Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1862-02-05

WORCESTER, Feb. /, 1862.
Editor Spy In order to simplify the watch
trade, let us drop all such terms as "per cent"
cash" Sc tgood terms enough when used
by book keepers, but liable to mslead common
folks like myselt,) and let us make tair, open
statement. said my watch to a yesterday,
for $50. l buy it back to-day for $40, thus
having my watch and SO. This ten dollars
will deposit with friend, lest l might spend
it. B row comes forward and gives me S45
Tor the watch which has Just cost me $40 Do
l not now make five dollars, which, added to
the sum in my friends hands, makes fifteen
dollars profit! Isn't this COMMON SENSE?
M. I,auO, N q.eATr RluR Tor sJ566e a anu
buy it back for $40 don't | make ten dollars
Certainly. Now l have watch which costs
me $40, and sell it for $40 Haven't l made
five dollars more OF course | have.
TRADER.
Another correspondent, who "don't sifur
mulch but redes sum-, sends the following,
which is cut from the New York Clipper of
Saturday =
"a READER.-I had watch which sold
for 500 | bought it back for S40 and sold it
again for $40. What did / profit ON the bar
gain y says SIS, b says So. Which is cor.
| rectP is correct, SO having been made on
the first trade, and % on the second. We pub
lislI this question in full as IA specimen OF the
many droll queries submitted to us.
WORCESTER, Feb. 4, 1862
Dir. Edtor:-I notice in to days Spy sew.
era solutions of "Call Again's" watch prob
lem. l think | can demonstrate that the so.
lutions are incorrect. In order to determine
the profit upon the watch. it is first necessary
to determine the exact value Of the watch,
and the Only way to determine this is to take
the average OF the three sales, which is S45.
The profit upon the watch was, therefore ten
dollars. Your former correspondents assume
the value OF the watch 10 be $50, which is an
arbitrary and unjust assumption, and is not
warranted by any construction of the state
ment. Yours, SYPnAx.
a GREAT "To Do."-The man who sold
his watch for $50, bought it for $40, and sold
lit again for $40, made SIS by his transaction
1t is not astonishing, since he had not mind
enough to know il he wanted to keep his
watch or sell it, that he did not know enough
| ITO do" so stupid problem without sending
it to the SPY. AL.
We fear that "a. L." is hardly so bright and
sharp in this case, as he supposes himself to
be- but it is not uncommon for people to make
| themselves little ridiculous by hasty and
/ conceited assumptions of superior sharpness.
We leave ga. L" to settle the question of stu.
pidity with himself, after carefully considering
the following response of "a Boy" to the
watch problem -
CoNNECTICUT, Feb. A. 1862.
Mr.. Editor If | sell my watch for $50, its
real value at the time part with it, and after.
wards buy it back again for $40 do | make
$40 on the bargains This depends on wheth
er the watch is still worth as much as when |
sold it. Ii | now sell it tor S45 | shall thprphv
admit that it has deprecated in value to the
amount OF S.. Or il it is still worth $50, and
make second sale of it for $45, actually
lose So on this last trade, which reduces to
this extent my profit the trade in which |
bought it back for $40. In either case, my
net profit on all the trades is only So
A Boy.