I may be wrong, but I believe that most, if not all inventories were of the deceased personal estate only--real estate was a separate issue and different rules of inheritance applied. Anne -----Original Message----- >From: Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 8:48 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] question about money > >Thanks, and what you say would also be interesting, but I'm just >comparing out of curiosity, and to get a general idea. Even within >the same time frame you can get an idea of wealth, one man's estate >was worth $53,525.24, while another's was worth $6,891.56 [he had >been a plasterer, died elderly for the time, and widowed, but during >his life he had bought and sold quite a lot of land]. Yes, I did >notice bedding seemed relatively valuable within the context of an >estate, while kitchen tools were very cheap, cheaper than the >woodworking tools many had. Horses were worth much more than cattle >[and the wealthier had cattle, the middling to poorer people had only >"hogges", everybody seemed to have "hogges"]. No one seemed to have a >lot of cattle, usually a cow, a heifer or two, maybe a team of oxen >or a bull. No "herds" like you see today out in the country. They >never seemed to list fowl and poultry in inventories, I am assuming >most people had at least a few chickens scratching around the yard. >I've only found one instance in my small sample, with sheep [11]. >Land prices went up and down rather dramatically. 15 1/2 acres in >Amelia County in 1806 was sold for a mere $2,290.92. Maybe the >economy was still on poor footing from the Revolutionary War. The >$53,525 estate mentioned above was from a few years earlier. In that >estate, unfortunately, there were 5 slaves, 4 women and one young >adult male, whose worth was $9,355.66. Why was land and the house, >barn and other buildings never listed on these inventories, I wonder? > >Nancy > >------- >I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. > >--Daniel Boone > > > >On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Martha Katz-Hyman wrote: > >> Rather than spend time figuring out what something costs in today's >> dollars, >> it might be more helpful to figure out what something cost as a >> percentage >> of average yearly income. For instance, in the last quarter of the >> 18th >> century, a journeyman tradesperson in Williamsburg, received, on >> average, >> somewhere around 30 pounds/year. >> >> So if a bed and its furniture (mattress, hangings, pillows, etc.) >> was valued >> at 10 pounds in a probate inventory of that period, and the >> inventory total >> was about 100 pounds (not unusual), you could make the reasonable >> conclusion >> that this was a pretty substantial investment, especially for a >> person of >> middling income. >> >> There are, of course, exceptions and caveats to this example. But >> given the >> difficulty of translating prices across two-plus centuries, and the >> difficulty of comparing prices for things that were very valuable two >> centuries ago and do not have the same value to us, it may be more >> useful to >> use the comparative method described above rather than try to compare >> pound-to-dollar values. >> >> I know Harold Gill can explain this better than I, and welcome his >> comments! >> >> Martha Katz-Hyman >> >> ______________________________________ >> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the >> instructions at >> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html > >______________________________________ >To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at >http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html