How much do wands cost?
Its never mentioned how much Ron or Hermione or anyone else's wand costs. Does anyone know how much an average wand would cost in the Wizarding World?
harry-potter wandlore
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
add a comment |
Its never mentioned how much Ron or Hermione or anyone else's wand costs. Does anyone know how much an average wand would cost in the Wizarding World?
harry-potter wandlore
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
2
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
1
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20
add a comment |
Its never mentioned how much Ron or Hermione or anyone else's wand costs. Does anyone know how much an average wand would cost in the Wizarding World?
harry-potter wandlore
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
Its never mentioned how much Ron or Hermione or anyone else's wand costs. Does anyone know how much an average wand would cost in the Wizarding World?
harry-potter wandlore
harry-potter wandlore
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
edited Jan 10 at 22:10
user50780
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
asked Jan 10 at 21:01
user50780user50780
282112
282112
2
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
1
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20
add a comment |
2
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
1
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20
2
2
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
1
1
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
We know the cost of Harry's wand.
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
Pottermore
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
|
show 11 more comments
Actually, we do know how much Harry paid for his first wand, from the first book (excerpt):
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
That's all that's mentioned in the book canon of wand prices, I think (other than the Weasleys not being able to afford new wands). However, on a (now-defunct) page on Pottermore, people were able to take a quiz to see what wand is best for them. At the end, the wand would always be sold for 7 Galleons.
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
add a comment |
As noted, Harry paid 7 Galleons for his wand (Book 1, Chapter 5, Diagon Alley).
Harry shivered. He wasn't sure he liked Mr. Ollivander too much. He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
But it is interesting that in Half Blood Prince (Book 6, Chapter 22, After the Burial), Horace Slughorn seems to think that unicorn hair is worth "ten Galleons a hair".
Not long after this, Hagrid became tearful again and pressed the whole unicorn tail upon Slughorn, who pocketed it with cries of, "To friendship! To generosity! To ten Galleons a hair!"
And unicorn hair is used as a wand core (e.g. Cedric Diggory's wand--Book 4, Chapter 18, The Weighing of the Wands). As Mr. Ollivander to says to Cedric, regarding Cedric's wand.
"Yes I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn...must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail."
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f203195%2fhow-much-do-wands-cost%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We know the cost of Harry's wand.
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
Pottermore
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
|
show 11 more comments
We know the cost of Harry's wand.
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
Pottermore
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
|
show 11 more comments
We know the cost of Harry's wand.
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
Pottermore
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
We know the cost of Harry's wand.
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
Pottermore
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
answered Jan 10 at 21:24
TuramarthTuramarth
436166
436166
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
|
show 11 more comments
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
12
12
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
@the-profile-that-was-promised: Do remember that JK Rowling is notoriously bad wrt. "small details". I'd bet she never did the maths.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 9:47
8
8
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
@MatthieuM. Of course she never did the maths. And the bigger question isn't how much the raw materials cost, it's how many Ollivander has to sell to make an acceptable living. Since people don't seem to upgrade wands, most wand sales are going to be to 11-year-olds, plus a small percentage for replacements due to damage. Hogwarts has about 150 kids per year, and let's assume they all buy from Ollivander. Let's be generous and also allow 100 replacement wands a year from adults. Then to even gross £50k, he needs to charge £200 per wand. At £5=1 Galleon, that would be 40 Galleons.
– Graham
Jan 11 at 10:27
4
4
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
@Graham: You are supposing that this is Ollivander's only source of revenue ;) But yeah, lots of maths issue in Harry Potter; still a nice book, but you have to gloss over the details.
– Matthieu M.
Jan 11 at 10:39
7
7
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized!
