8 of the Most Expensive Foods in History

Black caviar

Author Bess Lovejoy

February 11, 2026

Love it?24

Throughout history, certain foods have carried astronomical price tags. Some were costly because they were difficult to grow or find, others because they traveled great distances along early trade routes, and still others because myth elevated them into coveted status symbols.

From spices that once cost more than gold to tropical fruits displayed as signs of prestige, luxury foods reveal what different eras valued — and what they were willing to pay for. This list explores some of the most expensive and unexpected delicacies in history, tracing how scarcity, symbolism, and shifting tastes turned everyday ingredients into the edible treasures of their time.

Saffron

Sometimes called “red gold,” saffron has been prized for millennia, appearing in written records as early as 2300 BCE. In the 14th and 15th centuries, it was often worth more than gold by weight, and it’s currently the most expensive spice pound for pound (costing between $2,000 to $10,000 per pound). Its extraordinary cost comes from the staggering labor required to harvest it. Each Crocus sativus blossom yields just three fragile stigmas (the part of the flower that catches pollen), which must be handpicked during a brief fall bloom, ideally midmorning when the flowers fully open. Modern estimates suggest that producing 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of dried saffron requires 70,000 to 200,000 flowers and 370 to 470 hours of labor, which helps explain why the spice has historically fetched astonishing sums.

Saffron’s value also surged thanks to its many uses: Historically, it was a culinary cornerstone across Asia and the Mediterranean, a sacred dye in Hindu traditions, and a prized medicinal ingredient in ancient Rome (where Pliny the Elder claimed it was nearly a universal cure). Demand especially soared in medieval Europe; Venice dominated the saffron trade, and adulteration was taken so seriously that a merchant was once burned at the stake for trying to sell a phony product.

Truffles

Truffles have commanded extraordinarily high prices for centuries, since long before they became a modern luxury. Their mystery only amplified their value: For much of European history, no one knew exactly how truffles formed, and around the 14th century they were even thought to be the food of witches. Not until 1711 were they recognized as a fungus, and it wasn’t until the 19th century that their association with tree roots was understood. By then, truffles were already firmly established in aristocratic cuisine — so prized that French food writer Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin called them “the diamond of the kitchen,” while Italian composer Gioachino Rossini reportedly dubbed them “the Mozart of mushrooms.”

This mushroom’s cost reflects its persistent scarcity. Even today, truffles can’t be reliably cultivated on a large scale and must be foraged by trained dogs. (Pigs tend to eat the prize instead of handing it over.) White truffles can fetch $3,000 to $5,000 per pound, and a 4.16-pound specimen sold at a Sotheby’s auction in 2014 for $61,250 (about $84,000 today). Seasonality, delicate handling, and rapid transport needs further elevate the price of this long-beloved treat.

Pineapple

In 17th-century England, the pineapple was one of the most extravagant status symbols imaginable. Fresh specimens were so rare that a single fruit could cost the modern equivalent of thousands of pounds, making it a luxury reserved for royalty and the elite. Because England’s climate couldn’t support tropical fruit, gardeners cultivated pineapples in hothouses — known as “pineapple pits” — requiring enormous expense in fuel and specialized care.

The fruit quickly became a marker of prestige: Hosts sometimes rented pineapples purely for display at banquets, and portraits from the era even depict nobles presenting the fruit as a sign of wealth and global reach. The pineapple’s scarcity, exoticism, and difficulty of cultivation turned it into a culinary trophy, far more often admired than eaten, and one of the most coveted foods in early modern Britain.

Caviar

Caviar — particularly beluga caviar from sturgeon in the Caspian Sea — became a luxury in Europe in the 19th century, when dwindling wild populations and rising demand elevated it from a regional staple to an elite delicacy. Its price reflects the long maturation of sturgeon, which can take more than a decade to produce roe, as well as the meticulous processing required to salt and grade each batch.

The rarest variety, Almas caviar, is sourced from albino beluga sturgeon and often packaged in 24-karat gold tins; it can cost more than $35,000 per kilogram (roughly $15,900 per pound). Caviar’s scarcity increased sharply in the 20th century as overfishing and habitat loss reduced sturgeon stocks, cementing it as a symbol of wealth and exclusivity. Today, even with aquaculture, top-grade wild caviar remains among the most expensive foods ever traded.

Bird’s Nest Soup

Bird’s nest soup has been a luxury in Chinese cuisine for centuries — a delicacy made from the hardened saliva nests of swiftlets, which cling high on cave walls. Harvesting them has always been perilous, requiring expert climbers and creating a built-in scarcity that pushed prices sky-high.

In imperial China — especially during the Ming and Qing dynasties — the nests were reserved for nobles and elite banquets, prized for their rarity, supposed medicinal properties, and gelatinous texture when cooked. Even today, the soup can cost you $100 a bowl. The value remained high because each nest took weeks for a bird to build and was often damaged if not removed carefully. By the 19th century, entire maritime trade routes connected Southeast Asian nesting sites to Chinese markets. Even today, top-grade nests can cost thousands per kilogram — a testament to their centuries-long reputation as one of the world’s most unexpected luxury foods.

Ambergris

Ambergris — the waxy, grayish substance expelled by sperm whales — is one of history’s strangest and most valuable edible luxuries. It’s been called both “the treasure of the sea” and “whale vomit” (although it actually comes out of the other end of a whale). Formed in a whale’s intestines, ambergris originates as a protective secretion, then hardens at sea into a pale, rocklike mass. When it washes ashore, it can fetch thousands of dollars, prized less for appearance than for its extraordinary scent, described as a blend of forest-floor leaf litter and the delicate underside of mushrooms.

Though best known today for its use in elite perfumery, ambergris entered English cookery by the 1660s. Luxurious puddings, custards, and possets often called for it, pairing its sweet, earthy aroma with ingredients such as rose water, nutmeg, and almonds. By the 18th century, ambergris was used to flavor gelatins and medicinal drinks before tastes shifted.

Today, ambergris occupies a legal gray zone: It’s still prized in the U.K. and European Union, where beachcombers can scavenge for it, but it’s banned in the United States due to whale protection laws. Where it’s legal, finding some ambergris on a beach can bring about a hefty payday. In 2012, one large piece found on a beach in England was estimated to net about $65,000 (close to $92,000 today).

Black Peppercorns

Black pepper seems ordinary now, but for much of history it was a prized and often prohibitively expensive spice. In ancient Rome, pepper was valuable enough to be used for taxes, tribute, and even ransom, and by the medieval period it was known as “black gold.” Its cost came from long-distance trade through India and the Middle East, where merchants guarded routes and supply tightly.

Pepper’s portability made it especially valuable: A single sack could represent enormous wealth. In some European regions, peppercorn rents were paid to landowners, and elite households kept pepper locked in its own storage box. As demand rose through the 15th century — fueled by European tastes for heavily spiced cuisine — pepper became one of the central commodities driving exploration and early global trade. Its eventual affordability reflects just how valuable it once was.

Silphium

Silphium may be the ancient world’s most legendary lost luxury. A resinous plant native to North Africa — especially around the Greek city of Cyrene (in modern-day Libya) — it was so prized that it appeared on local coinage and was exported throughout the Mediterranean. Writers such as Pliny the Elder praised its medicinal and culinary powers, noting its high price and limited supply.

Silphium’s value came from extreme scarcity: It resisted cultivation, grew only in a narrow coastal strip, and was harvested faster than it could regenerate. That meant it was often traded at prices comparable to precious metals. Yet by the first century CE, demand from Greek and Roman elites pushed the plant to extinction. Silphium’s disappearance became a symbol of overharvesting and luxury excess — an ancient food and medicine so expensive it vanished from history entirely. Recently, however, botanists have found a species in Turkey that may be the plant or a close cousin.

The Origin of 7 Surprising Nicknames

“Polly Put the Kettle On” sheet music

Author Bess Lovejoy

February 5, 2026

Love it?85

Some of the most familiar nicknames in the English language seem to have little in common with the names they’re supposedly short for. How did Chuck become short for Charles, for instance? And why do some Margarets go by Peggy? Many of these curious nicknames carry centuries of linguistic history. Some emerged from playful medieval rhymes, others from sound shifts in everyday speech, and still others from migration, mishearing, or sheer convenience.

The word “nickname” itself also has a somewhat surprising origin, making it a perfect example of how these terms evolve. It comes from the Middle English ekename, meaning “also-name” or “additional name,” built on the Old English word eaca, meaning “an increase.” An ekename was literally an extra name added to the one a person already had. By about the 15th century, saying “an ekename” aloud became “a neke name,” which eventually led to its familiar form: “nickname.”

The word “nickname” has nothing to do with the name Nicholas or the word “nick” — it’s a linguistic accident that stuck, like many nicknames themselves.

Credit: 14031857/ iStock via Getty Images Plus

Peggy for Margaret

At first glance, Peggy seems like a bizarre detour from Margaret — a name that already comes with a slate of more intuitive nicknames, from Meg to Maggie to Margo. But Peggy follows a classic medieval pattern: rhyming nicknames.

In Middle English, Margaret was commonly shortened to Meg or Mog. From there, medieval English speakers — famous for inventing playful, rhymed pet names that switched up the first letters of a name — spun off new versions. Playing with “m” and “r” names was especially common. Meg became Peg, and Meggy became Peggy.

Peggy isn’t the only unexpected nickname Margaret picked up. Educated English speakers in the early modern era also used Daisy, inspired by the French name Marguerite, which means “daisy.” And in an era when families routinely reused the same handful of given names, these nickname detours made practical sense; they were useful for telling one Margaret from another. Luckily for all the Peggys, theirs was a far more charming nickname than one of the era’s less-fortunate options: Some Margarets were called Maggot.

Dick for Richard

The name Richard has been around since the Middle Ages, and so have its nicknames. In an era when everything was written by hand, shortening a common name made daily life easier. Rich and Rick were the first shortened versions of Richard to appear, and from there medieval English speakers leaned into one of their favorite linguistic games: rhyming nicknames.

That’s how Rick became Dick — and also Hick, Hitch, and a few others that didn’t survive. Dick, however, stuck. By the 13th century, the nickname was so widespread that it eventually evolved into a generic term for “fellow” or “everyman.” By Shakespeare’s time, Dick was so familiar that the Bard used it as a stock name in Henry IV, pairing it with Tom and Francis to evoke ordinary working men (in this case, a trio of bartenders).

Credit: Bettmann Archive via Getty Images

Chuck for Charles

Chuck is an unusual nickname because it seems to have two plausible — and very different — origin stories.

One theory points to Middle English, where Charles was sometimes written as Chukken. That variant may have helped generate Chuck as a shortened, familiar version of the name. It fits neatly alongside other medieval habits of bending and reshaping names into something easier to say.

The other theory is thoroughly American, however. In the late 19th century, a New York City character and sometime gangster named George Washington O’Connor — not a Charles at all — became locally famous as the self-styled “Mayor of Chinatown.” He supposedly picked up the nickname Chuck in the neighborhood, possibly from the Chinese community (where the name was common) or from his own claim that he liked chuck steak. When O’Connor died in 1913, some newspapers mistakenly printed his given name as “Charles,” inadvertently creating a link between Chuck and Charles for readers. Since Charles didn’t have many catchy nicknames at the time, the association stuck.

Hank and Harry for Henry

Henry has been a staple of English naming since medieval times, and it collected not one but two enduring nicknames along the way: Hank and Harry. They come from very different places.

Harry is the older of the two. When the Normans brought the name Henri to England in the 11th century, most people encountered it by ear rather than on the page, and pronounced it however they could manage. The result often sounded more like Harry than Henry. For centuries, Harry was the standard familiar form, used by kings and commoners alike. Many English monarchs named Henry were known as Harry to their subjects — a tradition that continues today with Prince Harry.

Hank has a murkier, more American origin. The most widely accepted explanation is that it traces back to Dutch influence. The Dutch form of Henry is Hendrik, whose diminutive is Henk. In areas with strong Dutch settlement — especially New York and New Jersey in the 17th and 18th centuries — Henk likely morphed into Hank. By the time the name spread across the United States, it had a distinctly American feel and became especially popular with cowboys, country musicians, and mid-20th-century parents looking for something sturdy and informal.

Credit: DEA/A. DAGLI ORTI/ De Agostini via Getty Images

Sally for Sarah

Sally may sound like a name all its own, but it began as a nickname for Sarah, a name with biblical roots in Hebrew. Sarah appears in the Old Testament as the wife of Abraham and the mother of Isaac, and the name remained popular across Europe for centuries. As it spread through English-speaking regions, shortened and familiar forms naturally followed.

One likely explanation for the shift from Sarah to Sally lies in speech patterns, especially in early English and child speech, where the “r” sound is often softened into an “l” sound. Through this kind of sound change, Sarah could become Salah and eventually Sally. By the Middle Ages, Sally was established as a common diminutive in England.

One likely explanation for the shift from Sarah to Sally lies in the way certain sounds changed in early English. In some Middle English dialects, the “r” at the end of unstressed syllables was pronounced more softly or less distinctly, which helped familiar forms such as Sary drift toward Sally. Children reinforced the pattern — “r” is a late-developing sound, and young speakers often replaced it with “l.” By the Middle Ages, Sally was established as a common diminutive in England.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, Sally was widely used as an affectionate nickname for girls named Sarah and was increasingly adopted as a given name in its own right. While it’s less common today, Sally remains a clear example of how pronunciation — not logic — often shaped historical nicknames.

Credit: Whiteway/ DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Jack for John

One likely explanation for the link between John and Jack traces Jack back to a medieval habit of adding the suffix “-kin” to create affectionate or diminutive forms of names. John was sometimes written as Jen or Jan, which could become Jenkin — meaning “little John.” That form was gradually shortened to Jenk and then Jack. Similar “-kin” names survive today in surnames such as Wilkinson and Perkins.

Another theory points to linguistic overlap following the Norman Conquest, when French names and pronunciations flowed into the English language. The French name Jacques, while technically a form of James, may have influenced the sound and spread of Jack as a familiar name. However it happened, Jack became so entrenched that it outgrew John entirely, evolving into a name all its own, as well as a term meaning “everyday guy.”

Credit: Culture Club/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images

Polly for Mary

Polly isn’t commonly used as a nickname for Mary today, but you’ll see it all over older genealogical records. The link comes from a medieval pattern in which familiar forms of names were reshaped through rhyme or sound shifts. In this case, Mary became Molly (perhaps because children often pronounce “r” sounds as “l” sounds, as we’ve mentioned), and Molly was then rhymed to Polly.

By the 18th century, Polly had become a popular nickname for women named Mary, particularly in the United States. The name also gained a big cultural boost from literature and song: It appeared in the 1728 opera The Beggar’s Opera and in the 18th-century nursery rhyme “Polly Put the Kettle On,” which helped cement it in the public imagination.

Today, Polly is no longer tied strictly to Mary. It’s sometimes used as a nickname for names including Pauline or Apollonia, and many parents use it as a standalone given name because of its simplicity and nostalgic charm. Even if its original connection to Mary has faded, Polly remains a vivid example of how rhyming nicknames once shaped everyday identity.

8 U.S. Presidents Who Struggled in School

JFK at Harvard, 1938

Author Timothy Ott

February 5, 2026

Love it?26

Given the importance of the position of president of the United States, you might expect those who have held the role to wield academic credentials that distinguish them from the general public. Some presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Woodrow Wilson, to name a few, certainly demonstrated their advanced brainpower as students. Even many of those who came of age in the rough-and-tumble frontier years of the 19th century showed a capacity for learning in spite of limited opportunities, with Abraham Lincoln standing as the most famous example of a largely self-taught commander-in-chief.

Yet, there are also a fair share of presidents who either treated their school days as a necessary nuisance to slog through or required some extra assistance to avoid failing grades and expulsion. Here are eight U.S. presidents who encountered more adversity than they wanted in the halls of academia.

Credit: Universal History Archive/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Zachary Taylor

Reared by a prominent landowning family outside Louisville, Kentucky, Zachary Taylor attended at least two local schools as a child. However, one has to question just how much the 12th president learned in these classrooms, as his earliest surviving writing (from when he was a young man) reveals severe deficiencies in spelling, grammar, and penmanship.

Part of this may be attributable to the quality of schooling available on the Kentucky frontier, but it’s also likely this son of a Revolutionary War officer found his attention drawn to what he considered more exciting possibilities. Sure enough, Taylor struck out on what became a lengthy military career in 1808, although he was said to have developed a greater appreciation for education as he aged.

Franklin Pierce

Popular and outgoing, Franklin Pierce far preferred playing outdoors and socializing to hitting the books as a child. Such lax personal discipline proved problematic after "Handsome Frank," as the future president was known, enrolled at Bowdoin College. Left to his own accord, Pierce frequently snuck out to a local tavern, skipped study sessions, and spent his free time fishing, until learning after two years that he ranked dead last academically in his class. To his credit, Pierce took the news as a wake-up call, and he improved his work habits and performance enough to finish fifth among the 14 graduating students in 1824.

Credit: Smith Collection/Gado/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

James Buchanan

The oldest son of a prosperous Pennsylvania merchant, James Buchanan excelled in the classic curriculum of his local academy and became the rare early-19th-century American to have both the intellect and financial means to attend college. However, Buchanan nearly blew his shot when he was expelled from Dickinson College for getting involved with a rowdy group of fellow students who caused mayhem both on and off campus. Reinstated with the help of family connections, the future president remained on good behavior from that point forward and graduated with honors.

Credit: UniversalImagesGroup/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Ulysses S. Grant

Outside of an aptitude for math and an innate wizardry for connecting with horses, young Ulysses S. Grant offered little reason to expect that his would become among the most famous names in American history. The future president showed minimal interest in writing and rarely spoke in class, flummoxing locals who learned that the unremarkable boy had secured a spot in the United States Military Academy through his father's efforts.

At West Point, Grant dazzled classmates with his horsemanship skills and uncovered a talent for drawing, but otherwise struggled in French and ethics classes. He finished a middle-of-the-pack 21st out of 39 in his graduating class of 1843, paving the way for the mediocrity that would follow until his ascent to stardom in the Civil War.

Credit: Hulton Archive/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Herbert Hoover

To be fair, the Ohio-born Herbert Hoover received a limited formal education after being orphaned at age 9; sent to live with family in Oregon, he was pulled from school at age 14 to help with his uncle's business. Setting his sights on a career as a mining engineer, Hoover took the entrance exams for the brand-new Stanford University in the spring of 1891 and failed all of them except for math.

Although he performed well enough to gain entry to Stanford on his second try, Hoover still failed the English composition section, and he never managed to get over the hump in that area despite proving a gifted geology student. It took the intervention of a paleontologist professor, who demonstrated Hoover's capabilities for writing strong research papers to the chair of the English department, for the 31st president to earn the passing grade needed to collect his geology degree in 1895.

Credit: Fotosearch/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Dwight D. Eisenhower

An athletic child who enjoyed football and baseball, Dwight D. Eisenhower found an outlet for his relentless energy amid the physically demanding programs of the United States Military Academy. However, a knee injury suffered on the football gridiron as a sophomore seemingly sent "Ike" into a tailspin; his grades plummeted and demerits accumulated, leaving the future president on shaky academic footing. Eisenhower pulled himself together after becoming a student football coach, managing to finish 61st out of 164 students in his class of 1915, although he ranked a lowly 125th in West Point's "conduct" category.

Credit: Historical/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images

John F. Kennedy

A look at John F. Kennedy's academic record suggests a young man who benefited from being the son of a wealthy and powerful politician. Focused on sports and social activities at the exclusive Choate preparatory school in Connecticut, Kennedy flunked French and Latin as a freshman, and was briefly expelled for his part in a planned prank as a senior.

Little changed in his first years at Harvard University, as JFK again sunk his energies into football and swimming and largely underwhelmed his professors. However, Kennedy soon grasped the opportunity afforded by his station in life, as his trips to Europe on the eve of World War II brought into focus a possible career in public service. JFK's grades significantly improved over his final years, and his senior thesis, originally titled "Appeasement at Munich: The Inevitable Result of the Slowness of Conversion of the British Democracy From a Disarmament to a Rearmament Policy," earned acclaim after being published in 1940 as the book Why England Slept.

Ronald Reagan

A shy, bookish child, Ronald Reagan came into his own as a teenager after realizing he simply needed a pair of glasses to properly see the world around him. He subsequently became one of the most popular students at Dixon High School in Illinois, earning a letter as a varsity football player while serving as president of the student body and dramatics club.

At Eureka College, Reagan added swimming to his football and acting extracurriculars, while living in a fraternity room that doubled as the gathering place for his frat brothers' pinochle games. But for all his interests, "the Gipper" was never a strong student; he scored just one "A" at Eureka, in a class called "Fundamentals of Sports," while his senior year GPA of 1.96 was the highest of his college tenure. Returning to campus years later to accept an honorary degree, Reagan joked, "I thought my first Eureka degree was an honorary one."

The Surprising History of Tarot Cards

Tarot Decks Keep Changing

Author Bess Lovejoy

February 5, 2026

Love it?74

For centuries, tarot cards have carried an aura of mystery. To many people, they are tools for reflection, storytelling, or spiritual insight, while to others, they are simply beautiful objects, or perhaps sources of fear and disdain. But few people are aware that tarot’s earliest history has nothing to do with divination. Long before the cards were used to peer into inner lives or imagined futures, they were created for a very different purpose: play.

Credit: DEA / G. CIGOLINI/ De Agostini via Getty Images

A Renaissance Card Game

Tarot emerged in northern Italy in the early 15th century, at the height of the Renaissance, when card games were a fashionable diversion among aristocratic courts. Wealthy families commissioned ornate decks known as carte da trionfi, or “cards of triumph,” to play a game called tarocchi. Though the rules have not survived intact, the game appears to have combined skill, memory, and chance, and may have been a bit like bridge.

The most likely patron of the first tarot deck was Filippo Maria Visconti (1392-1447), the reclusive Duke of Milan, whose court delighted in symbolic display and intellectual play. Roughly 15 decks associated with the Visconti family survive today, most famously the Visconti-Sforza deck, dating from the mid-1400s. These cards were luxury objects, lavishly decorated with gold leaf and fine detail, designed to impress as much as to entertain.

What the Original Images Represented

Despite their later reputation, these early tarot cards were not occult devices. Their imagery drew from a shared visual language familiar to Renaissance viewers: Christian virtues, classical allegory, courtly hierarchy, and reminders of mortality. The characters on the cards — emperors, popes, virtues such as Justice and Fortitude, and figures such as Death or the Fool — echoed themes found in sermons, pageants, poetry, and art.

