English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or the 1600's? Estimates are fine. Not in today's values.

2007-07-04 05:38:15 · 4 answers · asked by cathy_cmr 3 in Arts & Humanities History

4 answers

this is a tricky one as where are you building it, when are you building & what medium are you planning to use (certain timbers cost more than others). oh & a biggie: how big is your ship going to be, huh? believe me, all these variables determine cost. now, to generalize, building a ship for king henry 8th, his personal ship "mary rose", was assembled for a crew of 25-36 i believe. never mind that it was a rush job & pushed into service, the cost must have run into the upper 5 figures, low six (hundreds of thousands of pounds or a million/million point five pounds). believe it or not, the cost was way more then than now even though they used material not used today and with less middlemen.

2007-07-04 08:58:00 · answer #1 · answered by blackjack432001 6 · 0 0

Gosh, I would think in those days people traded things and did not use money that much except for the spaniards. They used gold. All coins were made from gold or silver and they did not know what it was worth. Nowadays, Countries back their curencies with gold or stronger currencies. Money is really worthless itself without its country backing its value. But a ship. were not ships built by slaves in those days and did not really cost anything. All you had to do was feed them.

2007-07-04 12:44:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It really would depend on the type of ship and on the shipbuilder. Costs and prices varied greatly from area to area, even if you were talking about ships of approximately equal size or capacity.

2007-07-04 13:44:18 · answer #3 · answered by John R 7 · 0 0

Around 1500 pounds sterling.

2007-07-04 12:41:09 · answer #4 · answered by freeadvice 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers