Talk:Money in Harry Potter

Numismatics Redirect‑class

	Numismatics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:HP-project

Spam?

Am removing "A conceptual look at how the coins may appear have been designed and released by an online store called the Noble Collection and an image of their rendition of the coins can be found here; http://noblecollection.com/catalog/popup.cfm?id=NN7234.bmp" as clear, although well included, spam. Skittle 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

confusion on conflicting values

Under the high-value theory, information is cited that copies of the daily prophet cost between 1 and 5 knuts, thus making them worth between 10 $ 50 cents. Is this american currency, english currency, and on what data table is the conversion based? How is it "suggested" that knut is worth ten cents? In the previous table, a knut was cited at fractionally little more than a penny, English or American. Where did the nine-cent increase come from? Is it just your thinking that a paper can't cost a penny, so it has to, according to "common sense" cost at the very least ten cents?

Need I mention that we are talking about a wizarding/magic, albeit fictional, world here. Mrs. Weasly conjures sauce out of her wand when cooking in one of the books, flying is effortless given the knowhow or right equipment. Photographs move, the philosopher's stone is real. Assuming you based your information on "common sense", common sense is suspended due to artistic license. Would it not reason to follow that the cost of producing the wizarding world's main newspaper be substantially less than their *giggle* muggle counterparts, and thus the cost would be less as well? The only reason I question is because I cannot infer what rate of conversion you are using, based on the available highest possible calculable rate cited.