Some details were intensely personal. Fair-haired figures likely reflected the Viscontis themselves, while lions, fountains, laurel wreaths, and fruit referenced specific military victories, marriages, and dynastic power. (For example, the lion depicted in the Fortitude card likely referenced a military defeat over Venice.) Some scholars have suggested that the trump sequence — the set of allegorical cards later known as the Major Arcana — functioned as a loose meditation on the rise and fall of worldly power. But if the cards hinted at life’s larger forces, they did so without a sense of instruction. They acknowledged fate, virtue, and fortune, but did not claim to explain them.

Credit: Stefania Pelfini la Waziya/ Moment via Getty Images

New Meanings Inspired by “Egyptomania”

Tarot spread gradually across Europe, reaching France by the 16th century, where the current name took hold (adapted from the Italian tarocchi). Over time, however, the cultural context that once made the symbolic imagery legible began to fade. By the late 18th century, tarot had become visually familiar but symbolically opaque, which also meant that it was ripe for reinterpretation.

That reinterpretation arrived during a period of intense intellectual ferment. France was in the grip of “Egyptomania,” a fascination with Egypt fueled by Napoleon’s campaigns there and a popular belief that ancient Egypt held some kind of key to universal wisdom. At the same time, traditional religious institutions were struggling to adapt to political and social upheaval, creating space for alternative spiritual systems.

Into this atmosphere stepped Antoine Court de Gébelin (1725-1784), a French scholar who declared that tarot was no mere card game but a fragment of ancient Egyptian wisdom long disguised for the sake of its own survival. The theory was entirely made-up, but it was nevertheless compelling. Tarot, once a Renaissance amusement, was reborn as an esoteric relic.

Credit: Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Occult Revival

Court de Gébelin’s ideas found eager successors, especially in France. French occultist Jean-Baptiste Alliette published one of the first tarot decks designed explicitly for divination in 1789, layering astrology, numerology, and invented Egyptian lore onto the cards. In the 19th century, occultists such as Éliphas Lévi and Gérard Encausse (known as Papus) linked tarot to hermeticism, astrology, and the kabbalah, embedding the cards within elaborate metaphysical belief systems.

Tarot was no longer a game for anyone to pick up. It was treated as powerful, even dangerous — a tool that required initiation and expertise. To misuse it, some warned, risked madness or ruin.

Credit: Keystone/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images

The Secret Society That Shaped Modern Tarot

The next major transformation occurred in England, under the influence of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Though the secret society never numbered more than a few hundred members, its impact on modern tarot was enormous. Golden Dawn practitioners mapped tarot’s 22 trump cards onto the kabbalistic Tree of Life, assigning each a specific spiritual pathway. These associations still underpin many contemporary interpretations.

Two Golden Dawn members proved especially influential: English occultists Aleister Crowley and Arthur Edward Waite. Crowley expanded tarot’s network of esoteric correspondences, while Waite made a more practical innovation. In 1909, Waite commissioned artist Pamela Colman Smith to illustrate a new deck in which even the numbered suit cards — previously simple arrangements of symbols — became narrative scenes. The result, now known as the Rider-Waite-Smith deck, transformed tarot reading by making it more story-driven. It remains the most widely used tarot deck in the world.

Credit: ullstein bild Dtl./ ullstein bild via Getty Images

From Predicting the Future to Self-Reflection

With the rise of New Age culture in the late 20th century, tarot underwent yet another shift. While divination remained central, the emphasis moved from predicting the future to healing, self-development, and psychological insight. Influenced by Jungian ideas about archetypes, modern tarot users embraced the cards as mirrors of inner experience rather than fixed messages from beyond.

At the same time, tarot became radically accessible. Themed decks proliferated — pagan, astrological, pop-cultural, playful, and profound — and anyone with curiosity and a little time could learn to read them. What had once been a guarded esoteric system became a flexible, personal practice.

Historical Picture Archive/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images

Tarot Decks Keep Changing

Seen across its long history, tarot has changed meanings many times, reshaping itself to fit the hands that hold it. It began as a game, was transformed into an esoteric symbol system, and now lives in countless forms at once. Each era reworked the cards to reflect its own concerns — be they power, fate, mysticism, or self-knowledge.

Rather than containing timeless secrets, tarot reveals something more human: the enduring impulse to find meaning in images, to tell stories, and to see our own lives reflected in symbolic form. In that sense, tarot has long been doing what it does best — inviting us to look, interpret, and imagine.

Why Do Men’s and Women’s Shoes Have Different Sizes?

Close-up of people’s shoes at a bar

Author Tony Dunnell

January 29, 2026

Love it?35

If you’ve ever tried on a pair of shoes in your size that didn’t even come close to fitting, it could be because they were labeled for the opposite sex. Men’s and women’s shoes have completely different sizing systems in the United States (unlike most of the world, where sizing is unisex). A women’s size 8 foot, for example, is roughly equivalent to a men’s 6.5 in U.S. sizing. This seemingly arbitrary system leaves many shoe-hunters scratching their heads. Why do we have different numbers for men’s and women’s shoes? Why not just use the same sizes for everyone, regardless of gender?

Credit: H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

The First Shoe Sizes

Though the first known description of a shoe-sizing system appears as early as 1688 in England, it wasn’t until the 19th and early 20th centuries that concerted efforts at shoe standardization took place. Manufacturing was becoming increasingly industrialized, and shoemakers were transitioning from custom-made footwear to mass production — which required standardized sizing systems.

In the United States, the first detailed sizing system was introduced by New York businessman Edwin Simpson in the 1880s. He based his sizes on the existing barleycorn system in the U.K.: The British standard for an inch was historically measured as three barleycorns laid end to end, and had long been used to measure bespoke shoes.

Each full U.S. shoe size increases by one-third of an inch (a barleycorn), so to turn a foot measurement into a size number, you multiply the foot length by three (to count how many of those one-third-inch measurements fit) and then subtract a fixed amount: 22 for men’s shoes and 21 for women’s shoes. For example, a man who wears a size 9 typically has a foot about 10 and one-third inches long, because 9 plus 22 is 31 (the barleycorn measurement), and 31 divided by 3 is 10.333 inches.

This subtraction keeps the size numbers small and convenient instead of having much larger sizes such as 30 or 40. The slight difference in how much is subtracted for men’s versus women’s sizes accounts for historical differences in how the sizes were set up. The details of who determined these subtraction amounts has been lost to history, but the resulting sizes are still used to this day.

Simpson’s measuring system was adopted by the Retail Boot & Shoe Dealers’ National Association about a decade later, providing the first nationwide shoe-sizing guidelines. By the 1920s, standardized measuring devices such as the RITZ Stick and the Brannock Device were adopted by stores across the country, further cementing standardized shoe sizes.

Why Different Sizes for Men and Women?

Somewhere along the line, women’s shoe sizes in the United States were offset from men’s by about 1.5 sizes, though there’s no record of exactly when. But the precise reason for this remains unknown. It wasn’t, as far as we know, a choice made by Simpson — he did take into account shoe widths, and included “slim” and “fat” options in his system, but records did not specify any gender differences.

It does seem probable, however, that the offset was created to account for anatomical differences between men’s and women’s feet. The average male foot is longer, while female feet are relatively narrower with higher arches. By introducing gender-specific sizing, shoes could be more easily tailored and targeted in accordance with the varying needs and preferences of men and women.

When creating shoe lasts — the 3D molds that replicate the shape of a human foot — shoe designers would have been very much aware of the difference in structure between male and female feet. So, it’s logical that differences in sizing would emerge. And once those sizing norms were established, shoe manufacturers and footwear companies would have had little incentive to unify the systems, which would have required retooling and relabeling throughout the market.

Nowadays, shoes don’t really need to have different sizing systems based on gender. Many European countries, after all, use the same shoe sizes for men and women, relying on different designs to accommodate different foot shapes. And while some major shoe companies such as Nike, Adidas, Reebok, and New Balance now offer unisex sizing with some of their models sold in the United States, they normally use men’s sizing as the base, with conversion charts to help female shoppers. The idea of shifting the whole U.S. shoe industry to a truly unified sizing system, and forgoing the gender offset altogether, is likely just as unappealing to manufacturers now as it was a century ago.

6 Jobs That Paid More in the Past

American Airlines pilots, 1950

Author Kristina Wright

January 27, 2026

Love it?25

Today, the future is full of big promises, and careers in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and climate science are expected to produce the next generation of top earners. But history reminds us that many of the jobs that once paid really well no longer deliver the same economic security. Over the years, technology, deregulation, and shifting markets have steadily eroded pay and bargaining power. These six occupations are reminders that even the most lucrative careers can shift with the changing times.

Stockbroker

In the 1950s through the early 1980s, stockbrokers occupied an elite position in the American labor market. Trading commissions were fixed, information was scarce, and brokers acted as essential gatekeepers to financial markets. While precise figures are difficult to pin down because compensation was heavily commission-based and not consistently captured in government wage data, average salaries in 1969 ranged between $13,000 and $20,000, or $118,000 to $182,000 when adjusted for inflation. Top performers could earn much more, and regulations effectively guaranteed commissions.

Deregulation on May 1, 1975, known as “May Day,” eliminated fixed commissions and fundamentally changed the industry. Discount brokerages, online trading platforms, and algorithmic trading stripped individual brokers of their pricing power. But even with the new rules, many brokers continued to command impressive salaries into the 1980s, with an average salary of $79,000 in 1985 — or $242,000 in today’s dollars. Currently, the median salary for a securities, commodities, and financial services salesperson sits around $78,000 annually. Some brokers still earn commissions or performance-based bonuses on top of their base pay, but commissions are typically smaller and less central to earnings than they once were. While a small minority still earn very high incomes, the average stockbroker now makes a fraction of what the role once commanded.

Airline Pilot

Commercial airline pilots were once among the most highly paid professionals in the transportation sector. In 1978, the average annual salary for a pilot was $57,000, with senior captains at major U.S. airlines earning as much as $110,000, along with generous pensions, defined-benefit retirement plans, and strong job security. Today, those salaries would be equivalent to around $300,000 to $570,000.

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the subsequent rise of regional and low-cost carriers altered industry structure and compensation patterns, with many pilots at smaller carriers earning far less than those at major airlines. The loss of strong union bargaining power further reduced compensation. While senior captains at major airlines can still earn high salaries, the median airline pilot today earns closer to $138,000, and many pilots earlier in their career earn far less.

Credit: Fox Photos/ Picture Post via Getty Images

Steelworker

In the mid-20th century, unionized steelworkers formed the backbone of American industrial prosperity and were among the best-paid blue-collar workers in the country. In 1965, a steelworker’s average weekly pay was around $145 — about $7,540 annually, or $78,000 adjusted for inflation. The job came with secure pensions, employer-paid health care, and strong labor union protections reinforcing long-term security.

Beginning in the 1970s, global competition, automation, and the restructuring of domestic manufacturing sharply reduced employment and weakened labor’s bargaining power. Foreign steel imports, plant closures, outsourcing, and declining union membership eroded both wages and benefits. Today, U.S. steelworkers earn closer to $62,000 annually on average, and there are far fewer of the lifetime benefits that once defined the job. In real terms, total compensation has fallen substantially from its midcentury peak, even as productivity demands have increased.

Credit: Kirn Vintage Stock/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images

Journalist

Journalism was once a reliable middle-class career, particularly at metropolitan newspapers. By the end of the 1950s, staff reporters earned around $122 per week — about $6,300 annually or just over $70,000 in today’s dollars — with editors and senior correspondents earning more, especially at major city papers. Newspapers enjoyed near-monopoly control over local advertising, which provided a steady revenue stream that funded large newsrooms, foreign bureaus, investigative desks, and long-term careers. Unionization through organizations such as the American Newspaper Guild reinforced job security and standardized pay scales.

The collapse of print advertising, the rise of digital media, and consolidation in the industry dismantled that model. Today, the median journalist salary in the U.S. is around $57,500, and many reporters earn significantly less, particularly in local newsrooms that have been hollowed out or shuttered entirely. Freelance work, contract roles, and layoffs are common as news organizations struggle to replace lost advertising revenue with subscriptions, platform partnerships, and venture funding, reshaping journalism into a far less stable and lucrative career than it once was.

Credit: Leila Grossman/ Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images

TV Repair Technician

In the early decades of television ownership, repair technicians were indispensable. In 1960, a skilled technician typically earned about $100 to $130 per week — roughly $5,000 to $6,700 annually, or approximately $50,000 to $75,000 in today’s dollars. These experts serviced expensive television sets that households expected to maintain for years. Televisions were built with replaceable components, repairs were routine, and service calls were a normal part of ownership, keeping trained technicians in steady demand.

Advances in electronics fundamentally changed that economic model. Flat-screen televisions became inexpensive, sealed, and difficult to repair, making replacement cheaper than service and effectively eliminating traditional, consumer-facing TV repair. While some modern electronics technicians earn solid incomes in industrial or specialized technical fields, the closest contemporary equivalent — electrical and electronics repair technicians working outside of manufacturing — has an average annual salary of $41,000.

Credit: PhotoQuest/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Retail Sales Associate

In the mid-20th century, department store salespeople typically worked full-time schedules and often had access to commissions, employee discounts, and other benefits. While precise wage data for individual sales roles is limited, historical accounts suggest that full-time sales staff at major urban department stores — such as Marshall Field’s, Gimbels, and Macy’s — could earn the equivalent of $50,000 to $70,000 per year in today’s dollars, providing a stable, middle-class income with opportunities for advancement.In contrast, modern retail has shifted heavily toward part-time and seasonal schedules, flat hourly wages, and little to no benefits. The median income for a full-time retail salesperson today is about $34,700 per year, but most work irregular hours with few opportunities for career growth.

5 Unbreakable Olympic Records

Jackie Joyner-Kersee hurdles, 1988

Author Tony Dunnell

January 27, 2026

Love it?35

Every four years, the world watches as elite athletes push themselves to ever greater heights in search of Olympic gold — and, perhaps, even a new Olympic record. Some records, however, stand so far above the rest that they seem destined to endure forever. An “unbreakable” record, of course, is a little hard to prove, but some feats — such as the five below — are so exceptional that it seems unlikely they will be bested anytime soon.

Credit: Smiley N. Pool/ Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

Usain Bolt’s 100 Meters

During the 2012 London Games, Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt set a new Olympic record time of 9.63 seconds in the 100-meter dash. The record has yet to be beaten at the Olympics and would have represented the absolute pinnacle of human speed if it weren’t for Bolt’s world record of 9.58 seconds, set at the 2009 IAAF World Championships in Berlin. (Bolt reached an astonishing 27.8 mph when he hit full stride.)

Bolt is a towering figure, quite literally, among his rivals. The fastest sprinters tend to be comparatively short and compact in comparison to Bolt’s frame of 6 feet, 5 inches, which allowed him to complete a 100-meter race in around 41 steps — three to four steps fewer than his competitors. His perfect technique, peak competition form, and biomechanical uniqueness may never be seen again, making it unlikely that his record will be beaten in the foreseeable future.

Bob Beamon’s Long Jump

When Bob Beamon jumped 8.90 meters at the 1968 Mexico City Games, he didn’t just beat the Olympic record — he obliterated it. Prior to his jump, the record tended to be surpassed by just a few centimeters each time. But Beamon beat the existing world record by a staggering 55 centimeters, in what was soon dubbed the “leap of the century.”

