23

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?

user50780
  • 894
  • 1
  • 7
  • 18
  • 2
    and as JKR said, a galleon ~= 5 - https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/123546/what-are-the-costs-of-books-and-materials-in-harry-potter

    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, (https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-USD-1991) - then the wand cost ~$60 USD

     – NKCampbell Jan 10 '19 at 22:03
  • 1
    IIRC on the old Pottermore, all wands cost 7 Galleons... – Skooba Jan 10 '19 at 22:11
  • 1
    @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 '19 at 23:18
  • 1
    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 '19 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 '19 at 17:20

3 Answers3

38

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

Turamarth
  • 1,203
  • 1
  • 13
  • 12
  • 3
    This is one price, from one vendor; it doesn't definitively indicate that all wands in the wizarding world cost the same. Even if all Ollivander's wands sell for the same price, there are other wandmakers. – RDFozz Jan 10 '19 at 23:23
  • @Turamarth Isn't that low price compared to the ingredients for making the wand? – Fiddler Jan 11 '19 at 06:07
  • 1
    @the-profile-that-was-promised I don't remember any mention of the price of phoenix tail feathers or dragon heartstrings in the books. The only other material required (from what I remember) is the wood that surrounds the core, and that should be relatively inexpensive – Joe Jan 11 '19 at 07:42
  • 2
    @Turamarth Come on. Phoenix and deagons both are very rare in potterverse. So wouldn't they be expensive? – Fiddler Jan 11 '19 at 07:50
  • 1
    @the-profile-that-was-promised: We are not told how often a phoenix molts, or immolates. Or how many "heartstrings" a dragon has. We also don't rightly know how many wands, relatively speaking, are made with these, and how many with more common cores. We know that Fawkes is not beyond shedding a feather just to pass a message (book 5, where he drops a feather on the table in Grimauld Place, without everyone scrambling to get a hold of it). So... – DevSolar Jan 11 '19 at 08:14
  • 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 '19 at 09:47
  • 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 '19 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 '19 at 10:39
  • @MatthieuM. There is that. "So, Purcellus McPervert, how much will you offer me for control of that magic measuring tape as it runs over those fit young bodies...?" – Graham Jan 11 '19 at 10:51
  • @Graham How much money do you need, when you can do magic? – Christian Jan 11 '19 at 11:46
  • 7
    Owning a wand in the wizard world might be considered a human right, so maybe they are being subsidized! – smcs Jan 11 '19 at 13:12
  • @Christian Apparently you can't create stuff with magic, so you still need money. The Weasleys are dirt poor. They grow a lot of their own food, and presumably they don't have a mortgage on their house, but simply clothing their kids and equipping them from school takes pretty much all they have. Ollivander doesn't seem to have a family to maintain, but then he also doesn't seem to have a huge garden providing most of his food, which means he needs money to buy it from somewhere. – Graham Jan 11 '19 at 13:19
  • 3
    Hey Bob! That Potter kid doesn't have a lot of money and can't afford a wand! I get he's a celebrity and all, but what happens if he doesn't get a wand? ...The Dark Lord enslaves or kills people like you and me? Yeah, agreed, he gets a "special" price. – Dark Matter Jan 11 '19 at 13:30
  • 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 '19 at 16:49
  • @Sulthan Sure - I was going to mention that too, but if i was to pick every nit in HP, I'd be here forever. :) – Graham Jan 11 '19 at 17:47
  • @Graham Almost. In Deathly Hallows Hermione describes that, while you can't create things out of nothing using magic, you can make more of things you already have, including food (this is also seen in many other places, such as refilling charms from HBP). So a small amount of initial material is all that's needed to meet most resource needs, with skill in magic and available time defining most value-adding activities. It's hard to compare that to the real (muggle) economic system. Ability to do magic and moderate training should address most material poverty (like food and shelter). – Upper_Case Jan 11 '19 at 23:12
21

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.

Laurel
  • 22,998
  • 4
  • 81
  • 114
  • it could be a pottermore promotional offer though – user13267 Jan 11 '19 at 01:18
  • 1
    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 '19 at 17:42
10

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."

paw88789
  • 209
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
    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 '19 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 '19 at 10:46
  • 11
    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 '19 at 12:47