How do you know Molly didn't just offer Ginny's underage ass to Ollivander as payment?

 

Or perhaps more reasonably, the Weasleys benefit from the Hogwarts fund for poor students (the same one which paid for Tom Riddle's stuff).

 

1. That's stupid.
2. Who would want it?

 

The Weasley's comment several times about how hard it is buying all the stuff for the school year - something that they would not say if it was being paid for by the school. Examples include:

1) Ron's wand. Both that he has to use an old one, and that he can't get a new one when it breaks.

2) Gilderoy Lockhart books. Both Molly and the twins make remarks about this. I believe it's Mr. Weasley who says something like "We'll make it all work somehow."

Even if they benefited only in part from some such fund, it would presumably be enough that at most, they would be complaining about the more luxurious requirements, not the bare basics.

The most reasonable conclusion is that Rowling is terrible at math for one, and didn't bother to cross check the prices of things she'd stated previously for another.

 

You do know that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, don't you?

 

It's Taure. It's about canon.

It's Serious Business.

 

It's kinda hard to separate Mordac the Politico from Mordac the HP Fan, I suppose

 

Must have been a big arse to pull that number out...

 

Have you seen Rowling lately?

 

Actually, by the end of episode 2008 Burns got 996,000,000 dollars.

 

That is such a fanon figure.

That's what offended me about that list too, I was surprised Bruce Wayne wasn't ranked higher. I mean, it can't be cheap being Batman all those years so he must have a higher fortune. Never mind all the other expenses of just being Bruce Wayne.

 

This conversion is also totally bullshit. 1 galleon = 5£? You don't even get a Silver Dollar for that price. If it's really a big gold coin, it has to be worth much more.
I always thought it was worth as much as a Sovereign until she explained that bs conversion.

 

At current gold prices, for a solid gold galleon to be worth five quid, it'd weigh in at something like twenty milligrams. For a sickle to be worth 20p (rounding to a friendlier figure), it'd weigh in at just under a gram - a bit smaller than a yank dime, but still bigger than a galleon.

Either a) the goblins are making the coins out of brass, b) the coins really are ridiculously tiny and Harry's a retard who's never seen a hubcap before, or c) they really are exchanging five quid for a chunk of gold dozens of times bigger than a Krugerrand.

Or secret option d), JK fails at economics forever.

 

Considering this is a woman who charges 7 galleons for a Phoenix wand while toys cost more, I'd say it's option D.

Though Harry is still a retard if his actions are any indication.

 

...Real toys are often more expansive than guns. I don't see your point.

 

While I'd be prone to agree with you. A Phoenix wand is made of things that are supposedly rare. I mean within his entire life, Fawkes has only given two Phoenix tail-feathers which is why Harry and Voldemort's wands are brother wands.

So I just see a problem with something that is really rare costing less than a mass produced toy.

That would be like a huge 100 room mansion costing less than the price to buy a car (I would of said a house, but house prices in Detroit have dropped to somewhere like $20,000.) I'm sure there are much better examples I can think of better than off the top of my head, but I think you get the idea.

 

Maybe, but that's just Fawkes. It's possible that there are others Phoenixes who give their feathers freely - and as they endless supply of feathers, it might not be rare at all [which would make Harry's and Voldemort's wand connection all the more unique and special.]

Also, comparing cars and mansions? Where did that came from? If you were trying to say that mansions are unique and expansive, then I'm going to say that snowflakes are also unique - but unlike mansions they look almost the same and are pretty worthless. Try again.

 

A lot of things are possible, however I think it's safe to assume that Fawkes is the norm, and not the exception. I mean there can't be that many Phoenixes in existence, otherwise they wouldn't be seen as such rare creatures whenever someone sees one.

The reason Harry's and Voldemort's wand connection is unique and special in the first place isn't the fact they both have Phoenix-tails but the fact they're from the same Phoenix that has only given two feathers EVER. I mean think about it, if Phoenix feathers were so common, then wouldn't the Priori Incantatem effect happen more often since more wands would share the same core? The only widely-known instance of that even happening is in 1995 at the Graveyard between Harry and Voldemort.

So looking at it logically, a Phoenix Wand is valuable and one can come to the conclusion that Rowling once again did not know economics when she made toys cost more than that wand.

Also, I had already said that was the best example I could come up with all the top of my head. The point I was trying to get across is that comparing a Phoenix Wand to a mass produced toy would be comparing something very valuable to something not valuable at all. Now once again, logically, the very valuable thing would be worth more.

Edit: More evidence to back up my claims, from the Lexicon:

So it doesn't look like there are many if any domesticated Phoenixes around to give a tail-feather for a wand. In fact, outside of the Moutohora Macaws mascot Sparky, the only person we know for sure who ever owned a Phoenix were Dumbledore and maybe Gryffindor. There is also plenty of evidence that if Gryffindor did have a Phoenix then the Phoenix they both owned was one in the same, Fawkes.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-fawkes.html

 

No, it isn't. If you consider 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them', then we are told that Phoenixes are hard to domesticate, not that they are especially rare.

As I said, they are shocked that it's domesticated.

Not necessarily. Most wizards, presumably, go their entire life without being in more than 1 or 2 duels. Also, I doubt that in those few duels the duelers spells have crashed into each other. That's some rare circumstances all by itself. Matching cores don't have too be so rare so that the Priori Incantatem will make sense.

Eh, I'm not convinced. Wands are necessities, magical toys aren't.

I can't imagine a magical factory besides Willy Wanka's.

It doesn't have to be domesticated to give feathers.

Also, the link is stupid beyond belief. "The sorting hat was Gryffindor's. Fawkes is near the sorting hat, like, all the time!!! Fawkes is Gryffindors!!!!!!!!!" is fail.

 

1.) So you're just going to go to the mountains, and attack a Phoenix for it's tail-feather and somehow get it? I don't think that's going to go over well.

2.) Maybe, but they seemed pretty shocked in general to see a Phoenix.

3.) They had the first war with Voldemort not even twenty years ago. Plus, they had the Wizard war in 1945. So it's safe to assume there have been more dark wizards trying to take over the world before that. So most wizards probably have more than 1 or 2 duels in their entire lives. Also, if two wizards are dueling in a straight line than it's plausible that the spells might hit together at some point. Hell, Harry and Voldemort manage it twice in their two duels.

4.) Wands are necessities but it doesn't mean the things they're made up of such as Phoenix tail-feathers shouldn't be more expensive. Again, this is J.K Rowling failing at economics 101.

5.) To be mass produced there doesn't have to be a factory. Look at the Weasley Twins for example.

6.) There is no proof that a Phoenix would give a tail-feather even if it wasn't domesticated. A domesticated Phoenix like Fawkes only has given two in it's entire lifetime. Do we also even know anybody else who has a wand that is a Phoenix wand? I think it's pretty safe to assume that Harry and Voldemort's wands are rare. Such rare things like that should cost more than 7 galleons.

Again, if Rowling hadn't failed at economics then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also for #6 see #1 too.