Not even the judges were ready for such a feat. The electronic measuring equipment went up to only around 8.5 meters, so an old-fashioned steel tape had to be found. American athlete Mike Powell eventually broke the world record in 1991 with a jump of 8.95 meters, but Beamon’s leap is still the Olympic record more than half a century later. It remains to be seen whether it will ever be surpassed on the Olympic stage.

Credit: David Madison via Getty Images Sports

Jackie Joyner-Kersee’s Heptathlon Haul

At the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea, Jackie Joyner-Kersee proved that while she may not have been the best in the world in any one of the heptathlon’s events, she was the best in the world at doing all seven. Finishing with 7,291 points, she beat her own previous world record, which she had set four times since 1986. At the time, no other woman had scored more than 7,000 points — but Joyner-Kersee had done it five times. Almost four decades later, her Olympic record still stands.

In 2005, reigning heptathlon Olympic gold medalist Carolina Kluft said that Joyner-Kersee’s record was “probably unbeatable.” That may well be true, but American athlete Anna Hall is intent on trying. In 2025, Hall scored 7,032 at a competition in Austria, which is tied for the second-highest scorer ever — but still 259 points behind the Olympic and world record. She’s certainly receiving good advice in her quest for the record, as her mentor is none other than Jackie Joyner-Kersee herself.

Credit: Don Morley/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images

Nadia Comăneci’s Perfect 10

In 1976, Romanian gymnast Nadia Comăneci became the first gymnast to earn a perfect score of 10 at the Olympic Games. She was only 14 years old when she competed at the Montreal Olympics and got a perfect score on the uneven bars. It was so unexpected that even the scoreboards weren’t prepared. Being unable to display the four digits required for 10.00, they instead had to display each judge’s score as 1.00.

Incredibly, Comăneci went on to record a perfect 10 six more times, while also becoming the youngest all-around Olympic gold medalist. Though other Olympic gymnasts have scored a perfect 10 since then, there will never be another first.

Credit: Al Bello/ Getty Images for MMPP via Getty Images Sports

Michael Phelps’ 28 Olympic Medals

American swimmer Michael Phelps won an amazing 28 Olympic medals during his career, a feat that may well be impossible to surpass. A staggering 23 of those medals were gold — more than double the count of his nearest rivals. The previous record holder for the most Olympic medals accumulated was (and still is) Soviet Union gymnast Larisa Latynina, who won 18 medals (nine of them gold) from 1956 to 1964.

After a long and glorious career, Phelps hung up his Speedos and retired after the 2016 Games, fairly secure in the knowledge that his reign of dominance — and his medal haul — may not be surpassed by any future Olympian.

What My Life Would Have Cost in 1950

Grocery store cashier

Author Bennett Kleinman

January 26, 2026

Love it?100

In 1950, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar was more than 13 times greater than it is today, meaning your money went much further, at least when it came to certain expenses. For instance, the average cost of a brand-new Chevrolet sedan was just $1,450 that year, the equivalent of around $19,416 today when adjusted for inflation. The median price for a single-family home, meanwhile, was only $7,354, or around $98,474 in today’s money. (If only!)

That said, salaries were lower in the mid-20th century as well. The median salary was $3,135 (around $41,979 in today’s dollars) for white working individuals and $1,569 (around $21,009 today) for people of color — a discrepancy caused by the discriminatory hiring practices of the time. That’s compared to a nationwide median annual salary of $63,128 today.

But even accounting for the lower household income in 1950, the relative purchasing power was greater at the onset of the ’50s than it is today. For instance, it took about 2.5 years’ worth of paychecks for a person earning the average salary for white workers in 1950 to afford a new home, while the median cost of a new home today is nearly six times the average salary.

It’s a refrain you hear a lot — life used to be much more affordable. Which got me wondering: What would my own lifestyle have cost if I lived in 1950? Would my monthly bills as a New York City resident be substantially easier to manage?

To investigate, I took a look at the cost of housing, food, and even Yankees tickets in 1950 and input the values into inflation calculators from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, taking the rough average of values from the start and end of the year 1950. Here’s what I found.

Credit: FPG/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Monthly Rent

According to housing data from the 1950 U.S. census, the average rent of an apartment in New York City that year was $49 per month (around $656 in today’s dollars). Unsurprisingly, rents were higher in Manhattan — the borough I live in — at $56 per month (equal to around $752 today). Rents on my exact block in the Murray Hill neighborhood were higher still, coming in at $88 per month (around $1,181 adjusted for inflation).

Much to my chagrin, this is a far cry from what I’m paying monthly today. Let’s put it this way: While someone living in my building earning the median salary (for white workers) in 1950 would’ve put roughly a third of their annual pay toward rent, the percentage in my own case hovers closer to half.

It’s also worth noting that housing costs in 1950 varied substantially throughout Manhattan, depending on the neighborhood. Rents dipped as low as $14 per month (equal to around $192 today) in the city’s Two Bridges neighborhood — an area next to the Brooklyn Bridge that has no personal residences today. On the other end of the spectrum, the block between 58th and 59th streets along the East River was among the most expensive in the entire city, where average rents totalled $384 per month (around $5,144 adjusted).

Sports Tickets

I’m a huge fan of the New York Yankees and go to roughly 40 games each year. Depending on where you sit, the price of tickets today can range from affordable to exorbitant. It’s not uncommon to pay as little as $10 for seats in the upper deck or bleachers, though luxury seats behind home plate may come with a face value exceeding $1,000 depending on the day of the week and opponent. Personally, I like to sit in the lower level toward the outfield, where seats tend to range between $50 to $100, depending on demand.

Back in 1950, on the other hand, the idea of paying $1,000 or even $100 to attend a Yankees game was unheard of. Admission to the bleachers for the 1950 season cost 60 cents (the equivalent of around $8 today), and seats in the grandstand were around $1.25 (equal to about $16.74 today). And the cost didn’t balloon much higher for the prime seats closer to home plate. For instance, a ticket stub from July 16, 1950, shows a price of $2.50 (around $33.48 adjusted for inflation) for box seats in section 10 of the old stadium. Similar tickets in the current stadium would cost around $250 in today’s dollars.

Even World Series tickets were relatively reasonable back in the day. Just look at this stub from Game 3 of the 1950 World Series, which cost $6.00 (equal to around $80 today) for a reserved lower-level seat. When the Yankees made it to Game 3 of the World Series in 2024, I paid around $250 for my seat in a similar location. (That game and the rest of the series turned out to be among the most soul-crushing sporting experiences I've had — but that's a story for another day.)

Groceries

It’s not all bad news for denizens of the 21st century, however. In 1950, many grocery staples cost more than they do today if you account for inflation. One example is dairy products. According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, a gallon of fresh milk at the grocery store cost roughly 77 cents in 1950 (around $10 adjusted for inflation). Today, the average price for a standard gallon of milk is just under $4. Basic eggs were also costlier, as the price for a dozen averaged roughly 53 cents (equal to around $7.10 today). But at my local grocery, I can get a dozen eggs for around $2.86, assuming I stick to basic brands instead of organic or cage-free.

Another food that has gotten cheaper is beef: A pound of hamburger meat was priced around 51 cents in 1950 (roughly $6.83 adjusted for inflation), whereas if I run to my local Trader Joe’s the cost for a pound of ground beef is about $6.49. A pound of white bread was also more of a relative financial burden 75 years ago, albeit only slightly. In 1950, you would have paid 14 cents (around $1.87 adjusted for inflation), while at my Trader Joe’s it’s $1.81.

