Because, as you state, of the very broad differences depending on the years involved and surely upon the places of transaction, I chose a rather fertile part of mid-Southern Ohio to approximate a multiplier.  It was there that corn meal and flour were equally available and such as horses, lumber, "stuffs", foodstuffs, and clothes were not on every street corner, but were widely offered for sale by reason of the transportation available to the ordinary farmer or artisan.

Perhaps I could have used the area described by Turner as the "cradle of American Democracy" (Evansville, Paducah, Cairo, etc., middle Ohio River Valley), or surely central Southern PA, however I felt that my selected area had much in common with many portions of the then US.  My principle reasons for setting forth those numbers were, a) to demonstrate the rank inaccuracy of the multiplier of 10 for 1850 suggested by several websites, and b) the fact that researchers need to have some feel for who paid or received what for how much, and few have time for the efforts needed to compile such for THEIR family "wheres". I would welcome any better average multipliers.

Finally, while barter was very often the medium of settlement for the ordinary citizen dealing in his home area, reckoning and expressing the sums owed, while very early stated in lbs. of tobacco or other commodities, later and to now those sums were calculated in numbers signifying money.  That there were negotiable instruments - notes, bonds, and warehouse receipts - in common use, I have come to believe that the principle exchanges by ordinary rural families (whatever that means??) were by barter and by the currency acceptable in the immediate neighborhood of the transaction; If your seller would accept the local banks paper, you paid him in that or with your crops and products.     Paul  

- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Cross 
  To: Paul Drake ; [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:58 AM
  Subject: Re: 1900 prices to contrats with 1850


  We need to remember that many items...were cheap because labor was plentiful and wages were low. .... Additionally, cash money was less of a means for transacting business then than it is now, with much done in trade or with "virtual" accounting like bonds and notes. In New England, for example, families would keep account books for services rendered to other families in the neighborhood. ....
  So when asking how much $1,000 was worth in 1860, for example, there are many variables to take into account. It's usually better to use lists like the one offered here of prices paid in the era before making judgments simply with a multiplier.

  Bill Cross

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html