Something
Emporium

Burned

"In 1934, Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pennsylvania, presented a game called MONOPOLY to the executives at Parker Brothers. Mr. Darrow, like many other Americans, was unemployed at the time and often played this game to amuse himself and pass the time. It was the game's exciting promise of fame and fortune that prompted Darrow to initially produce this game on his own.

With help from a friend who was a printer, Darrow sold 5,000 sets of MONOPOLY to a Philadelphia department store. As the demand for the game grew, Darrow could not keep up with the orders and arranged for Parker Brothers to take over the game.

Since 1935 when Parker Brothers acquired the rights to the game, it has become the leading proprietary game not only in the United States but throughout the Western world. The game is published under licence in thirty two countries and in nineteen foreign languages."

-A foreword to the monopoly rules

"Each player is given $1500 divided as follows: 2 each of $500's, $100's and $50's; 6-$20; 5 each of $10's, $5's and $1's."

-Written in the goddamn original rules

Dom:
You have me on the money; you should however note that the original distributions were one $500, seven $100, two $50, five $20, seven $10, five $5 and five $1 and before that (you'll see how there can be a before that further down) it was one $500, five $100, five $50, five $20, ten $10, eight $5 and ten $1 - no closer to what I thought, but still.

As for the little spiel on the origins of the game: don't make me laugh! This, of course, would have been the story written in the Parker Brothers version of the game, so they're going to leave some (rather uncomplementary) things out. Want to know what really happened?
Charles Darrow initially made the sets of the Monopoly game by hand with the help of his first son, Wiliam Darrow, and his wife. Charles drew the designs with a drafting pen on round pieces of oilcloth, and then his son and his wife helped fill in the spaces with colors and make the title deed cards and the chance and community chest cards.

After the demand for the game increased, Darrow contacted a printing company, which printed the designs of the property spaces on square carton boards.

Monopoly was first marketed on a broad scale by Parker Brothers on November 5, 1935 with international licensing rights given to Waddington Games of the United Kingdom (both of which are now part of Hasbro).

In the 1930s, John Waddington Ltd. (Waddingtons) was a firm of printers from Leeds that had begun to branch out into packaging and the production of playing cards. Waddingtons had sent the card game Lexicon to Parker Brothers hoping to interest them in publishing the game in the United States. In a similar fashion Parker Brothers sent over a copy of Monopoly to Waddingtons early in 1935 before the game had been put into production in the United States.

The managing director of Waddingtons, Victor Watson, gave the game to his son Norman (who was head of the card games division) to test over the weekend. Norman was impressed by the game and persuaded his father to call Parker Brothers on Monday morning. This call resulted in Waddingtons obtaining a license to produce and market the game outside of the United States.

So, there we go - the two main versions were produced concurrently. In fact, Darrow's patent didn't come through until Dec. 31, 1935, by which time Waddingtons had the board, and given the fact that the Waddingtons board was the standard board throughout the commonwealth, it's fair to say that when the Parker Brothers introduction says 'it has become the leading proprietary game not only in the United States but throughout the Western world', they are not talking about the New Jersey board at all.

You should also note that some of the differences on the New Zealand board reflect our British heritage in that the London version replaced the income tax choice from the U.S. version flat rate, and the $75 Luxury Tax square by the £100 Super Tax square. As for reasons why Parker Brothers might want to brush over (read: lie about) the whole history of the game:
Although Monopoly was patented by Charles Darrow before selling the rights to Parker Brothers in 1935, similar games had been played before, including homemade games adapted to the places where players lived. A frequently cited example: in 1904, Georgist (that is, a supporter of political economist Henry George) Lizzie Magie patented a game called "The Landlord's Game" with the object of demonstrating how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants. She knew that some people can find it hard to understand why this happens and what might be done about it and she thought that if Georgist ideas were put into the concrete form of a game, they might be easier to demonstrate.

Although The Landlord's Game was patented, it was not taken up by a manufacturer until 1910, when it was published in the U.S. by the Economic Game Company of New York. In the UK it was published in 1913 by the Newbie Game Company of London under the title Brer Fox an' Brer Rabbit. Despite the title change, it was recognizably the same game.

Apart from commercial distribution, it spread by word of mouth and was played in slightly variant homemade versions over the years by Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends), Georgists, university students and others who became aware of it. As it spread, its rules were changed, most notably in dropping the second phase of the game during which a Land tax was introduced to replace the other taxes, and the shortened game became known as "Auction Monopoly". It was often localized, with the original fanciful property names being replaced by street names from the cities where the players lived. By the late 1920s it was known simply as "Monopoly" and was played very much as it is now. One version of the game, commonly played in the Philadelphia area, had Atlantic City street names; this game was taught to Charles Darrow, who then sold it as his personal invention to Parker Brothers. Parker Brothers subsequently decided to buy out Magie's copyright, and the copyrights of other commercial variants of the game, in order to have legitimate, undisputed rights to the game. Parker Brothers then promoted Darrow as the game's sole inventor. Decades later, when they attempted to suppress publication of a game called Anti-Monopoly, designed by Ralph Ansbach, the trademark suit went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1983, and the court found in favor of Ansbach because Darrow had merely copied an existing game that was known as "Monopoly" by those who played it.

Interesting, huh. Oh, and, seeing as we seem to be going by the official rules, did you read this one:
If the player lands on an unowned property, he may buy it for the price listed on that property's space. If he agrees to buy it, he pays the Bank the amount shown on the property space and receives the title deed for that property. If he declines to buy it, the property must be immediately put up for auction. All players are eligible to participate in the auction, including the player who declined to buy it, and the bidding may start at any price. The highest bidder wins the property and pays the Bank the amount bid and receives the property's title deed. Railroads and utilities are also properties.

Yep. Kinda changes the game, doesn't it. A colour set is officially known as a land monopoly. Don't get me started on the 10% rule for mortgaged property, nor the 50% rule for house resale. Oh, and of course there's this little gem:
A player may not loan money or trade anything for future consideration.

That's what we real Monopoly players like to call 'pwned'.
canuckboy

Comments

Just as a complete aside, I totally disagree with notating monetary values as

$100's, $50's, $20's, ...

and this isn't just because apostrophe use in forming plural abbreviations and numerals should be restricted to cases with internal punctuation (periods), a single lowercase letter used as a noun, and abbreviations or capital letters that would be ambiguous or confusing if the 's' alone were added. No, I'm just referring to the fact that I always thought the dollar sign removed the need for a plural at all. It's a complex stylistic matter, this one - anyone want to weigh in on it?
Dominic
Yeah I'm with you on that. Although you do come into conflict because if $ = dollars then $1 = 1 dollars. Then again, common sense should prevail I guess. Dom?
Alyx
T: But $100s doesn't stand for one hundred dollars. It stands for "bills each to the value of $100".
So $20 = "twenty dollars"
and $20s = "twenties"
No?

trav
aymar
No, Alyx, you don't come into conflict for that at all. When I write $1.56 you automatically vocalise it as 'one dollar and fifty six cents' - I didn't say it was specifically plural, rather that it removes any need for a decision between plural and singular. Continuous? I don't know.

Trav, yeah, that's right, which is why I'm confused. Personally, if I were reading aloud, I'd pause because I naturally read '$100s' as 'one hundred dollarssesss'.
Dominic
T: Confusing but correct. If you're gonna disagree with it, do you want to propose an alternative? trav
aymar
I'm not personally confused - that's just rhetoric. I really don't think you can call any solution to this one correct - your reasoning is somewhat valid, but so is the reasoning behind dropping the s. I've already proposed an alternative, as you'll see in TFA (TFNI).

More specifically, I disagree with your notion that $100s stands for "bills each to the value of $100". It's question begging, and a trivial assertion because that meaning is very obviously what was intended by the author. The question we should be answering is if the given form is the most lucid expression of this meaning possible. I contend it is not.
Dominic
Surely it is the nature of abbreviation to attribute the author's meaning to a contraction. Standards are based on general consensus. If an abbreviation has been taken up within the community (I think this one has, don't you?) it will assume the meaning attributed it, whether it is the "most lucid expression" or not.
Granted, the logic behind dropping the s is equally valid, but then we would have one abbreviation meaning two different things. "John gave Mildred her $20" could mean "John gave Mildred her twenty dollars" or "John gave Mildred her twenties".
Is this not more confusing?
I think that while the s may not be the *most* lucid expression for what we want to say, it is certainly *more* lucid, since it is unique in its description.
aymar
I never took you for a descriptivist. I thought you, of anyone, would argue for prescriptivism, especially in this case.

And your argument from the singular case 'John gave Mildred her $20' is unconvincing - I disagree that it can mean 'John gave Mildred her twenties'; I'm saying it's left to the dollar sign to negotiate the plural. So, looking at the plural case, 'John gave Mildred her 5 $20' is 'John gave Mildred her five twenty-dollars'.
Dominic
I don't think "John gave Mildred her $20" can mean "...Mildred her twenties" either; that was my point. I was applying your rule to a perfectly suitable case for the purpose of illustrating possible ambiguity.

Are you saying that it's inappropriate to use abbreviation in the indefinite sense? What if I wanted to abbreviate "John gave Mildred her twenties"? Sure, it's easy enough to type out twenties, (if you're interested in my personal taste, you know I prefer fractions to decimals; I only use cool abbreviations in my writing, and prefer usually to write something in full so as not to interrupt flow) but what if we're dealing with larger denominations?

How about: "Bill gave me the thousand dollar bills and kept the five-hundreds for himself."

Using your method I obtain: "Bill gave me the $1,000 and kept the $500 for himself." - This implies that we only scored $1,500 in total; and let me tell you, Bill and I only go for the big fish. When we hit a bank, we're talking about *multiple* thousands and *multiple* five-hundreds. In fact, there could very well be many more $500 bills than $1,000, but your transiteration implies I don't give Bill a very even cut.

"Bill gave me the $1,000s and kept the $500s for himself," encapsulates all that is in the original, unambiguosly. The versatility of the dropped s method is limited to specified quantities of bills. ...also, while you may cringe at plurality of continuous entities, I cringe at 5 $20 as opposed to either "five $20(s)" or "5*$20".
A Mysterious Unknown
Thanks for that...nobody.
Dominic
No objections to $100's at all. I'd hardly call it an acceptable abbreviation in formal writing (for the reason below), but it's a perfectly legitimate contraction to indicate multiples of a number of dollars.

That being said, it would almost always be said as either "hundreds" or "hundred dollar notes" - never as "hundred dollarses", which is plainly ridiculous.
robbie
So, agree with the apostrophe even?
Dominic
T: Someone oughta knock your power out more often.

trav
aymar
In other grammatical news, I wrote 'seeing as we seem'. Yuck.
Dominic
T: You redeemed yourself with the awesome inset up there. trav
aymar
What about things like the seventies, eighties etc. Should we say "I was born in the 80"?
aymar
naw, no dollar sign in dates (i don't think) t.
aymar
Just contemplating " 's "s
aymar
Eighties = 80s - no apostrophe in any case. However, essus = s's.
Dominic
and apostrophe-essus = 's's, or "'s"s. I think "'s"'s would mean the plural of . Of course, the most clear way would be to say '\'s's, which probably only funky, Justin and I will get.