Why was a simple magical object like an Invisibility Cloak put with two other great magical objects like the Elder Wand, and the Resurrection Stone?


5 Answers 5


Spoiler alert.

There's a reason why these legendary items were called Deathly Hallows. They let their wielders gain "triumph" over death. The cloak was technically the most powerful among the 3 because it hides the wearer from anything, even Death himself. According to the legend, its original wielder was able to dodge Death his entire life. After living a long, wonderful life, he decided to pass on the cloak.

The elder wand, though powerful in itself, turns its wielder into a likely target for challengers, and wizards have been murdered in their sleep for it. The stone, well, brings the dead back to life but they come back as "zombies." Dumbledore found that out the hard way.

  • 8
    Well, when you think about it, the most overrated among the 3 hallows was the elder wand.
    – Ellesa
    Commented May 10, 2011 at 14:58
  • 1
    "Dumbledore found that out the hard way." Can you please explain? I don't remember Dumbledore resurrecting anyone. Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 16:30
  • @Krumia Ariana. He tried to wear the ring.
    – Ellesa
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 20:32
  • While I understand the intentions of the last paragraph, I would not put it that way. The resurrection stone did it's job but Voldemort's horcrux did the same, and Dumbledore had to suffer for being an impatient idiot. That the resurrected do not come back to life, but as (a bit more than) shadows fits into the picture that the threeDeathly Hallows were probably crafted by the Peverells themselves. I would not call it "zombies" - Harry found the stone perfectly useful.
    – chaosflaws
    Commented Sep 20, 2014 at 9:54
  • 1
    As @chaosflaws said, the Stone was useful to Harry, because he wasn't trying to defy death. "The true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying." —Albus Dumbledore Commented Sep 20, 2014 at 13:21

In the book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry and Hermione learn from Ron and Xenophilius Lovegood about the nature of invisibility cloaks.

An average invisibility cloak is usually a travelling cloak imbued with a Disillusionment Charm, or carrying a Bedazzlment Hex, or else woven from Demiguise hair, which will hide a person initially but fade with the years until it turns opaque. Charms wear off cloaks or they get ripped apart by spells so that they have holes in them.

Harry's cloak, on the other hand is a true invisibility cloak, in the sense of being able to completely shield the wearer from sight, and cannot be worn out by time or spells. That's why when the Death Eaters try to Summon it in Hogsmeade, the cloak does not react.

Harry's cloak is immensely old, but is still perfect in every respect. It renders him (and anyone else) completely invisible so much so that they were never caught under it.

  • 14
    One worthy question is how Albus Dumbledore was able to sense the presence of Harry Potter when he wore the cloak.
    – James P.
    Commented May 8, 2011 at 20:21
  • 9
    @James P.: A self-answering question: he was perceiving Harry's presence by his usual Dumbledorian hocus pocus; I doubt even he could see through that cloak.
    – Jon Purdy
    Commented May 8, 2011 at 20:24
  • 20
    It's not even clear that Dumbledore sensed Harry as such; in most cases it's reasonable that he expected and deduced Harry's presence. Paying attention to small clues and gambling on people's choices are Dumbledore's defining traits.
    – Tynam
    Commented May 9, 2011 at 16:56
  • 4
    Alastor Moody (or at least Crouch in his disguise) was also able to see Harry in the cloak. Commented May 9, 2011 at 18:43
  • 4
    No, Moody's eye was specifically able to see through invisibility cloaks. Even Harry's.
    – KeithS
    Commented Oct 20, 2011 at 0:53

It depends on your own mentality. I think JKR herself hashed out the argument, when Harry, Ron and Hermione chose which hallow they would like to possess. As Far As I Remember, the arguments went like this:

Ron: The wand. It would make me immensely powerful.

Harry: The stone. I could call on Dumbledore for advice.

Hermione: The cloak. We would be safe from Voldemort.

Ron, the most aggressive, chose the wand. Hermione, the most cautious, chose the cloak. Harry, the most confused, chose the stone. So, depending on your mentality, you would each prefer a different hallow. (Sort of like how those RPG games let you customise what things your character specialises in.)

Personally, I don't see the point of the stone. You can always use a shield or a weapon, but you don't always have dead people you want advice from.

  • 1
    I want advice from Albert Einstein. He's probably figured out 'Unrelativity' by now. You could become rich and famous by using the stone to resurrect geniuses in different subjects; Tolkien, Turing, and a whole lot of other people. Commented May 8, 2011 at 21:34
  • 1
    Ah, but apparently you can't compel the dead to do anything. Good job persuading them!
    – apoorv020
    Commented May 9, 2011 at 3:01
  • The point of the resurrection stone is that it does something nigh impossible. Remember the arc from the MoM which Sirius fell through. The journey is supposed to be a one-way trip and the Stone does the impossible. Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 16:37

As the story of the Deathly Hallows states, it allowed the user to hide from death. The other two objects lead one to take chances, but you can only use their power so much. The cloak can hide you, so long as you are careful. And as was said, it's the only perfect invisibility cloak around, thus making it more valuable.


I don't have the quote handy, but one special thing about the Hallow Invisibilty Cloak that made it special was that it shielded other people together with the owner.

A second unique property was the fact that it was resistant to charms/jinxes/hexes aimed at negating invisibility.

  • It also didn't wear out like other invisibility cloaks tend to do.
    – Dason
    Commented Jun 16, 2012 at 17:08
  • @Dason - that one was covered by other answers (unlike the one I noted). It's a more important property in the context of the series than not being worn out. Commented Jun 16, 2012 at 20:50
  • Which charms/jinxes/hexes does the cloak negate? JKR mentions that the reason Dumbledore could sometimes tell where Harry was when was under the cloak was that he was using Homenum Revelio which seems to me to be one way to negate the invisibility.
    – Dason
    Commented Jun 16, 2012 at 22:10
  • 1
    @Dason - my second point was from HP Wikia - to tell the truth I am not 100% sure how that specific fact is supported in canon. Awaiting ire and curses from Slytherincess Commented Jun 16, 2012 at 22:12
  • Is it being implied (in your first point) that ordinary invisibility cloaks shield only the owner? What does owner mean, for one thing, and didn't Mundungus borrow Moody's cloak, for another? Commented May 9, 2014 at 19:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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