Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

[Couvi]

I suppose it depends on what we think of as average which makes it a very hard question to answer. Certainly the rural and urban poor of 1920 had a much lower standard of living than virtually any "poor" people in America today and they wouldn't have had automobiles. There were also many more of them. Probably most of what we would think of as the "middle class" did have cars by 1920 although in purchasing power they would be closer to the "upper middle class" today. The well-to-do who wanted to own automobiles probably all had them by 1910 but in most cases the cars they bought implied the need of servants to operate them. At that level car ownership was purely a matter of desire rather than need or aspiration.

An example: One of my grandfathers never owned a car. He was a successful small businessman, owning considerable property in the Providence area. But, it was an urban environment and the street car and train ran everywhere he wanted to go. He died in 1936.
My other grandfather was a postman. He owned his own home, which was unusual, but had very little extra money. He finally bought a used Chevrolet around 1930 and owned only one other car, another used Chevy. It was put up on blocks in the back yard when the war began and eventually one of my uncles drove it the Carolinas where he was stationed. It was left behind when my uncle went overseas. My grandfather died in 1941 and those were the only two cars he owned. Both men would have fallen into the "average" category today but both lived in urban environments and grew up before the widespread ownership of automobiles so their habits were formed long before they could aspire to owning one.
I also had relatives that did own cars but in every case it was because they wanted them, not because anyone felt they needed them. In a reasonably urban setting I suspect that automobile ownership was discretionary well into the 30s and maybe until WWII.

Someone else would have to answer for more rural settings but in those, of course, animal transport was often still available so I wonder if the move to the automobile was much faster.

In the 1930’s my paternal grandfather owned a syrup mill that employed four. He had several mules to work cotton and other mules to work sugar cane. He also owned a car because he butchered once a week and used the car to deliver meat before it spoiled. In that neighborhood he was the exception rather than the rule.

My maternal grandfather, in the 1950’s, had a 1947 Chevrolet one-ton, long-bed pickup that served to haul hay and grain, animals to market and served as ‘the bus’ for about five families in that particular neighborhood. At the same time he owned a tractor but maintained a team of mules, with which he also plowed, and a couple of horses to work cattle. He died in 1960 and my Dad purchased the truck. I inherited it in 1964 as my personal transportation. It was a chick magnet! In one generation we went from one motorized vehicle in the neighborhood to my mother driving a car, my Dad driving a truck and a tractor and I, as a 15-year-old, having his own truck.

[Pat Holscher]

I suppose it depends on what we think of as average which makes it a very hard question to answer. Certainly the rural and urban poor of 1920 had a much lower standard of living than virtually any "poor" people in America today and they wouldn't have had automobiles. There were also many more of them. Probably most of what we would think of as the "middle class" did have cars by 1920 although in purchasing power they would be closer to the "upper middle class" today. The well-to-do who wanted to own automobiles probably all had them by 1910 but in most cases the cars they bought implied the need of servants to operate them. At that level car ownership was purely a matter of desire rather than need or aspiration.

An example: One of my grandfathers never owned a car. He was a successful small businessman, owning considerable property in the Providence area. But, it was an urban environment and the street car and train ran everywhere he wanted to go. He died in 1936.
My other grandfather was a postman. He owned his own home, which was unusual, but had very little extra money. He finally bought a used Chevrolet around 1930 and owned only one other car, another used Chevy. It was put up on blocks in the back yard when the war began and eventually one of my uncles drove it the Carolinas where he was stationed. It was left behind when my uncle went overseas. My grandfather died in 1941 and those were the only two cars he owned. Both men would have fallen into the "average" category today but both lived in urban environments and grew up before the widespread ownership of automobiles so their habits were formed long before they could aspire to owning one.
I also had relatives that did own cars but in every case it was because they wanted them, not because anyone felt they needed them. In a reasonably urban setting I suspect that automobile ownership was discretionary well into the 30s and maybe until WWII.

Someone else would have to answer for more rural settings but in those, of course, animal transport was often still available so I wonder if the move to the automobile was much faster.

It is very interesting, and illuminating, to recall what our immediate ancestors experienced in regards to car ownership. This should have occurred to me more directly, but it really did not.

