Chainring wear on a fixie

[silva]

I was browsing on a rare historical photos website and came across this:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/students-at-smith-colleg-massachusetts/

This is dated 1948, look at how far the chainring teeth are separated, it's like half density, aka every inch instead of every 1/2 inch.
Someone here recently wrote having removed every second tooth, without elaborating why.
Apparently, back then, chainrings were produced like that.

 

[Ian H]

Inch pitch chains were common back in the day (inner link was solid), hence the inch-pitch ring. You can run a half-inch chain on it no problem, but not vise versa.

 

[silva]

How does a "solid" inner link differ from nowadays inner link?
2 outer plates, 2 inner plates, 2 pens, 2 bushings over the pens, 2 rollers spinning over the bushings?
I found this:
http://www.american-vintage-bicycles.com/home/vintage-bicycle-parts/skip-tooth/
"skip tooth" chain it is named.

The inner link plates are longer than the outer so not equal gaps between rollers.
1 gap is big enough to accomodate a tooth, the other isn't.
The rollers are alike in pairs, so between 2 chainring (and then also rear cog I suppose) teeth, instead of 1 roller, 2 rollers.
On the 1950 dated pic I linked, not that detailed to be sure, but it does look like that, you see more white / background every second link.

 

[silva]

Well, it looks like the rear cog now also ceased wearing further.
I had grinded off the teeth tops to nearly points, as to allow the rollers to easily disengage, mounted a new chain, retensioned it now 5 times, and still no teeth broke off, alike happened before.
I have a cog here with 5 such broken teeth, the not broken ones are still quite thick (in the chain direction), but due to the hollowing out like hooks the rollers ripped the teeth off.
All 16 teeth of the current cog became thinner than that used cog, without break offs.
So it looks like it increases the life span alike it happened for the chainring.
How long, will remain to be seen.