How did Harry die at the age of 9 when his tombstone shows 1911-1919?

Maybe they rounded up his age. Or he died on New Year's Eve 1919 and his birthday was New Year's Day 1920. Or it's a mistake. Or they did math differently back then.

I noticed that too, and just figured like the other poster said he was born in the early months of 1911 and died in the later months of 1919 and when Clarence said he died at the age of 9 he was just estimating because he was just short of 9 years old



I don't know what they have to say. It makes no difference anyway. Whatever it is, I'm against it.

I know in "those" days, it wasn't unusual to think of one's age as including the year of one's upcoming birthday. For example Columbia Pictures studio head Harry Cohn had a negative fascination with the number "67" & was convinced it was bad luck for him. When he passed away in early 1958, he was only 66 but he was "in" his 67th year, i.e. he would have turned 67 later that year. But even that "rule" doesn't apply to Harry Bailey---he would have had to made it to at least Jan 1 1920.

Let's say that a person is 8 years and some nine (or ten or eleven) months old.

It would not be out of the realm of possibility to refer to him as a "nine-year-old".

The "nine-year-old" designation is generally considered an approximation, anyway.

Normally, we don't refer to a person's age in years and months and days. (For example, saying that Johnny Jones is 28 years, 3 months, and 148 days old.)

So, when we say "nine years old", we mean that the child is approximately or "close to" being exactly nine years old, give or take.

It's simply implied that he is at or near (or just passed) his ninth birthday.

No one interprets that the child is exactly nine years old, to the day.

That was a mistake on the part of Clarence or somebody.