And a pound of basic coffee would have run you an average cost of 75 cents (around $10 adjusted), compared to the $9.26 people pay on average today. However, I do like to splurge on specialty brews from a company called Joshua Tree Coffee, but even then I’m only paying $16 per pound for a high-quality artisanal product. A pound of white sugar — a necessity for those occasions where I’ve baked banana bread or carrot cake — cost roughly 48 cents (around $6.43 adjusted for inflation) in 1950, but is priced around 99 cents today. A pound of bananas was priced around 17 cents in 1950 (equal to roughly $2.28 in today’s dollars), while the average cost today is just 66 cents.

When I fill up my grocery cart, it can feel like I’m breaking the bank with just the basics. But when you dig into the numbers, it turns out that the relative price would have been even steeper in 1950. While you could fill up a cart for $10 back then, $10 was a hefty chunk of most people’s household income.

Credit: George Karger/Pix/ Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images

Dining Out

One of the things I enjoy most about living in New York is taking advantage of the city’s excellent food scene, but dining out comes at a cost — and unlike groceries, it’s a higher relative cost than it would have been if I lived here in 1950.

For example, 75 years ago, it would’ve cost me no more than 15 cents for a slice of classic New York pizza — around $2 adjusted for inflation. But the median price of an average plain slice is now around $3.81, including at my neighborhood slice shop Libretto’s. The difference is even more stark when eating at a fancy restaurant. Let’s look at my favorite steakhouse, Keens Steakhouse on 36th Street. While I don’t exactly frequent the establishment, it’s always nice to go for a special occasion — and it would have been less of a splurge in the mid-20th century.

This local institution is known for its famous mutton chop, which was priced at $3.45 back in 1950 (around $46.20 when adjusted for inflation). I like to order an appetizer and dessert as well, so let’s add in a shrimp cocktail, priced at $0.85 in 1950 (equal to around $11.38 in today’s dollars) and an order of ice cream at $0.35 (equal to around $4.69 today). Also, 1950 was before New York state instituted any sales tax, and people commonly tipped around 10% on their bill, bringing the total cost of the full meal at Keens to around $5.12 (around $68.56 adjusted for inflation). But if I order those same exact menu items today, the mutton chop will run me $73, the shrimp cocktail $29, and the ice cream $11. Add in tax and tip and I end up with a total bill of around $145.49 for my fancy dinner.

Credit: Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images

Travel

I love road trips and try to take at least one a year — I recently drove across the country from NYC to the Pacific Northwest, down into northern California, across to Utah, and back. If I were driving across the country back in 1950, I could expect to see a gallon of gas cost about $0.27 (around $3.62 adjusted for inflation) — making it total about $4.05 (around $54.23 adjusted for inflation) to fill up a typical 15-gallon tank. Today, the national average for a tank of gasoline hovers around $2.85, meaning if I were to fill up the 15-gallon tank of the Mazda I often drive, it would only run me $42.75 — cheaper in terms of relative cost.

Flying is also relatively cheaper today than it was in 1950. At the end of 2025, I took my first flight to Europe, which cost me $1,000 for round-trip airfare. But back to 1950, we were still in the nascent days of commercial aviation, and flying was more of a luxury than commonplace. This meant that ticket prices were sky high — the cost of air travel didn’t come down until the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The average round-trip ticket for a transatlantic flight from New York City cost roughly $675 in 1950 (around $9,038 when adjusted for inflation). That’s more than nine times higher in terms of relative cost than what I paid to cross the ocean two months ago, bringing into question whether I could’ve even afforded the trip back in 1950.

Credit: Harold M. Lambert/ Archive Photos via Getty Images

Clothing

The 1950 Sears catalog provides some great insight into what I might have paid for clothes in 1950, and in this particular area of life, the difference isn’t significant. Back then, formal button-down collared shirts ranged between $1.69 and $3.85 (around $22.63 to $51.55 when adjusted for inflation). Casual cotton button-down tops went for $1.57 (equal to roughly $21.02 today), while nicer wool tops were priced around $7.50 (equal to around $100.43 today). Socks hovered between 39 cents to $1.49 for a package of four to five (around $5.22 to $19.95 in today’s dollars), and tees cost $1.75 to $2.75 (around $23.43 to $36.82 adjusted for inflation). Your typical pair of Levi’s jeans — a staple of my wardrobe — cost $3.50 in 1950 (around $46.87 adjusted for inflation).

All in all, the prices were largely in line with what I spend on clothing today. The exception may be socks and tees — which are slightly costlier now — but otherwise I rack up similar bills when shopping at places such as Uniqlo or Kohl’s.

Public Transit

While I don’t take the subway or bus daily, I do take it regularly, and it’s quite surprising to learn that I’m paying double the relative cost that transit riders would have paid in 1950. Earlier this month, standard New York City subway and bus fares increased from $2.90 to $3.00 a ride. But back in 1950, the fare was just 10 cents, or around $1.34 when adjusted for inflation. It’s a small difference, but one that adds up if you take public transit regularly, making this aspect of city life slightly more affordable for the New Yorkers of yesteryear.

What Did People Keep in Their Medicine Cabinets in the 1950s?

Antique medicines and drugs

Author Nicole Villeneuve

January 22, 2026

Love it?80

In the mid-20th century, the medicine cabinet was a fixture of many homes. Open one and you’d likely find a thermometer, a box of bandages, maybe a tin of aspirin — basics we still recognize today. But alongside those common essentials were remedies that didn’t just look different from modern products — they were also built on ideas modern medicine has long since abandoned.

These old-school treatments reflected the medical knowledge of the era, when the risks of certain heavy metals, narcotics, and chemicals weren’t fully understood. Here are six things people regularly stocked in their medicine cabinets in the 1950s that you rarely see anymore.

Mercurochrome

For many families in the 1950s, a flash of bright red wasn’t just a sign of a scrape or cut — it was also the remedy. Products such as Mercurochrome and Merthiolate were staples in medicine cabinets, used for disinfecting skinned knees and elbows or a knick from a kitchen knife. They came in glass bottles that showed off their unmistakable bright red-orange color. A streak of the liquid, applied to the skin with a glass dobber, meant your mishap was on the way to healing.

Mercurochrome was first developed in the early 20th century, and as the name implies, it relied on mercury compounds to stop the spread of bacteria and help prevent infection. The dangers of mercury poisoning are well known today, but for much of the 20th century, mercury was widely used in medical treatments. Mercurochrome stayed on shelves (and as an add-on in products such as pretreated bandages) as late as 1998, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration withdrew its approval of the product’s ingredients, and it was removed from the market.

Bile Beans

Digestive issues were once thought to be the root of countless everyday problems, and midcentury America had no shortage of treatments to improve digestion. Many of these, curiously, targeted the liver, including the popular Bile Beans. The product was primarily marketed to homemakers as a way to stay “fit, bright, and attractive” by stimulating the liver, improving digestion, and relieving constipation.

Most liver pills of the era — Bile Beans included — were essentially laxatives, and typically relied on herbal ingredients such as cascara, rhubarb, and licorice to force bowel movement. Bile Beans were the target of fraud claims around 1904, but their presence in medicine cabinets persisted throughout the 1950s and beyond; they remained available on store shelves until the 1980s.

Credit: Stephen Barnes/Medical/ Alamy Stock Photo

Paregoric

It wasn’t uncommon for everyday foods and remedies to contain narcotics in the not-too-distant past. Early versions of Coca-Cola famously contained cocaine, and early cough syrups commonly relied on morphine. And paregoric — a tincture containing opium — was a fixture in many medicine cabinets in the 1950s.

The liquid was kept on hand in glass bottles and was used by adults for stomach and gastrointestinal issues and given to babies for everything from stubborn coughs to teething pain. Up until 1970, paregoric was available at pharmacies without a prescription; after that point, it became a regulated drug in an attempt to curb misuse or dependence on the opiate. Paregoric is memorable for more than one of its ingredients: Thanks to the addition of anise oil, it had a distinctive flavor not unlike licorice.

Dr. Miles’ Nervine

Tonics were a staple of midcentury medicine cabinets. One of the most popular was Dr. Miles’ Nervine, a product that had been around in various forms since the late 19th century. By the 1950s, however, it had shifted away from earlier claims of treating hysteria or epilepsy and instead taken the form of a widely available liquid and effervescent tablet that promised relief from “sleeplessness and restlessness, nervous tension headaches, and nervous irritability.”

Dr. Miles’ Nervine affected the nervous system through its bromide compounds, chemicals once commonly used in sedatives. While indeed effective, bromides can accumulate in the body and become toxic, sometimes causing bromism and leading to hallucinations, skin rashes, and neurological symptoms. By 1975, bromide salts were banned as an ingredient in over-the-counter products.

Credit: Science History Images/ Alamy Stock Photo

Miltown

Before modern antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, there was a brief moment when a single pill promised to take the edge off postwar life. Introduced in the mid-1950s, Miltown — chemically known as meprobamate — was discovered by Czech scientist Frank Berger while researching ways to preserve penicillin. Instead, he stumbled onto a compound that relaxed muscles and calmed the mind without putting users to sleep. When Miltown reached the market in 1955, it barely registered at first; within a year, it was everywhere.

Hollywood embraced it (comedian and television host Milton Berle joked about changing his name to Miltown Berle), and millions of Americans tried the tranquilizer. The product promised something new: calm, but not total sedation; a way to stay functional while smoothing life’s anxieties. Miltown’s success, though short-lived, sparked a pharmaceutical gold rush, and newer medications such as Valium soon eclipsed it.

Lysol

Lysol is, of course, still one of the most familiar names in American households, disinfecting countertops with a lemony scent. But in the early-to-mid-20th century, it was also marketed for a very different purpose: feminine hygiene. ALysol advertisements from the 1920s through the 1960s told women that using Lysol as a feminine wash was an essential part of marital harmony. This language, however, is believed by some historians to have actually been a vague way of encouraging the use of the product as a contraceptive.

What those ads downplayed was that Lysol was a powerful chemical disinfectant, not a gentle personal-care product. Its ingredients could irritate or burn sensitive tissue; as early as 1911, Lysol exposure had led to nearly 200 poisonings by those using it for hygiene, and several deaths were linked to using the product internally. As the formula evolved, Lysol was increasingly promoted as a versatile disinfectant — even as it remained a top-selling feminine hygiene product through the 1960s.

What Exactly Is Feudalism?

Medieval lord receiving a grant of land

Author Bess Lovejoy

January 22, 2026

Love it?26

The concept of feudalism is probably a familiar one if you’ve encountered a medieval fantasy epic: Picture a stone castle overlooking fields of peasants tilling the soil while armored knights ride out at dawn. But what does the term actually mean, and how did feudalism work in practice?

Feudalism is a term used to describe how power, land, and obligation were organized in much of medieval Europe. At its core, it refers to a system in which land was the main source of wealth and political authority, and control of that land was tied to personal relationships of loyalty and service.

In this arrangement, a monarch was considered the ultimate owner of all the land in their kingdom. The ruler granted large estates, called fiefdoms, to nobles in exchange for allegiance and military support. Those nobles could then distribute portions of their land to lesser nobles (such as knights), creating a layered hierarchy of obligation known as vassalage.

At the bottom of this structure were peasants and serfs, who worked the land and provided labor or goods in return for protection and the right to live on the estate. Power was exercised largely at the local level, rather than through a strong centralized government. For instance, a king might grant land to a duke, the duke to a knight, and the knight would then draw income and labor from the peasants who worked that land, creating a chain of obligation that ran downward while authority flowed upward.

It Started With the Fall of Rome

Europe’s feudal structure developed gradually in the centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire around 476 CE. As Roman authority weakened, Western Europe experienced political fragmentation and repeated invasions by Germanic peoples, whose social structures emphasized personal loyalty to a leader rather than obedience to the laws of a centralized state.

Over time, Roman legal traditions blended with Germanic customs centered on allegiance and service. In an era marked by resource insecurity, warfare, and limited state power, people increasingly turned to powerful local lords for protection. In return, they offered these lords labor, military service, or political loyalty, reinforcing the link between landholding and authority.

Why Is It Called “Feudalism”?

Despite its association with the Middle Ages, “feudalism” is not a medieval term. The word derives from the Latin feudum, meaning land granted in exchange for service, which was a term used in the Middle Ages to describe a type of property arrangement. But medieval people did not describe their society as “feudal.” It wasn’t until the 16th and 17th centuries that scholars studying medieval legal documents began using the term to explain how land, power, and obligation had seemingly functioned during this period.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, historians and philosophers had expanded the term “feudalism” into a broad model for medieval society (with some differences in interpretation), often depicting it as a rigid hierarchy stretching from monarch to peasant.

Credit: Heritage Images/ Hulton Fine Art Collection via Getty Images

Why Historians Debate the Term Today

Many historians now argue that the notion of feudalism oversimplifies medieval reality. Laws, customs, and power structures varied widely from region to region, and medieval society did not operate under a single, uniform system. For example, in some areas monasteries controlled land, collected rents, and ran courts; in others, particularly urban centers, merchant guilds often held real political influence. Some later scholars also tended to emphasize the importance of landholding arrangements at the expense of other forces that shaped society and daily life, such as trade, the church, and political institutions.

As a result, feudalism is often described as a historiographic construct — a framework created by modern thinkers to impose order on a complex past. Still, the term remains useful as shorthand for a world in which land, loyalty, and power were tightly linked, and political authority was fragmented rather than centralized. In other words, feudalism may not describe a single medieval system so much as a later attempt to explain how society held together, insofar as it did at all during this turbulent period in history.

8 of the Most Expensive Foods in History

Author Bess Lovejoy

Saffron

You may also like

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

Born Between 1941-1969? Take Advantage of These 10 Benefits

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Truffles

Pineapple

Caviar

Bird’s Nest Soup

Ambergris

Black Peppercorns

Silphium

The Origin of 7 Surprising Nicknames

Author Bess Lovejoy

Peggy for Margaret

You may also like

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

Born Between 1941-1969? Take Advantage of These 10 Benefits

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Dick for Richard

Chuck for Charles

Hank and Harry for Henry

Sally for Sarah

Jack for John

Polly for Mary

8 U.S. Presidents Who Struggled in School

Author Timothy Ott

Zachary Taylor

You may also like

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

Born Between 1941-1969? Take Advantage of These 10 Benefits

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Franklin Pierce

James Buchanan

Ulysses S. Grant

Herbert Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

John F. Kennedy

Ronald Reagan

The Surprising History of Tarot Cards

Author Bess Lovejoy

A Renaissance Card Game

You may also like

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

Born Between 1941-1969? Take Advantage of These 10 Benefits

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

What the Original Images Represented

New Meanings Inspired by “Egyptomania”

The Occult Revival

The Secret Society That Shaped Modern Tarot

From Predicting the Future to Self-Reflection

Tarot Decks Keep Changing

Why Do Men’s and Women’s Shoes Have Different Sizes?

Author Tony Dunnell

The First Shoe Sizes

You may also like

More from our network

How Well Do You Know Your U.S. Geography?

Go Retro With This 1960s Fashion Quiz

6 Tricks Grocery Stores Use To Influence What You Buy

Born Between 1941-1969? Take Advantage of These 10 Benefits

Do You Know What the “P” in “P.M.” Stands For?

Why Different Sizes for Men and Women?

6 Jobs That Paid More in the Past

Author Kristina Wright

Stockbroker