2/ A second part of the confusion is that a modern viewer looks at a picture from a century ago, sees a jacket with lapels or perhaps a collar worn over a shirt, and calls it a "suit", as if the materials, cut, etc. were necessarily the same as a modern suit
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Show this thread
-
15/ Specifically, the "cheap" camera in 1930s, the Brownie, cost something like 1.5 weeks AVERAGE wage http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/1_early_photography_-_prices_charged.htm … In the early-1930s, Kodak were charging £2 10s 0d for their basic model, a No 2 Brownie That equates to about £350 in 2009, allowing for inflation.
Show this thread -
16/ So for a working poor person, that might be 3 weeks' wages. How many blue collar, lower middle class / upper middle class people in 1930, do you think, worked for 4 months, saved ALL the discretionary income after rent and food, and blew it on one camera ?
Show this thread -
17/ ...and then worked for another month to save money for one roll of film and 16 prints?
Show this thread -
18/ meh when I link to a fairly comprehensive source, where the guy has clearly done a deep dive and has collected hard numbers, that's not ABSOLUTE proof ... but it has a lot more evidentiary weight than "but the popular myth is ____"https://twitter.com/Cary_Bleasdale/status/1346817708801843200 …
Show this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
20/ I'm not engaging in nihlism. I'm disagreeing with a bad argument, and providing data. https://twitter.com/twkiter/status/1346819265110962178 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
-
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.