute pressure of 90 psi (620 kPa)This was not completely well received and one local reporter remarked, “Burton wants to blow the whole state of Indiana into Lake Michigan.”

Here I am only just beginning 1913 and I wonder what lays ahead. I recall in 1933 the similarities in some things became to heavy and insufferable for me to go on. Some of the mistakes and the parallels to last year were so great it literally made me ill and I had to stop. Here I see this discussion of cracking in petroleum and I can’t help but think of today’s discussion of Fracking and Tar sands. How much will the past and present parallel one another. And can we, this year, perhaps learn some things that are in a way a crystal ball to what we may expect to see in our futures. And, further on, if these ‘past prophecies’ prove wrong, will we have the ability or wherewithal to change. Or even, really, the power to do so? I am not sure.

I well continue to look at basic history, politics, and invention this year as well as homemaking to see how far we have come and what improvements there truly are. I am getting rather excited at the prospect and a bit curious to see how greatly 2013 and 1913 may mirror one another.

Until next time, have a lovely day.