I think jewellery which sold for possibly £200 (to afford two horses, the less valuable of which cost roughly £90) in the 1950s wasn't exactly limited in value.
To a child in the 1950s, £200-£250 might look like unlimited wealth. (See Nicola's reaction to her Windfall.) To an adult, however, it's plainly not. Depending which indicator of value you use (see Current Value of Old Money (http://eh.net/hmit/)) £250 in 1950 is probably (relative purchasing power) £5,270 in 2005. Think about how £5000 of "your own money" would look to a teenager: then think about how that would look to an adult. It's half what it would cost to buy a new car, or - before house prices went up - enough to put down a deposit on a small house or flat. (Wouldn't be now, where I live.) It's a nice little sum, but it's not, except from a child's point of view, unlimited wealth.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-08-31 08:48 am (UTC)To a child in the 1950s, £200-£250 might look like unlimited wealth. (See Nicola's reaction to her Windfall.) To an adult, however, it's plainly not. Depending which indicator of value you use (see Current Value of Old Money (http://eh.net/hmit/)) £250 in 1950 is probably (relative purchasing power) £5,270 in 2005. Think about how £5000 of "your own money" would look to a teenager: then think about how that would look to an adult. It's half what it would cost to buy a new car, or - before house prices went up - enough to put down a deposit on a small house or flat. (Wouldn't be now, where I live.) It's a nice little sum, but it's not, except from a child's point of view, unlimited wealth.