Both of my grandfathers owned and drove cars, and at least one of my great grandfathers did as well. But, according to my parents, none of my grandfathers was a very good driver. This would make some sense, as they wouldn't have grown up driving. Indeed, my mother once remarked to me that I'd "grown up driving", which she had not. In thinking on it, she was correct. She didn't learn how to drive until she was over 30 years old.

My mother's father was apparently a fairly poor driver, but he did own a car, which he probably acquired due to his work. According to my mother, the kids loved to go for drives in the country with him, and encourage him to drive fast, which he would do, and poorly. My father's father was also apparently a relatively poor driver, but knew it. As a result, he'd have the oldest child, one of my aunts, drive on long trips. My father recalled all of them being in a car that my aunt rolled on a family trip. Apparently it didn't shake my grand parents up at all, who went ahead and continued on after the car was righted. My aunt was less than keen on resuming driving, but she did. According to my father, my grandfather was apparently also completely stoic about vehicular troubles, a trait my father also shared, in that they'd proceed on drives in spite of vehicles having a known disturbing mechanical problem.

Nobody seems to have owned more than one car, as is so common now. My grandparents owned one car for the whole family. My father acquired a car after he got out of the Air Force, which was a used car, but not all that old, really at the time. The trunk had been converted into a box, so it was sort of a pickup at the same time. His next car was a pickup truck. Starting in the 40s a lot of families here started owning pickups as second cars, although they were only rarely 4x4s. Some 4x4s were around, but it wasn't until the 60s when they became extremely common. Ranches seem to have started buying Dodge Power Wagons in the 50s, but not other varieties of 4x4s until the 60s.

[Pat Holscher]

I suppose it depends on what we think of as average which makes it a very hard question to answer. Certainly the rural and urban poor of 1920 had a much lower standard of living than virtually any "poor" people in America today and they wouldn't have had automobiles. There were also many more of them. Probably most of what we would think of as the "middle class" did have cars by 1920 although in purchasing power they would be closer to the "upper middle class" today.

That's an interesting observation in and of itself. The poor were more numerous, and poorer, overall, than today. The middle class was less numerous, but overall apparently in the general upper end of the middle class, as we consider it today.

There's a lot of food for thought in that.

[Pat Holscher]

[In the 1930’s my paternal grandfather owned a syrup mill that employed four. He had several mules to work cotton and other mules to work sugar cane. He also owned a car because he butchered once a week and used the car to deliver meat before it spoiled. In that neighborhood he was the exception rather than the rule.

My maternal grandfather, in the 1950’s, had a 1947 Chevrolet one-ton, long-bed pickup that served to haul hay and grain, animals to market and served as ‘the bus’ for about five families in that particular neighborhood. At the same time he owned a tractor but maintained a team of mules, with which he also plowed, and a couple of horses to work cattle. He died in 1960 and my Dad purchased the truck. I inherited it in 1964 as my personal transportation. It was a chick magnet! In one generation we went from one motorized vehicle in the neighborhood to my mother driving a car, my Dad driving a truck and a tractor and I, as a 15-year-old, having his own truck.

Pretty illuminating really.

At one time, the particular truck model you mention was regarded as the most durable truck model of all time. I'm not sure if that's still the case, but the parents of one friend of mine was still using one of those in the 80s when I graduated from high school. We admired it, but it wasn't all that unusual as a vehicle. Just a well preserved old truck. They might still have it (although they no longer use it).

Still, as you note, at age 15 I owned a vehicle. Pretty remarkable, really, in that I'm pretty sure my grandfather wasn't driving at age 15. My father probably was, but didn't own his own car until after he got out of the Air Force in the mid 50s. On the other hand, his 49 Chevy was old in 56 when he acquired it, but my first vehicle was a 1958 surplus Army Jeep, which says something about how vehicles started lasting longer.

Anyhow, what a change. We frequently hear comments about how Americans are in "love" with their vehicles, but really, we acquired that love pretty quickly. Most teenagers seem to have a pretty decent car of their own today, while our grandparents likely owned one for a whole family.

[Couvi]

[In the 1930’s my paternal grandfather owned a syrup mill that employed four. He had several mules to work cotton and other mules to work sugar cane. He also owned a car because he butchered once a week and used the car to deliver meat before it spoiled. In that neighborhood he was the exception rather than the rule.

