Moving to the 40s

[sheeplady]

Hmmmmm....
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle...ot-necessarily-more-expensive--152079845.html
http://foodworldorder.blogspot.com/2012/05/junk-food-not-cheaper-than-healthy-food.html

The USDA also found it is cheaper to eat healthy in most areas of consumption:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib96.aspx

If you read that report, you'll find nothing that stands against my argument: healthier versions of the same foods are much more expensive.

I'll boil down what that report states: Foods with excess fat, sugar sodium, etc. (for instance, chips, soda, and candy) are indeed more expensive than grains and fruits if you look at average serving size- if you look at per calorie value, however, these worse for you foods are much cheaper. Healthy protein is much more expensive than unhealthy protein, either from a calorie or serving size perspective. Vegetables and protein are much more expensive than other foods.

Therefore the grand conclusion is this: It is expensive to eat healthy protein and healthy vegetables.

Try Walmart it is much cheaper---at least out here it is. There are regional differences.

If you can post pictures of how the store brand Walmart brown rice is cheaper than the white where you live (the same with bread, veggies, and chicken), I'd be interested to know that. It is not cheaper here, and it is certainly not cheaper according to Walmart.com.

 

[St. Louis]

If I may, I'd love to get back to Mr. Fibber's post. The reason I came to the Lounge in the first place is to discover whether there were other people out there interested in the same eccentric idea I had -- to recreate a golden era life. As it happens I'm also interested in the early 1940s, though I see myself as someone who accumulated most of her clothes and household goods and appliances in the mid-to-late 30s, with a few new things added in during the war years.

Some years ago a friend sent me links to youtube videos about / by the "1930s Amsterdam Lady," which inspired me to follow her lead and retrofit my home & life to the late 1930s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKok-VgDwZ0

http://www.youtube.com/user/nederland4045

I don't necessarily believe that "then" was better or more virtuous than "now," and I don't bother judging what people get up to these days, but I do love the whole process of living in the late 1930s. I'm not sure I can get up on a soapbox and explain it in a way that would convince anyone. I just love it; I feel comfortable and happy in my late 30s house and clothes.

I do think there are some things to be said for the beautiful designs, well-made quality, and natural elements of that era, but that's probably not exclusive to the 1930s and 40s. There are lots of wonderful craftspeople out there making furniture, jewelry, dishes, and so on that are well-designed and even affordable. Not my cup of tea, maybe, but so what. To each her own. When I sit on my late 1930s caramel colored mohair couch with the doilies and knit or listen to music, I'm happy as a clam.

I do often wonder how many people out there are doing the same thing -- i.e., retrofitting their modern existence to some prior era? I know there are "retro housewives" in the UK and in the USA who do a 1950s revival, but I have no idea how widespread this thing is.

 

[jamespowers]

If you read that report, you'll find nothing that stands against my argument: healthier versions of the same foods are much more expensive.

I'll boil down what that report states: Foods with excess fat, sugar sodium, etc. (for instance, chips, soda, and candy) are indeed more expensive than grains and fruits if you look at average serving size- if you look at per calorie value, however, these worse for you foods are much cheaper. Healthy protein is much more expensive than unhealthy protein, either from a calorie or serving size perspective. Vegetables and protein are much more expensive than other foods.

Therefore the grand conclusion is this: It is expensive to eat healthy protein and healthy vegetables.



If you can post pictures of how the store brand Walmart brown rice is cheaper than the white where you live (the same with bread, veggies, and chicken), I'd be interested to know that. It is not cheaper here, and it is certainly not cheaper according to Walmart.com.

You got the quote wrong. Cheap processed foods are less expensive per calorie but not cheaper when looking at serving size. You can have a lot more good for you foods than what it costs for fast food.
As for rice types and chicken types, they are both the same to me. If you want to be picky and choose brown rice over white rice then expect to pay more money. It is still cheaper to eat those than to eat fast food when you consider serving size as well. In other words, you get full both ways but fast food is far more fattening.

 

[sheeplady]

I do often wonder how many people out there are doing the same thing -- i.e., retrofitting their modern existence to some prior era? I know there are "retro housewives" in the UK and in the USA who do a 1950s revival, but I have no idea how widespread this thing is.

These are our new babies... the one on your left (monitor top) is from 1935 and the one on the right (flattop) is from 1940. In our new home these will be our primary fridges... but we can't choose which to use in the kitchen as the main fridge!

 

[Shangas]

For convenience, the one on the right. For style, the one on the left.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the choice should come down to which has the better door gasket, unless you're planning to replace them both. The condition of the gasket will determine how efficient the refrigerator is in daily use -- and how often you'll have to defrost it. These folks can set you up with replacement gaskets if needed.

