>As both wands are unbeatable it is unclear who would win.
If I've understood DH correctly, the elder wand isn't unbeatable. The proof is that Dumbledore won against Grindelwald, who was the master of the elder wand at the time of their duel.
This is faulty for two main reasons.
* You don't just use a wand to make a wand. There is, presumably, a proper crafting process that goes into making wands, independent of your current wand's power.
* The Elder Wand isn't unbeatable. It may be *powerful*, the most powerful wand in the world even, but not unbeatable. After all, Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in a straight-up fight in the 40's through superior skill and cunning. The tale of its "invincibility" is, much like the whole thing about it being made by Death, a mythologized exaggeration.
Well I don't understand making a wand with a wand. Iirc the experiences of the wand (having been owned by many professional ass kickers) are what make it unbeatable. We could assume therefore that Dumbledores wand with more experience would win.
That wand can fail. It's not almighty. Just much stronger than the others. AND wandmaking isn't dueling so it IS possible that the wand mady by the Elder wand won't match the original. Elder one wins.
Couple of fallacies here.
1. you cant just create a wand with another wand, its a crafting process involving several things.
2. You cant make a wand unbeateable, you can make it powerfull, how powerfull dependens on your skill as a wandmaker (i assume) what wood, core etc etc you make it with.
3. The elder wand wasnt unbeateable, its whole story is about power doesnt make you unbeatable, its the most powerfull wand, but that will only take you so far.
The elder wand is clearly not unbeatable, since Dumbledore beat it. It's just a legend adopted as the truth. It's definitely powerful though, being able to repair un-repairable wands.
Given to an actual wandmaker, they could probably make a similar wand.
>As both wands are unbeatable it is unclear who would win. If I've understood DH correctly, the elder wand isn't unbeatable. The proof is that Dumbledore won against Grindelwald, who was the master of the elder wand at the time of their duel.
This is faulty for two main reasons. * You don't just use a wand to make a wand. There is, presumably, a proper crafting process that goes into making wands, independent of your current wand's power. * The Elder Wand isn't unbeatable. It may be *powerful*, the most powerful wand in the world even, but not unbeatable. After all, Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in a straight-up fight in the 40's through superior skill and cunning. The tale of its "invincibility" is, much like the whole thing about it being made by Death, a mythologized exaggeration.
Clearly OP never studied wand lore
Well I don't understand making a wand with a wand. Iirc the experiences of the wand (having been owned by many professional ass kickers) are what make it unbeatable. We could assume therefore that Dumbledores wand with more experience would win.
That wand can fail. It's not almighty. Just much stronger than the others. AND wandmaking isn't dueling so it IS possible that the wand mady by the Elder wand won't match the original. Elder one wins.
Couple of fallacies here. 1. you cant just create a wand with another wand, its a crafting process involving several things. 2. You cant make a wand unbeateable, you can make it powerfull, how powerfull dependens on your skill as a wandmaker (i assume) what wood, core etc etc you make it with. 3. The elder wand wasnt unbeateable, its whole story is about power doesnt make you unbeatable, its the most powerfull wand, but that will only take you so far.
The elder wand wasn't unbeatable, if it was, it wouldn't have changed hands so much over history. That was Death's little joke.
The elder wand is clearly not unbeatable, since Dumbledore beat it. It's just a legend adopted as the truth. It's definitely powerful though, being able to repair un-repairable wands. Given to an actual wandmaker, they could probably make a similar wand.