My maternal grandfather, in the 1950’s, had a 1947 Chevrolet one-ton, long-bed pickup that served to haul hay and grain, animals to market and served as ‘the bus’ for about five families in that particular neighborhood. At the same time he owned a tractor but maintained a team of mules, with which he also plowed, and a couple of horses to work cattle. He died in 1960 and my Dad purchased the truck. I inherited it in 1964 as my personal transportation. It was a chick magnet! In one generation we went from one motorized vehicle in the neighborhood to my mother driving a car, my Dad driving a truck and a tractor and I, as a 15-year-old, having his own truck.

Pretty illuminating really.

At one time, the particular truck model you mention was regarded as the most durable truck model of all time. I'm not sure if that's still the case, but the parents of one friend of mine was still using one of those in the 80s when I graduated from high school. We admired it, but it wasn't all that unusual as a vehicle. Just a well preserved old truck. They might still have it (although they no longer use it).

Still, as you note, at age 15 I owned a vehicle. Pretty remarkable, really, in that I'm pretty sure my grandfather wasn't driving at age 15. My father probably was, but didn't own his own car until after he got out of the Air Force in the mid 50s. On the other hand, his 49 Chevy was old in 56 when he acquired it, but my first vehicle was a 1958 surplus Army Jeep, which says something about how vehicles started lasting longer.

Anyhow, what a change. We frequently hear comments about how Americans are in "love" with their vehicles, but really, we acquired that love pretty quickly. Most teenagers seem to have a pretty decent car of their own today, while our grandparents likely owned one for a whole family.

And, it had no heater!

[Pat Holscher]

By the way, I ran across an absolutely fascinating article related to this topic in the October 1923 edition of the The National Geographic. I became aware of it, as the current issue had a photo from that issue. Anyhow, I have the collection on disks, and went to print out the article so I could read it, and quote it a bit here, but my printer ran out of ink, and then I ran out of paper.

Oh well, I'll get back to it later.

Anyhow, the article is really remarkable in some ways for its foresight. It addresses darned near every issue we have here, albeit from a hopeful 1923 prospective. Other articles (along with a lot of car company ads) involved an earthquake in Tokyo, and the nation of Japan.

In a perhaps intentional irony, the entire November 1923 issue of The National Geographic was devoted to the topic of horses.

[Pat Holscher]

National Geographic, October 1923:

It is estimated that gas consumption by the motor cars of this country will exceed six billion gallons this year. It his generally held that, taking every type of car, the average driver is able to coax fifteen miles per gall on out of the gas he puts in his tank.

Starting out as a plaything, transformed into a luxury, then becoming in turn a definite element in the standard of living, the motor car has assumed the role of a highly efficient factor in our trans-portation system, transforming the lives and promoting the welfare as few developments in the history of any nation have.

According to the Oct 23, NG, in 1909 the country had 300,000 registered vehicles, in 1923, it had 13,000,000. By that time, Americans were spending more on automobiles than on housing, and more on autos on any other identifiable category of purchase other than clothing and food. The magazine was already noting that people were living in once city, and commuting to others to work.

Rural horizons are being pushed back. The twenty miles that once represented a day's journey in the farmer's little world are now less than an hour's spin.

The magazine also reported that 70% of cars, at that time, were bought on the "deferred payment plan", i.e., credit. That's interesting to note, as that's not an era which we associate much with credit.

It's interesting to note how some modern problems were already noted, as phenomina, but not in the same context. Take, for example:

Yet the direct contributions to national prosperity are small compared with teh indirect contributions briefly referred to above--the expanding city and the narrowing countryside. What stories the rusty little cars parked around the rural high schools could tell of boys and girls who will finish their secondary education when their parents never got beyond the sixth grade!

Today, most writers would lament the narrowing of the countryside due to the expansion of the city, but the 1923 author, facing obviously somewhat different conditions, somewhat rejoiced in it.

The day may not be so far in the distance when the horse-drawn vehicle will be legislated off the crowded city thoroughfares, to lessen congestion, just as heavy traffic has been banished from the boulevards to protect the motoring public.

The truck is fast eliminating the horse from the cities of the country. Between 1910 and 1920 the number of horses in New York decreased from 128,000 to 56,000; in Chicago from 68,000 to 30,000; in Philadelphia, from 50,000 to 19,000; in Baltimore from 15,000 to 7,000; in Cleveland from 16,000 to 4,000.

The Quartermaster's Department of the Army, at Camp Holabird, under the direction of Arthur W. Herrington, is developing two types of trucks that promise to revolutionize truck construction for heavy duty. One of these types has a four-wheel drive, with oversize pneumatic tire equipment. This truck will go almost anywhere that caterpillar tractors can go, and some places they cannot, in cross-country work and on wet clay roads; and on top of that, it will do anything that a regulation truck will do on good roads. As efficient as a caterpillar in bad going and as speedy as a regular truck on a good road surface, it can be built at a reasonable costs.

The other is a six-wheel truck capable of handling a 7.5 ton load, with even less pressure per square inch of tire-road contact than the ordinary 3-ton solid-tire truck. The four rear wheels are assembled after the fashion of the ordinary railway-car truck, and are driven by a double differential from the propeller shaft.

The farm naturally is the last stronghold of the horse. The natural inertia of the farmer has something to do with this. but more than that, the tractor that will serve him as well in the field as the motor car does in its sphere has not until now shown signs of appearing.

The magazine noted that American farmers had $3.5 Billion invested in horse drawn implements at this time, which provided some incentive not to change to tractors. It claimed, however, that at that time, it cost less to sow and reap an acre of wheat with a tractor than with horse drawn equipment.

The magazine also showed a farmer "broadcasting" wheat, reminding the reader that a generation prior (it claimed) grain had been sown in that fashion. When people ceased broadcasting wheat I don't know, but it was interesting to see that use of the term. I've heard it actually used by a farmer once, noting that he broadcast grass seed in a pasture to add to the forage.

A photo caption of a combine noted:

Many elderly people can remember the grain cradle and the hand flail era, when it would have required the labor of some three hundred men to do the same work in the same length of time, to say nothing of the twenty-eight horses required to haul the crop. Even the binder and the threshing-machine would call for about sixty men and forty horses for cutting, hauling in, and threshing a hundred acres of wheat in a day.

And the article concludes, in a cheery tone, with the following:

The substitution of power for horses will mean millions of people released from agriculture for industry, as was the case when the farmer substituted horses for men.

With more urban mouths to feed and backs to clothe, and fewer rural ones to provide for, a new day will dawn when the efficiency of the factory will come to the farm, and then the American farmer can do what the American automobile maker has done--meet the competition of the world and still make money.

And when the noontide of that day is reached, the great triumvirate--the passenger car, the freight truck, and the farm tractor--are destined to write a record of service to America that will stamp the automobile engineer as one of the foremost contributors to human welfare in all the history of mankind.

Interesting to read those 1923 words now. The author correctly predicted what would occur, within reasonable limits. Whether the result is as fully cheery as he hoped, or course, is a bit open to question, very much depending upon perspective, keeping in mind that no universally cheery prognostication is every fully correct, and looking back is no more clear eyed than looking forward is.

[Trooper]

In 1922 US Cavalry officer Maj. Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson was propounding the notion of "peak oil" in the introduction to his "Modern Cavalry" which argues the great need for cavalry despite the growth of motor transport:
"...there is another phase of the problem that few people know or reflect on – the fact that the gasoline supply of the world has a known limit and that limit is much closer than people realize.”

[Pat Holscher]

In 1922 US Cavalry officer Maj. Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson was propounding the notion of "peak oil" in the introduction to his "Modern Cavalry" which argues the great need for cavalry despite the growth of motor transport:
"...there is another phase of the problem that few people know or reflect on – the fact that the gasoline supply of the world has a known limit and that limit is much closer than people realize.”

What was that published in? Pretty remarkable comment on petroleum limits, with the limit being some decades off from what Maj. Wheeler-Nicholson predicted.

[Trooper]

Hi Pat,
The book is entitled “Modern Cavalry, Studies on its role in the warfare of today with notes on training for war service”
Published by The MacMillan Co. NY, 1922.

I thought it had a very modern ring too. The idea was in support of his thesis of “...the remote chances of another war between two white civilized races on civilized terrain, as compared to a war between a white civilized race and a colored race of lesser civilization fighting on a primitive terrain. And the greater portion of the earth’s surface is primitive terrain inhabited by by semi-civilized, barbaric, or savage peoples...”. he got that bit wrong concerning the colour of the "..lesser civilization..." that started all the next fuss ...

[Pat Holscher]

Hi Pat,
The book is entitled “Modern Cavalry, Studies on its role in the warfare of today with notes on training for war service”
Published by The MacMillan Co. NY, 1922.

