Well, I dunno. That does seem extreme, but then, maybe lots bought them on "time," making payments as we do today for automobiles and other big ticket items. And I'm sure lots of more modest means would have loved to own a Victrola but actually bought a cheaper line (Claxtonola? Starr of Indiana? Silvertone? Bob Smith's Upright Phonogramographophone Company?) Against "that's an awful lot for a Victrola" (or Edison, or whatever), we should bear in mind that the home entertainment options otherwise were limited--buy a piano or violin or guitar and learn to play it, buy playing cards or board games of some sort, buy books or magazines (or maybe check them out from the library), not a lot more. No TV or radio or Internet or cell phones--or, in many cases, phones of any sort--in those days, and transportation wasn't so great that going out to the movies (themselves still a novelty, not necessarily available in every town or hamlet) or such was a matter of routine, either. So adding a phonograph to the home was an investment in hugely expanded entertainment options. Moreover, maybe the (to us) immense cost of the things is one reason so many have survived to the present day, even though they are clumsy to store and, as a practical matter, have been useless for their intended purpose for decades--they cost so much when new, a lot of people just couldn't bring themselves to throw them away when they became obsolescent/obsolete.phonogfp wrote:And this is why I don't trust these inflation calculators. How many families could/would spend half a year's income on a Victrola IV?
George P.
All the foregoing is speculation on my part, not in any way authoritative. Just ideas to mull over.