Is there even a difference between a conjured metal and a regular one? I'd think not.

 

We know that conjured objects disappear, so conjuring mass seems to be fundamentally different to transfiguring it.

 

The silver was conjured by magic, yes, but was not itself magical. However temporary it may be, it is still physically silver. I think that rule applies to magical shields in the sense of the Shield Charm.

 

How do we know conjured objects disappear?

Or, more specifically: how do we know all conjured objects disappear?

I'd think it would be similar to transfiguration. A perfect transfiguration being permanent, same with conjuring.

 

On the topic of Voldemort's shield, I've always wondered whether it was physical silver or a magical shield that was silver in colour. I guess there's no way to know, really.

I quite like the idea of different substances having different magical properties which can be quite important - like a magical periodic table - so I lean towards the former, but I've seen the latter in fanfic and both work.

Edit:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-swns-alfie.htm

 

The words 'shining' and 'conjure out of thin air' imply some sort of physicality to me; it seems different from the way she describes shields like Protego, which are either invisible or at least somewhat transparent. Being conjured out of thin air also seems to support this, since he makes a point of saying it. Where else would a magical shield come from? Being conjured 'out of thin air' seems to be implying some sort of object with physical mass.

And Mary Grandpre drew a classical aegis with a snake in the middle which I always sort of just took for granted . . . Hmm.

 

Rowling uses the word "conjure" with a lot of spells, though, and some of them aren't anywhere near physical objects (except in a technical physics sense). In particular, she often refers to people conjuring fire.

 

Yes, well, but fire is fire. It would be silly if she wrote "he started a fire with a flick of his wand".

Anyway, now I believe that it's possible to defend from AK with conjured materials. And it does make sense, after all, it is difficult to imagine someone like Dumbledore jump from AK vector of attack everytime this spell was fired at him.

 

There's a pretty strong argument that conjured silver, at the least, can block the Killing Curse: Voldemort was surprised that Dumbledore didn't use the Killing Curse. So, he conjured silver when expecting a Killing Curse -- presumably he did so for a reason.

 

But what about other materials like conjured stone wall or water barrier?

 

Presumably less reliable. The statues Dumbledore animated had mixed performance. One of them was able to reflect a Killing Curse, another was smashed to pieces by one. It seems to be semi-random.

 

Ah, it was smashed to pieces, but at the same time stopped the curse from going further, so mission accomplished.

 

Until they use the curse again, at least.

It's worth noting that the statues weren't conjured.

 

That's not what I mean. Regardless if conjured or not, if an object stops the Killing Curse in any way, then it has served its purpose.

If I conjure some yellow birds and they absorb the AK for me, then they are the best defense against the curse ever.

 

It wasn't so much the "conjure" as the "out of thin air" along with it that indicated physicality. As to the point about fire and other weird non-objects,I'd say fire is still something, perhaps not an "object," but certainly some physical process that constitutes more than something as potentially intangible as the magic of a shield spell. I feel like coming out of thin air is some kind of distinction being made for the purposes of identifying the conjured thing as physical, since the magic or force of a shield spell is something that can exist as it needs to within "thin air" because it's a purely magical construct, as opposed to something that disturbs the air because mass has been created.

This is also good evidence that the shield was a physical aegis made of silver, since Riddle would know that the Killing Curse cannot be blocked with magical shields, but can be intercepted by seemingly any object that is large enough to do so. Even the security desk would have stopped it, even though it caught fire and was destroyed.

 

I always thought Lord Voldemort conjured a real silver shield, that's why I like that move a lot. And I think very few can replicate the feat, regardless Rowling's legislation about it. If a wizard is skilled at par with DD/LV he can conjure whatever element he wants to (except gold).

Following the debate what did Dumbledore cast? That spell seemed powerful enough and forced LV to cover behind the shield.

 

Possibly just a stunner. Dumbledore is on a level that makes even simple spells incredibly powerful. It's highly probable that the spell he used in his office just before escaping from Hogwarts was a stunning spell too, but one cast by a highly talented wizard with the Elder Wand at his disposal.

 

That answer, however, is boring. And wasn't there mention of a 'silver streak' that swept around the office as Dumbledore cast his spell?

 

I don't think it was just a Stunner cast by the Elder Wand. I like the idea that the best wizards have a tendency to invent and tweak spells. I feel that would probably be the best explanation for a spell we never see anyone but him even use.

 

Well, yes. In this case, a stunner. Look at the results and work your way backwards. Dumbledore waves his wand and a bunch of people fall unconscious. Sure, there could be a spell that knocks X number of people out with a flash of silver light. It's simpler to put it down to Dumbledore just being that good with regular spells that he can do things with them that others can't.