I think we need to determine notability standards or something about which wands to have articles about. If we include articles like this, then for consistency, we would have to have articles about every other possible wood used to make wands -- information that is already in the wand article. If we have more specific articles about wands (aside from the Elder Wand article, which is notable by itself), it makes more sense to me to have articles about prominent characters' wands (e.g. the articles that already exist on Tom Riddle's wand and Lily Evans' wand). Any thoughts? Oread 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Individual articles for individual wands may be acceptable (Harry Potter's wand, Hermione Granger's wand), as they are unique objects. But for type of wands, I would be inclined to fold them into the main wand article. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really sure this is note worthy, but does anyone know is JK ever gave a description of the color of Harry's wand?Holly wood is very white in color and has a very small grain. Carved, it almost looks like ivory. It doesn't seem like they took this into consideration with they made the movies. I suppose Ollivander could have stained the wood when making it, but why do that?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
Date of Creation
A user just changed made by in the infobox to before 1938 (ie before Tom Riddle bought his wand). Theoretically, isn't it possible that the feather laid around for a time before it was made into a wand. The wands do not necessarily need to be produced simultaneously. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 22:10, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading this and found it odd as well. I have no reccolection if it being said that Fawkes gave the feathers at the same time, let alone that the wands were made at the same time. The only thing that I recall linking the two wands as 'brothers' is that they contain the only two feathers Fawkes ever gave. Weissb (talk) 03:50, December 5, 2013 (UTC) Dec. 4 2013
confusing "behind the scenes"
What is this supposed to mean?
- In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione are captured by the Snatchers in the forest, Greyback searches Harry and it is just seen that he finds his broken wand and throws it away. This would justify his actions Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, when he simply breaks the Elder Wand and throws it away as opposed to the seventh book where he repairs his holly wand.
That Greyback breaking harry's wand in the Part 1 film motivates Harry to break the Elder Wand in Part 2 film (how do we know what happens in the movie that hasn't come out yet)? And this is justification for this behavior rather than follow the book, where he puts the Elder Wand with Dumbledore in his grave?
184.108.40.206 08:14, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
- In the DHpt1, Harry's wand was still broken at Godric's Hollow, correlating with the books, but when the snatchers find them, Greyback is searching Harry's pockets and finds the broken pieces of his wand, which he throws away into the woods. Therefore, there is no remainder of the holly and phoenix feather wand to restore with the Elder wand, so Harry simply breaks the wand so that no one else can use it and throws it into the gorge. I think I remember reading an interview with one of the filmmakers where they acknowledge that it was an artistic choice to end the film in this way, but I can't find it. TheBeast314 21:53, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
Harry's wand, post-Voldemort's defeat
This is just an interesting idea that I have recently been tossing around in my mind. In the seventh novel, when Harry has Voldemort's horcrux "removed" from him, he loses the ability to speak Parseltongue, among other things that Voldemort had inadvertently passed onto him in Godric's Hollow, correct? If this is the case, why then would Harry's wand work perfectly for him after it is repaired? Why does it not disobey him, or work in a way similar to the Snatcher's wand that Ron gave to him?
Thinking back to the first novel, Ollivander tells him that Fawkes only gave two feathers, one to Voldemort's wand, and one to the wand that Harry received. Following this course of logic, the wand chose Harry BECAUSE of the fact that it's "brother" chose Voldemort. This was due to the connection established because of his scar, not because of anything special about Harry.
When Voldemort's soul vacated Harry's body subsequent to his "murder" in the Forbidden Forest, his ability to use the wand flawlessly should have been lost along with his abilities to speak Parseltongue. They have never resolved this in the novel or otherwise, and it's been puzzling me for quite a while now.
Does anyone have an idea about this at all? 220.127.116.11 13:51, June 22, 2012 (UTC)JMPesce
Perhaps the "mutual quest" that Ollivander spoke of? Even though Harry has changed somewhat, he's still built up a history with the wand and it recognises the shared bond between them. ProfessorTofty 14:15, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
That may be the case, but would not the wand recognize the part of Voldemort in Harry as its "owner"? I though that was how it chose Harry in the first place. When it disappears, it would no longer sense it's truw owner and stop working for the individual. Maybe the history would play a role, but I think it should be deeper than that. At least, that's my own opinion and interpretation of it :P 18.104.22.168 14:55, June 22, 2012 (UTC)JMPesce