The Shorpy Archive
 
6000+ fine-art prints suitable for framing. Desk-size to sofa-size and larger, on archival paper or canvas.
 
Join and Share

 
Social Shorpy

To love him is to like him. Our goal: 100k "likes":

 
Syndicate content
Syndicate content
Syndicate content
Daily e-mail updates:

 
 
 
 
Member Photos


Photos submitted by Shorpy members.

 
Colorized Photos


Colorized photos submitted by members.

 
About the Photos

Our holdings include hundreds of glass and film negatives/transparencies that we've scanned ourselves; in addition, many other photos on this site were extracted from reference images (high-resolution tiffs) in the Library of Congress research archive. (To query the database click here.) They are adjusted, restored and reworked by your webmaster in accordance with his aesthetic sensibilities before being downsized and turned into the jpegs you see here. All of these images (including "derivative works") are protected by copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions and may not be sold, reproduced or otherwise used for commercial purposes without permission.

WEB SITE & CONTENTS
© 2014 SHORPY INC.

[REV 25-NOV-2014]

 
 
JUMP TO PAGE   100  >  200  >  300  >  400  >  500  >  600
VINTAGRAPH • WPA • WWII • CARNAVAL EN LA HABANA, 1941

American Oil Co.: 1942

American Oil Co.: 1942

November 1942. Washington, D.C. "Negro mechanic for the Amoco oil company." Photo by Gordon Parks for the Office of War Information. View full size.

 

Stating the Obvious

OK, I understand that back then news articles would mention it if someone in a story was a "negro", regardless of its relevance to the story, but why was it necessary to point it out in a caption to a photograph, when it's perfectly obvious (right there in black in white, one might say)? Even more strange when you consider that Gordon Parks was black.

[The OWI/FSA photographers took thousands of photos; brief descriptions on the negative sleeves and caption cards permitted identification of the subject matter without having to remove and handle the negatives. -tterrace]

Cheap but.....

Only 17 cents per gallon but rationing limited ordinary drivers to 3 gallons per week. Class 'A' drivers (doctors and others having to drive for their occupations) were permitted more. Fortunately, widespread commuting and suburban living were still years in the future for most Americans.

18.7 cents is about

$2.60 in today's money. Drop the seven-tenths and you had about $2.50 a gallon, so those tenths did indeed add up.

Win Some, Lose Some

18.7 cents is only(!) $2.60 a gallon in modern dollars - but, your car got 17 MPG and wore out in 100,000 miles or less. AND had no safety features, no power steering or brakes, a stick shift, lousy brakes and handling, very likely no radio and a set of tires lasted 15,000 miles (with luck). On the whole, today's driving is a lot better.

Tenth of a cent.

I am not sure but it looks like 18 7/10 cents per gallon. That was when a tenth of a cent really made a difference, today that is only there because 3.999 sounds better than 4.00.

Sorry, but

the maximum purchase is $9.99

Soooo - - - -

I finally find out what Amoco means, thank you.

 
THE 100-YEAR-OLD PHOTO BLOG
Shorpy.com | History in HD is a vintage photo blog featuring thousands of high-definition images from the 1850s to 1950s. The site is named after Shorpy Higginbotham, a teenage coal miner who lived 100 years ago.

Syndicate content RSS | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Photo Use | © 2014 Shorpy Inc.