Wizard coinage, blood ties, the puffskein

[saintbacchus]

No: HPFGUIDX 36232

Jo wonders:

<<
Maybe it was the fact of the 'heads and tails' sides
with the shapes stamped on the coin that was weird too.
Anyone know if wizard money has anything on it if they
only have the three types of coins in different colours?
>>

It seems like engraved images are universal in the
Muggle world, so I don't see why it wouldn't be in the
Wizarding World as well. The big problem I see is how
they could limit themselves to six images from a world's
worth of wizards. Are Galleons, Sickles and Knuts only
UK currency? I don't know if I buy the idea that the WW
is so well-connected and has been for such a long time
that there are no currency divisions.

Whichever is the case, what do you suppose would be on
each piece? I'm straining my brain, but I can't think
of anyone mentioned who stands out quite enough to be
stamped on a coin, nor any particular wizard symbol, nor
any particular saying. Maybe every time a new Minister
of Magic is appointed, they start minting coins with his
face on. Or maybe there are whole series of Sickles with
historical figures. Thoughts?


Cindy writes:

<<
That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort)
believes that using Harry's blood is not a fatal error
for the Dark Side. Why would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort,
both smart, talented, experienced Dark Wizards come to
the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore?
>>

Well, Voldemort is smart, but he's not as old (read:
experienced) as Dumbledore. If it weren't for Harry,
Voldemort wouldn't have figured out how to get past the
protection on the Philosopher's Stone.

I also have a feeling that Voldemort doesn't have - for
lack of a better word - character. Has anybody seen
"The Hustler?" Paul Newman has all the talent he needs
to defeat the reigning pool champ, but he's too green -
he just doesn't have the mettle to stand up to the older
player. It's not until he's had his character thoroughly
tested (and he's finally learned a lesson from his
hardships) that he can beat Minnesota Fats. For some
reason, I don't see Voldemort as learning enough from
what he's been through to have the character necessary
to defeat Dumbledore.


<Lieutenant Harris>MAHONEY!</Lieutenant Harris> writes:

<<
I think that Voldemort and Crouch/Moody are certain of
how the blood-sharing works to their advantage, and
might find it inconceivable that any disadvantage would
be significant enough to worry about; and yet
Dumbledore would have the opposite opinion ~ he would
know the advantages to the bad guys, but will suspect
that the advantages to the good guys may outweigh the
former.
>>

I agree. If I were a guy who could drink unicorn blood
and escape the fate Hagrid describes, I'd think I were
darn near invulnerable, too.

I also think that even if Voldemort appeared to be
losing, Crouch would be faithful. He has (well, had)
the strength of obsession on his side. If Charles
Manson could find followers that devoted, so can Lord
Voldemort.


Susanne writes:
<<
I guess we don't really know enough about the animal
and how it died to be able to come to any conclusions.
>>

You're only assuming it's dead, though. All Ron says
is that he doesn't have it anymore because Fred used it
for bludger practice. According to the Fantastic Beasts
book, they "have no objection to being cuddled or thrown
about," so I would assume that what happened is, Fred
hit it too far and they couldn't find it.

I want a puffskein!
--Anna