4

In a question I couldn't find for the life of me, the question and accepted answer stated that wands have to be made of wood (although there is no explicit canon support of this fact, as also brought up in the comments).

The discussion in the comments went on to say that "cosmetic additions" can be made to wands (Hagrid's umbrella, Lucius' cane, etc.).

In multiple books we see wands being broken, so despite (apparently) not being able to be made of a different substance, why are wands not better protected?

For instance, a metal casing would add substantial support to otherwise a flimsy magical twig.

Edit: Case as in enclosure that is cast from with it's own handle. Think more wandception than a violin case.

  • If I were to guess I'd imagine that wands are magically reinforced, so as to be physically stronger than the sum of its parts. – Xantec Mar 31 '16 at 22:05
  • 1
    Do they really need to be? They are reasonably robust and are replaceable if broken for a sensible cost. I bet wands break a sight less than mobile phones! – ThruGog Mar 31 '16 at 22:11
  • 4
    @ThruGog "The wand chooses the wizard" is a real thing, and Phoenix wands are incredibly unique. It's the difference between "I can get another painting" versus "There's only one Mona Lisa". Wands seem to be broken relatively easily (snapped if you're looking at the movies, or cast a spell at in the books). A wand learns from it's wizard, so getting a new wand erases all the knowledge your previous wand knew as well.... – Anoplexian Mar 31 '16 at 22:38
  • 2
    Traditionally (ie out of HP universe) different types of wood have different magical properties, which I believe JKR drew heavily on for her wand lore. It isn't just the core that is magic, but the combination of core and wood and wizard/witch. As metal or plastic aren't inherently magical (and in other universes work against magic or lose their integrity), they are not good wand material. – NiceOrc Mar 31 '16 at 23:44
  • 2
    "Carbon-fiber, gallium arsenide core, 25 centimeters. Bendy." – Mike Harris Jun 15 '16 at 14:38
7
  • Because they would be clumsy. Metal casings would make the wand heavier and much harder to carry around.
  • Because they would be expensive. Whatever was used as the protections would have to be mass-produced. This would cost the producers as they would have to pay for all of the metal and the jobs, as well as going to the trouble of making cases in different sizes. If for some reason someone designed this company,they would also be expensive to buy, and would probably fall out of general use.
  • Because they would take so much time to ready. In an emergency situation, milliseconds can impact the outcome. Having to take the wand out of a case can make all the difference.
  • Because nobody would use them. For many of these reasons, not everyone would have one. And, like my glasses case, they would probably be left lying around at home while the wand travels with the user.
  • Because they wouldn't be as important or good at protecting as you'd think. Any self-respecting wizard or witch who wanted to break a wand could easily get through the case, and they are probably not accidentally broken that much. Sure, Harry and Ron did, but it is not common to be fighting a dark magical snake zombie or crash a flying car into a monster killing death malicious tree, even in the Wizarding World. And, for normal middle-class people, breaking a wand might be close to breaking a phone. First of all, if it isn't too serious, Spellotape could temporarily fix it. Secondly, the price of a wand (or, at least, Harry's wand) in the first book is seven Galleons, which is around £35.00, or $68.25 (according to this exchange rate). This is not something you want to pay, but it is affordable for something this important.

Here's the quote from the first book proving the price of a wand:

He paid seven gold Galleons for his wand, and Mr. Ollivander bowed them from his shop.

  • 2
    Wrong type of case. – Anoplexian Apr 1 '16 at 14:12
  • No to mention if the case completely covers the wand, any spell meant to shoot out of the tip would end up acting on the case itself. Like 'Aguamenti!' and then the case explodes because water gets trapped inside... – ASH-Aisyah Jun 15 '16 at 12:40
5

@CHEESE is right, but I would like to highlight another reason: metalworking is a prerogative of goblins, and most wizards don't like goblins with substantial access to wands.

I know that DH mentions a wizard metal charmer, but it lived in the Middle Ages. A lot of magical knowledge has been lost since then, and other metal charmers aren't mentioned by canon. Therefore, we can safely assume that only goblins know how to build enchanted metal objects.

We also know that goblins aren't allowed to carry a wand, and that goblin magical powers may increase if they possessed a wand:

“The right to carry a wand,” said the goblin quietly, “has long been contested

between wizards and goblins.”

“Well, goblins can do magic without wands,” said Ron.

“That is immaterial! Wizards refuse to share the secrets of wandlore with other magical beings, they deny us the possibility of extending our powers!"

