Author: Pernilla Larsson
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 03:14 pm |        |
I have a litte problem...
I'm doing a essay about Jack the Ripper and I have the information that the women sold thier bodies for 3-4 pence...and now to the problem...I need to know how much that would be today...anyone?? |
Author: Alan Hunt
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 07:37 pm | |
by direct conversion it works out at about 1-2p,not very much as you can see but with inflation it comes to around 75p-£1.Don't forget though that the cost of living at the time was vastly different to now.3-4d was the average price of a loaf of bread,a large glass of gin or a night in a doss or flop house so they only charged what they needed to to exist.
hope that helps
Alan |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 07:54 pm | |
Pernilla , as a student of Victorian history this is a question I can answer : in 1888 £1 sterling had the same purchasing power as approximately £50 sterling today ( UK , 2001 AD ) , thats about $75 US.
There were 20 shillings in a pound , so 1 shilling ( 1888 ) is equivalent to £2.50 today , or about $3.25.
There were 12 pence in a shilling , so 1 pence ( 1888 ) is equivalent to approximately 21 pence today or about 30 cents.
A farthing was a small copper coin with a wren on one side and the Queens head on the other , it was worth a quarter ( 0.25 ) of a penny , therefore worth about 5 pence today , or 7 cents.
Thus the answer you are looking for is that 3-4 pence in 1888 is worth about 60-85 pence nowadays , or 80 - 120 cents.
Simon
N.B. The US figures have been edited on this post 26th Jan 2001 to make them correct. S.O. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 26 January 2001 - 03:19 am | |
Hmm. The above poste assumes that £1 = $0.70 Surely that exchange rate is upside down?
If you use the $1 = £0.70 then the figure quoted of £50 becomes worth $71.42
There were 240 old pence to £1, so in straight conversion terms 3d was worth 1.25p in today's money.
Regards, V. |
Author: Corinna Richards
Friday, 26 January 2001 - 09:21 am | |
Hi Pernilla,
It's worth remembering that a sizeable number of prostitutes, especially in the West End earned more than that and did rather well out of it.
There were also the 'dress-lodgers' who were too poor to have the apparel to make themselves appealing and so went to brothel owners who would loan them the gear in return for a sizeable chunk of the profits. The owners would also have them followed to stop them pawning them.
Beware tarring all Victorian prostitutes with the same brush.
Good Luck with the essay! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 26 January 2001 - 01:34 pm | |
Oh well , I was never that good at Mathematics ( or Math ). The UK figures are right however.
Simon
N.B. I have now altered the US figures on my last post. |
Author: Pernilla Larsson
Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 08:21 am | |
| I thank you all...you've been a great help =) |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:20 pm | |
| Obviously the wages of sin weren't that greaqt for people like Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols. Kindest reguads, NEil |