– speedymcs
Jan 11 at 13:12
6
6
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
@Graham Actually, Weasleys being poor is one of the little details that Rowling didn't think through. There are 6 Weasley boys and one girl. Feeding 7 kids is definitely not easy, however when Ron goes to school 2 are already earning money and 1 another starts earning money after 3rd year (and still living with the family). Therefore, it should be much easier to save money but they are still poor. They are always buying second-hand books which they should already have from other children. The kids are in school the whole year but Mrs. Weasley stays at home and doesn't bother to find a job...
– Sulthan
Jan 11 at 16:49
|
show 11 more comments
Actually, we do know how much Harry paid for his first wand, from the first book (excerpt):
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
That's all that's mentioned in the book canon of wand prices, I think (other than the Weasleys not being able to afford new wands). However, on a (now-defunct) page on Pottermore, people were able to take a quiz to see what wand is best for them. At the end, the wand would always be sold for 7 Galleons.
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
add a comment |
Actually, we do know how much Harry paid for his first wand, from the first book (excerpt):
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
That's all that's mentioned in the book canon of wand prices, I think (other than the Weasleys not being able to afford new wands). However, on a (now-defunct) page on Pottermore, people were able to take a quiz to see what wand is best for them. At the end, the wand would always be sold for 7 Galleons.
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
add a comment |
Actually, we do know how much Harry paid for his first wand, from the first book (excerpt):
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
That's all that's mentioned in the book canon of wand prices, I think (other than the Weasleys not being able to afford new wands). However, on a (now-defunct) page on Pottermore, people were able to take a quiz to see what wand is best for them. At the end, the wand would always be sold for 7 Galleons.
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
Actually, we do know how much Harry paid for his first wand, from the first book (excerpt):
He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand and Mr Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
That's all that's mentioned in the book canon of wand prices, I think (other than the Weasleys not being able to afford new wands). However, on a (now-defunct) page on Pottermore, people were able to take a quiz to see what wand is best for them. At the end, the wand would always be sold for 7 Galleons.
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
answered Jan 10 at 21:38
LaurelLaurel
4,37511735
4,37511735
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
add a comment |
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
it could be a pottermore promotional offer though
– user13267
Jan 11 at 1:18
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
It could also be the "Harry Potter" price. Best wand in the shop for 7 Galleons? With the alternative having the Dark Lord win? Sounds like a great deal for the merchant.
– Dark Matter
Jan 11 at 17:42
add a comment |
As noted, Harry paid 7 Galleons for his wand (Book 1, Chapter 5, Diagon Alley).
Harry shivered. He wasn't sure he liked Mr. Ollivander too much. He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
But it is interesting that in Half Blood Prince (Book 6, Chapter 22, After the Burial), Horace Slughorn seems to think that unicorn hair is worth "ten Galleons a hair".
Not long after this, Hagrid became tearful again and pressed the whole unicorn tail upon Slughorn, who pocketed it with cries of, "To friendship! To generosity! To ten Galleons a hair!"
And unicorn hair is used as a wand core (e.g. Cedric Diggory's wand--Book 4, Chapter 18, The Weighing of the Wands). As Mr. Ollivander to says to Cedric, regarding Cedric's wand.
"Yes I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn...must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail."
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
add a comment |
As noted, Harry paid 7 Galleons for his wand (Book 1, Chapter 5, Diagon Alley).
Harry shivered. He wasn't sure he liked Mr. Ollivander too much. He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
But it is interesting that in Half Blood Prince (Book 6, Chapter 22, After the Burial), Horace Slughorn seems to think that unicorn hair is worth "ten Galleons a hair".
Not long after this, Hagrid became tearful again and pressed the whole unicorn tail upon Slughorn, who pocketed it with cries of, "To friendship! To generosity! To ten Galleons a hair!"
And unicorn hair is used as a wand core (e.g. Cedric Diggory's wand--Book 4, Chapter 18, The Weighing of the Wands). As Mr. Ollivander to says to Cedric, regarding Cedric's wand.
"Yes I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn...must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail."
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
add a comment |
As noted, Harry paid 7 Galleons for his wand (Book 1, Chapter 5, Diagon Alley).
