Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki

Image of wand[]

How about this: [1] as the picture because it isn't on a funny angle.Lieutenant J.J 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Lieutenant J.J

Thanks alot Lieutenant J.J, Ive bin hoping that someone could get me a pic of old malfoys wand, so now ive edited it, but can anyone tell me how to put it in the wand info box, i couldnt find out how to do it, thanks again, - JACOBSMITH95

Sorry, but where does the information about the wand being made over a thousand years ago and previous masters come from?189.171.74.232 21:55, November 28, 2010 (UTC)Charles Estrada189.171.74.232 21:55, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

It comes from an interview with Jason Isaacs (that can be seen here). Have in mind that under this wiki's Canon policy films are a valid canon source, unless contadicted by the books or Rowling herself. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:24, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

uhh...not 2 B redundant, but what is the point of breaking off the handle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.184.110.140 (talkcontribs).

Probably to further humiliate Lucius and his family. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be named Lucius Malfoy's wand, and the fact it a family heirloom be in the article itself? Merlin. 07:22, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

All of this stuff about it being a family heirloom really needs to be cited in the article itself, ASAP and not just the infobox. It's floating a lot of facts that don't come from the books without good sourcing, and that's not a good idea. I may just do it myself when I have the chance if someone else doesn't get to it first. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Actors' comments[]

This really needs to be standardised or something. Are actors' comments going to be taken as canon or not? We have yes here, but no elsewhere, and it's quite frankly very confusing for me, and presumably for others as well. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:24, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

If the movies had come before the books, I would say "Yes!" without hesitation. As it is, I cant give such a definitive answer. Given the potentially massive implications, it may be that we'll need to address it on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:57, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Canon[]

I don't think we can consider the film's representation of Lucius' wand to be canon. The books repeatedly describe him as "drawing his wand from the inside of his robes" - the films directly contradict this. Also we know from Pottermore that wands over 15 inches long are extremely rare... I seriously doubt Malfoy's wand is really 18". This is fits in with our earlier discussion about film props not accurately depicting their canon book counterparts. I would also take Jason Isaacs single off-hand comment about the wand being a family heirloom with a pinch of salt! A fun bit of trivia for the BTS section, maybe... but certainly not a canonical statement to be published as fact. - Xanderen signature 10:43, January 15, 2017 (UTC)


I agree about the wand's length. It was definetly taken from the Noble Collection prop description, and has been perpetuated as fact fgrom there on out. Even when Pottermore revamped their site with character pages, they appear to have borrowed information from this wiki to fill in his wand information. I vote that the length be changed to "unknown."

PS: I feel the same way about Hermione's wand length too, which has never been stated in canon to be 10 3/4 and was also used by the Pottermore revamp team to fill in her info box.

Nightstar5877 (talk) 15:53, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Masters and owners[]

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an active talk page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

There were once so many masters and owners in the infobox. They were nearly all deleted. Why?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 12:22, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Image and description of wand[]

I am by no means suggesting that we remove every mention of the walking stick from the article given what an iconic part of the lore it has become, but seen as this wand is a family heirloom, would a slight re-write to reflect how it belonged to the Malfoy family and had done from hand to hand rather than being specifically Lucius' wand be in order? Also, there seen as how the walking stick does not appear in the original source material, which would include the silver-headed snake head handle, would this image be better suited for the template, and then we can have an image of the wand and/or the walking stick with the description; "the elm wand, which Lucius Malfoy kept concealed in a silver-headed walking stick" ? Tfoc (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be btw rename it as well? Perhaps "Malfoy family wand" ? Tfoc (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bump. Tfoc (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It did appear this wand first belonged to Lucius, given its requirements suited its owner and were unique to him, so I don't see any need for a rename. The current image is of official film merchandise, which I would say ranks higher than the image from Wizards Unite. But the Wizard's Unite image is still really nice, so I've added it to the main body of the text anyway. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The WU image appears to be taken actually from Lucius Malfoy's second wand and just made darker (note the distinctive "hilt" and "pommel" shapes which are not ever seen on the original "cane" wand). Also, as noted above, the "Malfoy family heirloom" idea comes from an interview that the actor Jason Issacs gave, so it hard to say how canon such a statement really is. As others have mentioned, it's worth a BTS mention, but not enough to base the entire article and history of the wand around such info. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The design of the wands of Pomona Sprout, Poppy Pomfrey, Oliver Wood and the second wand of Lucius Malfoy in the movies are more or less the same stick with only some superficial differences distinguishing them, so it's not really unique to Lucius' second wand specifically. And even if it was, I don't see the problem? In the books, Lucius does not have the cane and silver-snake head on his wand, in the movies he does. In WU, he does not have his cane or silver-headed handle, he has a regular wand that's black to show that it is made of elm. The likely inspiration of its design in WU aside, that's closer to the books than the movie prop was, and I think it should be the template picture for that reason. It's basically tier-3 canon displaying tier-1 canon. Tfoc (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement