From Popular Science...

[donnie]

Interesting! I knew the dodo was a pretty large bird.

I think this is the first '30's issue I've ever looked at. There were some beautiful illustrations. I'll have to delve into these more.

I scrolled down a little to the "New Mechanical Devices Make Housekeeping Easy" feature, and was amused to see the holder for the newspaper, because I was seeing it on a modern version supporting my iPad. What's old is new, I guess.

[Kitty]

I will have to look at that issue. I actually saw the photo first, and researched where it came from.

[donnie]

I've been reading through some PS mags from 1945, and a large number of the ads are related to the war in some way. (This reminded me of the housing shortage on Claudia; there are postwar articles in PS about that, also.)

Two samples:

[Kitty]

That second one reminds me that some of my books that were printed in the 40s have a disclaimer in the front saying that it was printed within the wartime paper ration rules.

[donnie]

That second one reminds me that some of my books that were printed in the 40s have a disclaimer in the front saying that it was printed within the wartime paper ration rules.

I've seen a similar disclaimer in my copies of PS from the war years. And the paper is obviously much lower quality pulp in those copies, instead of the more durable, glossier, and whiter paper in the other issues. Do you see an obvious difference in the paper of those books?

[Kitty]

That second one reminds me that some of my books that were printed in the 40s have a disclaimer in the front saying that it was printed within the wartime paper ration rules.

Do you see an obvious difference in the paper of those books?

Definitely. Often the paper is rough and much crunchier, if that makes any sense.

[donnie]

Definitely. Often the paper is rough and much crunchier, if that makes any sense.

Yes, perfect description.

And that reminds me: I once heard someone say that, in the Library of Congress collection, the oldest books from the 18th century were generally in much better condition that a lot of later volumes from the 19th and 20th. And that was due to the fact that in the oldest ones, linen rag paper was used instead of the later cheaper wood pulp. (I guess that's true; don't remember where I heard it, but it sounds believable.)

[Kitty]

Definitely. Often the paper is rough and much crunchier, if that makes any sense.

Yes, perfect description.

And that reminds me: I once heard someone say that, in the Library of Congress collection, the oldest books from the 18th century were generally in much better condition that a lot of later volumes from the 19th and 20th. And that was due to the fact that in the oldest ones, linen rag paper was used instead of the later cheaper wood pulp. (I guess that's true; don't remember where I heard it, but it sounds believable.)

That's true!! The older the book, often it is in better condition. In the later years they churned out series and other cheap type books, and they're falling apart. I think it was the binding that was cheaply made at one point, too. Horatio Alger's books and the Billy Whiskers books come to mind.

[donnie]

From the February 1944 issue. Doesn't it seem odd now that cigarettes would have been included in items "specially selected for their value in building up health"? I also wonder why they didn't include read-to-eat foods rather than things that had to be prepared or cooked. Would these prisoners have had the physical ability or the facilities to do that?

[Kitty]

From the February 1944 issue. Doesn't it seem odd now that cigarettes would have been included in items "specially selected for their value in building up health"?

I did a little research about this, and the only thing I can conclude is that maybe it soothed their anxiety a bit, as I hear tobacco can calm you and take the edge off. They for sure knew that smoking wasn't healthy, and, contrary to popular belief, doctors didn't really recommend smoking to their patients. Using doctors as a 'mascot', so to speak, was a marketing ploy to ease growing concerns of the negative health effects of smoking. These campaigns began in the 1920s with popular brand Lucky Strike, and other brands put their own spins on that until around 1954 when it just became too obvious a lie to keep on going with. The 'surveys' that were claimed (aka 9 out of 10 doctors say!) were skewed and performed by the tobacco companies themselves, so can't be relied on.

I also wonder why they didn't include read-to-eat foods rather than things that had to be prepared or cooked. Would these prisoners have had the physical ability or the facilities to do that?

At first, I agreed with you, but then wondered what types of ready-to-eat foods you might mean? The foods they were sent had to be non perishable things, and MREs weren't used until the 80s.

All that aside, I love this picture, because you can see some of the brands! Milko is a funny one. Ham and eggs and butter are in cans, too, which obviously makes sense because they couldn't send that stuff in cartons and packages, but seems weird. Do they even make Swan soap anymore? And, of course you got those good ol' reliables Domino and Kraft.

Oh, and the word 'invalid' used in this way always gets me. The first time I heard that word in that context, I read it in a book set in the 1700s. I was like how rude! How is she invalid because she can't walk?!