I thought it had a very modern ring too. The idea was in support of his thesis of “...the remote chances of another war between two white civilized races on civilized terrain, as compared to a war between a white civilized race and a colored race of lesser civilization fighting on a primitive terrain. And the greater portion of the earth’s surface is primitive terrain inhabited by by semi-civilized, barbaric, or savage peoples...”. he got that bit wrong concerning the colour of the "..lesser civilization..." that started all the next fuss ...

Yes, the "civilized" would prove to be able to take barbarism to new lows.

[selewis]

National Geographic, October 1923:


The magazine also showed a farmer "broadcasting" wheat, reminding the reader that a generation prior (it claimed) grain had been sown in that fashion. When people ceased broadcasting wheat I don't know, but it was interesting to see that use of the term. I've heard it actually used by a farmer once, noting that he broadcast grass seed in a pasture to add to the forage.

I don't know how far back the seed drill goes but Jethro Tull devised a pretty nifty one in the 1700s.

Sandy

[Pat Holscher]

National Geographic, October 1923:


The magazine also showed a farmer "broadcasting" wheat, reminding the reader that a generation prior (it claimed) grain had been sown in that fashion. When people ceased broadcasting wheat I don't know, but it was interesting to see that use of the term. I've heard it actually used by a farmer once, noting that he broadcast grass seed in a pasture to add to the forage.

I don't know how far back the seed drill goes but Jethro Tull devised a pretty nifty one in the 1700s.

Sandy

Sandy goes to the head of the class just for knowing that Jethro Tull isn't only an oddly named rock band!

Tull and his grain drill:

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/IR/004f.html

The 1700s saw quite a few fairly revolutionary improved or new implements. Thomas Jefferson, for example, introduced a much improved plow.

[Pat Holscher]

The Quartermaster's Department of the Army, at Camp Holabird, under the direction of Arthur W. Herrington, is developing two types of trucks that promise to revolutionize truck construction for heavy duty. One of these types has a four-wheel drive, with oversize pneumatic tire equipment. This truck will go almost anywhere that caterpillar tractors can go, and some places they cannot, in cross-country work and on wet clay roads; and on top of that, it will do anything that a regulation truck will do on good roads. As efficient as a caterpillar in bad going and as speedy as a regular truck on a good road surface, it can be built at a reasonable costs.

The other is a six-wheel truck capable of handling a 7.5 ton load, with even less pressure per square inch of tire-road contact than the ordinary 3-ton solid-tire truck. The four rear wheels are assembled after the fashion of the ordinary railway-car truck, and are driven by a double differential from the propeller shaft.

On this quote, this is a fairly remarkable statement. The author sort of has the military out in front in truck development at this time.

While the Army was instrumental in getting development on the 6x6 truck rolling, did that really have any influence on outside truck design?

[Pat Holscher]

Not exactly on topic, but related. A glimpse at London in 1908:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbi ... 6902?f=rss

[Pat Holscher]

When I was a small boy, we lived in Chicago for two years. I used to walk three blocks to school (a different age and yet I am only 54). I well recall seeing old chain-drive CIty of Chicago light trucks going around maintaining medians and curb strips.

Wow, not only did I not know that there were chain driving vehicles at all, I never would have guessed they were in use that late.

I recall being surprised when some motorcycles went to shaft drives, which seemed odd to me.

Note the chain drive:

[Pat Holscher]

Now that gasoline has fallen back down to around $2.00/gallon a lot of places (while diesel is down to about $3.40, more or less), I wonder if, in actual terms, this means that fuel is far cheaper than the period we started discussing here.

Indeed, I wonder if it's now far cheaper than it was, say in 1950, after being adjusted for inflation.

[wkambic]

My personal "inflation gauge" is the McDonald's single. In the late '50s you could get a single hamburger, fries, and Coke for $.37 ('burger $.15, fries $.12, Coke $.10) plus tax. Last time I checked the current price was just over $3.00.

Gas, IIRC, was between $.259-$.299/gal. During "gas wars" it could drop as low as $.199. The lowest I ever personally paid was $.099 in Billings, MT in 1966.

[JV Puleo]

Its certainly cheaper than it was just after WWI and I bet its cheaper than it was in the 50s, it may even be less in real terms than it was during the first gas crisis in the 70s.

[Couvi]

Gas here last week was $1.979, but is going back up.