An easy way to test the gaskets is to close a dollar bill in the door and try to pull it out. If it comes out easily, you need a new gasket.

 

[sheeplady]

Both gaskets will be replaced. The one on the monitor top is entirely gone, the one on the flat top is going. It is a cheap investment to redo both.

It is basically an aesthetic choice at this point... and we're having a hard time choosing! Both will be used, but one will likely be seasonal to accommodate our fruit harvest.

 

[Fibber Mcgee]

Wow this thread has been around the world and back. The only politics I will get into on here is that I support Gracie Allen for President. St. Louis , I agree with you , I am happy just to use and enjoy the 40s products and not over examine the whys and what fors . I enjoy the old to get away from the new and its problems not to compare today's with yesterdays.

 

[Fading Fast]

For convenience, the one on the right. For style, the one on the left.

Agreed, the one on the left is fantastic to look at.

 

[sheeplady]

For convenience, the one on the right. For style, the one on the left.

Why would you say for convenience the flat top? (If you are saying the flat top for convenience.)

The only reason why I ask is that I see the monitor top as a bit bigger, has the foot pedal opening, and will be easier to clean (legs). Both are highly efficient (more efficient than modern fridges because of the sulfur dioxide). The monitor top does need some cleaning, but I am going to leave the finish as is. I must admit, I am leaning towards the monitor top myself.

They weigh about 250 pounds, so the current joke is we'll buy four of these (we still need a globe top and a honeycomb to add to the collection, which is my husbands) and then we can switch them each season (spring, summer, fall, and winter).

 

[LizzieMaine]

The main advantage of a flat top is that you can put stuff on top of it. My electric mixer sits on top of mine.

A Monitor is more efficient than a flat top because heat rises -- a flat top has the mechanism in the bottom, requiring the heat to rise up thru the back of the unit to dissipate. A Monitor carries it right away from the top of the box.

If you use the foot pedal, watch your kneecaps. The door will open at right about the right height to crack you good.

 

[sheeplady]

If you use the foot pedal, watch your kneecaps. The door will open at right about the right height to crack you good.

Yeah, I noticed that... we'll have to put it in so one stands to the side in order to open it.

My husband compared the power draw of the two units over a two hour period. The monitor top draws heavy and quickly- completing a cooling cycle much quicker than the flat top. The flat top appears to be slower to cool, draw fewer amps, and run longer. All together it seems to be a wash, considering that the flat top is one cubic foot smaller. (Therefore, it is using the same amount of energy to cool a smaller space.)

I think the monitor top will be the best choice. Besides, it is a monitor top. I've wanted one since I was 8 years old.

 

[St. Louis]

Oh, hands down, the monitor! Sheeplady, what are you doing with the current fridge (I assume you own a modern one?)

This is now the main dilemma of my "retrofit" project. The only rooms in the house that are still mostly modern are the kitchen and bathroom. I am agonizing about the decision to get rid of the modern fridge and replace it with a (hopefully monitor) version, and do the same with the gas range. In the bathroom the retrofit would be less expensive -- I'd just have to find a nice tiny old hand-sink. Everything else is okay.

My main dilemma here is that aside from the aesthetics & personal taste, wouldn't this be an irresponsible decision? After all, my modern appliances are all in good condition. I could store them in the basement until I move out, assuming I ever do move out, and then have them replaced. Right now I own (well, "own" -- technically the bank has me in its thrall) & if I needed to sell the house, what would I do?

You fine people encouraged & supported me when I wanted to go back to the old copper wiring in order to be able to use my 1930s telephones, and even though it was an exhausting, frustrating, and time-consuming (let's not mention expensive) process, I've never regretted it for a moment. (imagine a million telephone-company employees asking me, over and over and over again, why on earth I would want a land line on the old copper wires ...)

I should just add that St. Louis has several excellent "vintage" appliance stores. There's a great shop that sells lots of reconditioned gas stoves from the 1890s through the 1940s, and it's not difficult to find reconditioned fridges, either.

 

[F. J.]

In with the Old, out with the New!

[...]
My main dilemma here is that aside from the aesthetics & personal taste, wouldn't this be an irresponsible decision? After all, my modern appliances are all in good condition. I could store them in the basement until I move out, assuming I ever do move out, and then have them replaced.
[...]

Ms. St. Louis,
if that is your real name,

The way I see it, you're replacing something that will break for something that you know won't*. To trade the temporal for something that will last seems responsible enough to me. "Buy one and done", as the saying goes, is far better than having to keep buying a new one each time one breaks.
As for what to do with the displaced modernities, you can simply sell them to some sucker—— er, that is, someone that will buy them.