Harry shivered. He wasn't sure he liked Mr. Ollivander too much. He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
But it is interesting that in Half Blood Prince (Book 6, Chapter 22, After the Burial), Horace Slughorn seems to think that unicorn hair is worth "ten Galleons a hair".
Not long after this, Hagrid became tearful again and pressed the whole unicorn tail upon Slughorn, who pocketed it with cries of, "To friendship! To generosity! To ten Galleons a hair!"
And unicorn hair is used as a wand core (e.g. Cedric Diggory's wand--Book 4, Chapter 18, The Weighing of the Wands). As Mr. Ollivander to says to Cedric, regarding Cedric's wand.
"Yes I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn...must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail."
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
As noted, Harry paid 7 Galleons for his wand (Book 1, Chapter 5, Diagon Alley).
Harry shivered. He wasn't sure he liked Mr. Ollivander too much. He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.
But it is interesting that in Half Blood Prince (Book 6, Chapter 22, After the Burial), Horace Slughorn seems to think that unicorn hair is worth "ten Galleons a hair".
Not long after this, Hagrid became tearful again and pressed the whole unicorn tail upon Slughorn, who pocketed it with cries of, "To friendship! To generosity! To ten Galleons a hair!"
And unicorn hair is used as a wand core (e.g. Cedric Diggory's wand--Book 4, Chapter 18, The Weighing of the Wands). As Mr. Ollivander to says to Cedric, regarding Cedric's wand.
"Yes I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn...must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail."
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
edited Jan 11 at 10:35
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
answered Jan 11 at 10:20
paw88789paw88789
20914
20914
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
add a comment |
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
4
4
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
This assume that each hair can only be used whole and that the wands with expensive cores aren't sold at the same rate as those with less expensive cores
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 10:40
5
5
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
@Valorum Fair point. Though I would say that the third quote given in the answer at least suggests (but doesn't prove) that a whole hair was used in Cedric's wand. Also I didn't assert anything directly about the cost of wands, and whether all wands cost the same. Also it is possible that since apparently Ollivander gets his own unicorn hair, he can charge less. Though it does sound like a dangerous activity.
– paw88789
Jan 11 at 10:46
8
8
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
Like most salesmen, he's probably full of crap. The whole 'wand chooses the wizard' gubbins is just sales patter to sell you a wand
– Valorum
Jan 11 at 12:47
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f203195%2fhow-much-do-wands-cost%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/… and - if we take what Google says as the exchange rate in May 1991 (possibly around the time Harry went to Olivander's) as being about $1.75 => 1 pound, (poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/…) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD
– NKCampbell
Jan 10 at 22:03
IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons...
– Skooba
Jan 10 at 22:11
@Skooba - Below, someone mentions that as a result from a quiz to see what wand would choose you, and that all wands in thequiz seemed to cost 7 galleons. While I know that Pottermore data is considered canonical, I'm not as sure that a throwaway reference that's boilerplate to a quiz result is quite so canonical. Is this your reference as well, or is there somewhere that actually said that all wands, regardless of materials used, cost the same?
– RDFozz
Jan 10 at 23:18
There is also precedence of essential wizarding products to stay the same price... Floo Powder has been two Sickles a scoop for 100 years.
– Skooba
Jan 11 at 13:31
1
I’ve read extremely good reasons (comparing how much you can buy with various kinds of money, and others) for why JKR probably was off by an order of magnitude, and why a Galleon ought to be 50 ₤, not 5 ₤. That would suddenly make a lot of prices make more sense. The first wand, from the government-approved wand maker, who’s also tasked with applying the Trace, is likely subsidised, though (see some other answers on Unicorn hair cost, for example), and I’d expect a later replacement (or even later first bought wand) to come in more expensive. Even so, 7 Galleons is prohibitive to the Weasleys.
– mirabilos
Jan 12 at 17:20