If goblins were allowed to craft charmed metal encasing for wands, they would probably need to see the wand, and not only because of different sizes.

Wandlore is a complex subject. In order to make a wand, the core must be compatible with the wood, and viceversa. I wouldn't be surprised to know that the case should be compatible with the wood and with the core.

If this is true, and the case must be built by studying the wand, wizards should let goblins handle and study wands. This would allow goblins to learn the secrets of wandlore and, in any case, to extend their powers, which is something most wizards don't like.

  • 1
    The case is just a case, it has nothing to do with the actual function. Definitely spmething humans could do – CHEESE Apr 1 '16 at 10:44
  • 2
    I think some people are thinking of a case like a glasses case, and others more of a metal sheath that stays on. I personally just don't think either is needed. – ThruGog Apr 1 '16 at 10:52
  • @CHEESE I don't know... is there any mention in canon of wizard metal workers who built standard, non-enchanted metal objects?Apparently not , and I really don't think that wizards would ask a Muggle blacksmith to build such a case. – A. Darwin Apr 1 '16 at 11:01
  • @A.Darwin I'm sure there are, and even if not, it can't be that hard for wizards – CHEESE Apr 1 '16 at 11:10
  • 1
    "Therefore, we can safely assume that only goblins know how to build enchanted metal objects." This can't be true, as Snitches are enchanted and a new one is made for each game. – Anoplexian Apr 1 '16 at 14:11
0

On Pottermore we can read, 3 paramaters define the wand: the wood, the core and the lenght.

The wood

The wood used for a wand come for tree know for have some magical properties (not only in Potterverse, but in our real world), this parameters define the type of magic you can perform easily with one wand (transfiguration, healing, duel...)

All the wood used for wand by Ollivander came for old trees garded by Botruc (i don't have any idea of the English name of this creature. You know, the little creature, look like made of wood, they studie it during lessons with Hagrid)

Core

For the core, Ollivander's used the three great core, licorn, dragon and phenix.

Licorn made wands not designed for dark magic with some complex specifities.

Dragon wand is more destructive, but the principal advantage is the rapid learning and facilities to use new spells.

Phenix is the most powerful and everyone wants à Phenix wand, but it's really powerful if you are compatible (or if you have conquered it)

Other core exist (Thestral, Velan hair, Kelpie hair....), but we don't need to talk of it.

Length

Basically, a wand lenght is somewhere between 6 and 12 inch. A long wand suit a powerful sorcerer (Big V, 14"8' i think, i know the lenght in centimeter but not in inch...), or a very tall one (Hagrid, 16 inch)

A short wand suit a small sorcerer (Flitwick) or a person with mental and personalities problem (Umbridge, 3 or 4 inch, can't remember. I'm serious, you can find all of it in Pottermore)

Why not metal wand, or magical renforced wand?

You can decorate your wand with some metal things and carry it in a reinforced device (Lucius cane is the best exemple i think, but if you look the pommel is fixed on the wand for a better grip probably, and he use the cane like a sheath, for protect it) but you can't made a wand of pure iron, reinforced steel or an other metal or hyper resistant material because they don't have magical properties.

If you can find something with magical properties, like magical wood used, and with a better resistance you probably can make a wand with it (maybe a magical creature bone? Like the Basilisk maybe... )

And I don't think you or an other wizard can just reinforced(enchanted) your wand with an other wand, your wand probably rejected the magic (1)

Maybe a potion or a sister-core wand can? Or if you are good enough with wandless magic, you can put your own raw magic to your wand for protect it.

The Elder Wand can do thing look like impossible: repared a broken wand(2). Maybe if you mastered it, you can enchanted your wand without cause any malfunction, but if you have the Elder Wand, you don't need an other wand.

1,2

maybe it's why Harry's wand can't stay repair when he tries to fix it with Hermione wand, magic rejection and auto-spell breaking but the Elder wand is powerful enough for bypass the magic defense of the wand and restore it.

You can find the stuff about wand and more details about core and wood in Pottermore if you want.

Sorry for imperfect English.

0

I'll say there probably are, they are just not featured on the book because they are irrelevant.

Think about a camera. Are there cases and protection for them? Yes. Do you see a lot of people using them? Not really...

Think about screen protectors for your smartphone. Same thing.

Cases and protectors are niche markets that are not likely to be as used as the main product, and even less likely to be featured or highlighted in a book as they are irrelevant to the story.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.