*And if it does eventually break, you know that it can be fairly easily repaired, unlike modern disposable appliances.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My main dilemma here is that aside from the aesthetics & personal taste, wouldn't this be an irresponsible decision? After all, my modern appliances are all in good condition. I could store them in the basement until I move out, assuming I ever do move out, and then have them replaced. Right now I own (well, "own" -- technically the bank has me in its thrall) & if I needed to sell the house, what would I do?

You could always donate them to a good cause -- a burned-out family needing to re-stock a household, a church food pantry, any number of situations that could probably make use of them.

When I moved into my house there was a modern -- as in '80s-era -- stove, but no refrigerator. The stove was far too big for my tiny kitchen -- it was a like a big, square, almond-colored elephant in the middle of the room -- so I hauled it out to the garage and it's been there for the past fourteen years waiting for someone to come along who can use it. Usually they just take a look at it and say "ah, no thanks," but maybe someday I'll find it a home. Until then I store things inside it that I'd rather not have eaten by mice.

 

[sheeplady]

LizzieMaine's donation suggestion is a good one. Our YMCA always needs donated things like microwaves and fridges. If not them, Habitat for Humanity often has re-stores where they resell things that are in good shape. The microwave just died at the Y the other day, and I wish we had one to donate to them. You can also list them on craigslist for free or for a little bit of money- with the deal that they pick it up and haul it away.

As far as our modern fridge, we have one in our current home (the one we live in). When we move to our new house (the one we are fixing up) we will sell our current home and the modern fridge will go with it. The modern fridge at our new house will likely be thrown out. It is unfortunately not in good enough shape to donate someplace. (I don't donate things I wouldn't use myself because of condition issues- and I wouldn't touch this thing with a ten foot poll. It is really bad.)

I do, think, though, if you use a lot of freezer items and are moving to a vintage fridge that you need to have a small chest or upright freezer. We always have lots of frozen items (we garden and I freeze everything), buy things in bulk, etc. With our modern fridge we have a large upright freezer.

The truth is that fridges don't last that long. I think the average life span of a modern fridge is like 15 years. So unless yours is very very new, I can't see it lasting another decade. It still doesn't mean that you'll see it die anytime soon, but its years are limited.

ETA: I think storing your appliances for if you move is a bad idea. Most people want something "newish" and you'd probably need to re-buy new appliances anyway to get the best price on your home. Besides, there is no guarantee they won't fail in storage, particularly if they are modern (or be damaged). Then you'll have kept a usable appliance during its good years from being used and have to get rid of it *and* purchase a modern one for your home resale.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Ms. St. Louis,
if that is your real name,

The way I see it, you're replacing something that will break for something that you know won't*. To trade the temporal for something that will last seems responsible enough to me. "Buy one and done", as the saying goes, is far better than having to keep buying a new one each time one breaks.
As for what to do with the displaced modernities, you can simply sell them to some sucker—— er, that is, someone that will buy them.


*And if it does eventually break, you know that it can be fairly easily repaired, unlike modern disposable appliances.

I certainly wouldn't justify replacing a perfectly good appliance with "the replacement will never break" line of reasoning. It's faulty reasoning at best. Then again, I don't necessarily oppose decorating or purchasing things because you want them. I don't think you have to justify it at all other than "that's the appliance I want".

I second the suggestion of donating appliance that you are no longer going to use. Despite the ridicule they take around here, there are lots of modern appliances that give many years of faithful service, and there are plenty of people out there who would be glad to have them.

 

[sheeplady]

Oh, I just realized something that might factor into your decision St. Louis- I don't think you're required to have a fridge, stove, etc. in order to sell your home. (At least not in NYS.) You can get a mortgage on a home without a stove or fridge and I doubt your current mortgage requires you to have one. When we bought our current house, there was no fridge- and there were two mortgages on the house and we never heard a complaint from the bank.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Oh, I just realized something that might factor into your decision St. Louis- I don't think you're required to have a fridge, stove, etc. in order to sell your home. (At least not in NYS.) You can get a mortgage on a home without a stove or fridge and I doubt your current mortgage requires you to have one. When we bought our current house, there was no fridge- and there were two mortgages on the house and we never heard a complaint from the bank.

You're not required to have a stove or a fridge, a lot of houses sell without them. But it certainly makes your house more marketable to potential buyers, and you wouldn't get the same price as you would with those things included.

 

[sheeplady]

You're not required to have a stove or a fridge, a lot of houses sell without them. But it certainly makes your house more marketable to potential buyers, and you wouldn't get the same price as you would with those things included.

Apparently I wasn't clear in my post above at 4:07... new-ish appliances are best, of course.