Freight Depot of the US Army consolidating station, Chicago, Illinois. (1943)
An auto repair shop along US 1, between Washington, D.C. and Laurel, Maryland (1940)
Contestants at soapbox auto race on July 4th celebration at Salisbury, Maryland (1940)
Cars waiting for the nine o’clock ferry to Norfolk, at Cape Charles, Virginia (1940)
Granville Clarke, Florida migratory agricultural worker, studying road map before leaving Elizabeth City (NC) with his crew. They are going to Bridgeville, Delaware, to work in a cannery. (1940)
Customers’ cars parked in front of Tri-County Farmers Co-op Market in Du Bois, Pennsylvania. (1940)
Jack Delano (1914-1997, originally Jacob Ovcharov) was a Russian-born artist who arrived in New York aboard the SS Homeric in 1923. He gained renown for a number of photo series created for the New-Deal era Farm Security Administration (FSA), especially of coal miners, railroads, and the island of Puerto Rico. He was also an accomplished musician and public TV pioneer.
All photos and captions by Jack Delano at the US Library of Congress.
Beautiful period photos. Thank you for posting them!
+1
Great shots, though the B&W’s seem dark overall. Here’s what a little photoshop can do.
Nice work!
Wow, what’s old is new again. That lineup of 40’s cars in front of the army station is, to my eyes, unrecognizable. Same shapes, same styling, same colors, replace it with a line of today’s cars in black, white and silver, and they’re all still unrecognizable. If that were a row of 50’s or 60’s cars, you could distinguish each and every one of them. Pretty interesting.
Love the scene of the boys with their soapbox racers, brought back fond memories of building my own “sort of” racer with my best friend in the 50’s.
My thoughts exactly. The trucks were more colorful though.
I concur about the ‘all the same’ appearance; I enjoyed looking at all the pictures of ’40s vehicles, but I definitely prefer cars of the 1960s.
I recently saw a 1947 Chevrolet in a parking lot next to a Toyota RAV-4 and was struck at the similarities in size & shape. Many folks have made the connection between the shape of 1940s cars and those of today, but it didn’t really hit home until I saw an example of each right next to one another.
I plan on writing up the Chevrolet later this summer since I got a full set of pictures of it, but this comparison was just too good not to share here.
+1
Sorry, the RAV wouldn’t make a decent “lowrider”.
Today’s coffee-snorting comment! 🙂
I’d have an easier time identifying them from the front.
On Eric’s point, I think a big part of the CUV appeal is the Goldilocks step-in height – you don’t have to bend very deeply at all unlike cars in the 50-53″ OAH range that was standard from 1960 to the late ’90s; nor do you have to climb up to get in like a pickup or body-on-frame SUV.
That would be the appeal for me. As I get older, I dislike the contortions required to get into say, a Karmann Ghia hardtop. I find myself sometimes hitting the door frame of my Note with my head, and that thing is tall for a subcompact.
the “Goldilocks step-in height” a perfect description .
I now have a Chevy Equinox (in silver), a most common vehicle in Metro Detroit.
I have to say, I like the anonymity this vehicle affords.
Since taking delivery, this CUV has been used more as a medical transport for family and friends than anything else.
My wife has a VW beetle and before the Equinox, I drove a lifted Ram truck….and that is pretty much the long and short of it.
I see a big difference between the second whole car from the left: it’s in the vein of the Cadillac 60 Special, but not, to my knowledge, a Cadillac or LaSalle. (The taillights and rear fender shaping seems wrong.)
It has non-suicide doors, 4 windows instead of 6, slightly shaped rear fenders, and kind of a “ponton” trunk instead of the streamlined rear or else box-trunk that the other cars have. And the taillights are mounted more or less in the fender instead of on it. As far as I know (not that I really would) the other GM divisions didn’t get this shape, at least not before WW II.
My best guess is 1942 Chevrolet?? It’s a harbinger of everything that would follow this picture, except certain Exner designs…
“Fleetline Sportmaster.”
That blue 1942 Chevrolet four window sedan in the form of the Cadillac 60 Special and C-Body Torpedo sedan introduced in 1940 was a Fleetline Series Sport Master, which had been added to the 1941 line in Spring of that year. It was the most expensive, lowest production four door sedan for those years. The body style didn’t return to line for 1946.
Correction, its a 1941 model, no fender speed streaks!
Every car-crazy kid in that era would disagree, “Gee Mister, you can’t tell these cars apart? We can!”
Most of the styling efforts in the 1930’s-’40’s were applied to giving unique frontal styling to identify the make. Rear styling details was limited to fender shapes, taillight configurations and emblems. The general body architecture followed a pattern set by GM Styling lead by Harley Earl, which totally dominated the industry.
It’s interesting to note how colorful the row of semi trailers in front of the army building are. Apparently white hadn’t become the standard color yet.
Wonderful history! thanks.
That first picture of the “US Army Consolidating Station” in Chicago.. curiosity got the better of me; here’s how it looks today.
I’m glad that army building is still standing.
How is it being used today?
Happy Motoring, Mark.
What a great group of shots! I can only make out a few, like the 39 Mercury in the top shot (4th from the right) notable for its semi-enclosed wheel openings.
Also a 39 Nash in line for the ferry.
Top photo: There is a half car on the far left. Next to it is a Chevrolet I think. The car next to it is probably not a GM. Then I think we have a Buick.
Since I got the higher definition slide I think that in the top photo the first whole car on the left is a Nash, possibly 1939, based on the front fender and the tail light, with the top trim piece on the trunk looking similar to some other Nash pictures. Then we have the Fleetline Chevy, then I think a Buick.
A couple of cab-over-engine trucks are visible in the depot shot. Very cool.
Wonderful shots. Unlike some of you the differences between the cars in the top shot jump out at me. Some have split back windows, bustle back trunks, different taillights and bumper guards.
And that 4th car from the right I first thought “that’s obviously a 1940 Ford” but yes when I looked at it full size it is a Mercury. Rare car even at the time.
I am among those who first noticed the tractors and trailers at the docks. The trailers seem to be of uniform length? I did a quick search without finding the length of trailers at that time. Does anyone know?
I found a source that suggests a trailer length of 30 feet from 1930 – 1950.
I’m not 100% certain, but I see clues that the first pic was originally black and white, and has been colorized.
Have a look at the extreme bottom right corner. There is a pinkish colour distortion at the edge of frame that makes me think it hasn’t been colorized.
Yes, I saw that, and took it into account. A ‘stain’ like that can be added easily to give the appearance of authenticity. The purple ‘stain’ is also monochromatic / one colour. I still suspect it was a black and white original. Where colour appears through the image, it looks like it has been layered over top of a black and white background. As colorizing is typically done. Making the overlaying colours various levels of transparent adds to the appearance it is part of the image. There are areas like the unpaved foreground parking lot that are very consistently monotone across the full width. As in a black and white image. With a hint of one colour applied universally over top.
I’m not certain either way, but it is subtle and well done if colourized. 🙂
That distortion seems similar to others I’ve seen on edge of frame, usually as not all light spectrum frequencies hit the emulsion for whatever reason. Also note how its bounded on the left by those markings which also appear near the top. I don’t think they’re sprocket holes, but they appear to be marks where something in the camera has ‘grabbed’ the celluloid.
I’d say it’s a colour neg or pos; if someone was going to the trouble to colorize this, I doubt they would have allowed a mistake like that to stand.
Fair enough Don, I agree with your rationale. Why would they have left that stain. I acquiesce, as I can’t prove it’s a B&W. ?
I do see enough details in the image itself, that lend the appearance of colour layered over a black and white base. See the man sitting on the fender of the ‘Hayes’ transport. And how consistently monochrome his skin/shirt appear for example. I see some of the same colour in each item.
Higher resolution pic attached.
I also defer to you Daniel in that I can’t insist it is colour. I think it’s worth bearing in mind some colour processes back then tended to sacrifice tonal range which goes to the relatively flat areas you mention. Drdolittle below may have found the answer, but how much fun is it to chat it out like this?
@ Don
You are a great conversationalist, debater, and a great writer too Don. Always tactful and polite as well. Plus, your writing is always thoroughly detailed and researched. ?
I always hope to see historical photos left in their original state for many reasons. Whether colour or black and white. Primarily to retain their authenticity, of course. Given it’s so easy to manipulate and alter images today. I believe too as a colour photo, it could be the limitations of the technology at the time to allow nuances within areas of colour. As there appears to be broad ‘washes’ of transparent colour in areas. It’s mostly likely this is an original colour photo reflecting colour film technology at the time.
Respect back to you Daniel. Given how much knowledge and effort you put into your comments, I’m hoping you’ll find the time to write an article or two.
Cannot agree enough about colorization. Worst culprit was Ted Turner when he bought up a whole raft of libraries some while back, and colorized the movies to make them more ‘palatable’ to a new cable audience.
To me as distracting and distasteful as donks on US fullsizer.
Thank you Don. However much I love Paul’s site and the great work of knowledgeable contributors like yourself, my automotive knowledge is broad, but very thin. I don’t have an especially in depth knowledge in any specific car related topic, rather a lifelong general interest on many car related topics. Plus, I work in communications. Happy to say I’ve only owned three cars in 20 years. As I tend to take care of the one I have. I am always cognizant for sure, that I would like payback Paul’s site in a helpful way.
I’ve notice you discuss things from a comms perspective so I suspect you’d be able to muster up an article along those lines. Ultimately it comes down to what your comfortable with, but please keep the possibility in the back of your mind.
My take is that it’s originally color. There are subtleties, particularly in the yellows, that would be very difficult to reproduce through colorizing. The shadows contain blues, and the more saturated yellow areas have reds within. Unless someone colored it to show off as a studio piece, there is nothing remarkable enough about this picture to warrant the many hours it would take to do it. Nobody has that much patience!
@ Barry
I agree. Looking at it more closely this morning, I see a American flag and decals in the rear windows of a couple cars. They are in colour. It simply would not be worth the time to apply this level of detail.
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsac/
It states a lot were color photographs.
Click on “ViewAll” under the search bar.
Thank you sir, for confirming there were colour photos in the collection.
I found the picture in the collection. It was a color transparency (color slide) which probably means that it may have been a kodak kodachrome film. A high def tiff file is available (which I downloaded).
I noticed quite a few Nashes in the photos – a jarring reminder to me that in prewar times the ‘Independents’ were not only viable but reasonably popular.
Lovely pictures. It’s interesting how cars seemed to age much faster then. A 18 year old car today is nothing, but a 18 year old car in 1940 seems rare and would really stand out.
I guess wood- framed bodies fell apart quickly, and 20’s – era car technology could not keep up with 1940 traffic.
I was thinking the same thing. Cars changed so fast back then that a 10-yr old vehicle would have stuck out like a sore thumb, as the early ’30s car in the last pic shows.
Now it’s not unusual to see lots of cars from the ’90s still on the road and they blend in seamlessly. But when I see something from the ’70s or ’80s now I do a double-take. Great pics!
Looks like the road map being used by the agricultural worker in the second-to-last photo is an Esso map (it’s a bit blurry, but I think that’s their logo on there). I’ve read that Esso made it a point to be accommodating to African-American motorists at a time when most businesses in the Jim Crow Era South were not. Anyone interested in this particular corner of American motoring history should look up something called the “Green Book.”
The Gilmore Auto Museum had a copy of this book on display last summer. I took a snap of my town in the former Jim Crow south, Greenville, SC.
Dr. Gibbs Tourist Home still seems to be around physically. I can’t find a Mean St on the map and 16 Spring St is in an African American neighborhood, but no street view alas.
Photo #1 – The red rig backed in just left of “CONSOLIDATING” between Rooks and Hayes trailers.
Dodge isn’t it? Anyway, check out its long extended cab.
Photo #2 – I wonder how much revenue was generated by allowing the building to be plastered with bills that way.
From a lad familiar with these things.
Cars were only colourfull for a relatively short time mid 50s till mid 70s then back to drab again, trucks remain colourfull due to company logos and decorations
The second whole car from the left (greenish) is a Fleetline Chevrolet, almost certainly a 1941 as the 1942’s had more chrome trim on the rear fenders. I have (see my note above) a hi def download of the picture.
I’d vote the most desirable car appearing in these images is in the line awaiting the Norfolk, VA ferry, a 1934 Dodge Deluxe Six Model DR convertible coupe with the optional side mounts. Ahead of it is a ’39 Nash Ambassador Six sedan, styled by George Walker design consultancy.
Starting from the far left in the first photo I think the half car could be a Ford. Then we have a Nash, perhaps 1939. The greenish car is a Chevrolet, 1941 Fleetline. Next is a Buick, then a Plymouth (1936?). Then we have JPC’s 39 Mercury. This is next to a Chrysler and then another Buick.The far right car I don’t know. While I think that I have these right, I am not completely sure either.
While the styling on the trucks is more interesting (first picture), I have recently become interested in the styling progression of American cars, pre-WWII. Technology was progressing as well, but in a much less linear fashion, like uneven adoption of hydraulic brakes.
Enclosed cars with vertical radiators, upright flat windshields and headlights mounted on a crossbar started the 1930’s. Then, radiator grilles were streamlined, windshields raked back and became a split “V”. Headlights often were podded next to the grille. Next, headlights moved to the top of the fenders and finally “melted” into them. Finally, the grille spanned across the front of the car, completing the 1940’s look. Also, suicide doors disappeared and running boards became covered.
Note that the Chrysler Airflow cars were a little ahead of the rest and suffered in the marketplace.
I did not realize how many people were able to afford and bought 1930s and 1940s cars before WW2 broke out.
I recently saw a 1947 Chevrolet in a parking lot next to a Toyota RAV-4 and was struck at the similarities in size & shape. Many folks have made the connection between the shape of 1940s cars and those of today, but it didn’t really hit home until I saw an example of each right next to one another.
I see the size similarity, but the layout (I am going by memory for both cars) is entirely different. The Toyota would have a severely raked windshield. This pushes the seats back and down. The Chev, with upright windshield would have the front seat up and forward leaving a lot more legroom in back particularly with the higher seats. To get into the back seat of a four door Chev (or just about any ‘forties four door)there would be plenty of foot room; the RAV would have you squeeze your feet between the front of the back seat and the front of the rear door frame. Best car for room is (IMHO) Checker. Vast inside with less outside bulk. My ’04 Scion Xb had more legroom than a much larger car.
When my father left the Navy after the Korean War, he told me he had to put up with traffic worse than this
https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Delano-Norfolk-Ferry-40.jpg
He was so happy that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel was there to replace it.