more than 9?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

However...I was under the impression that the Seven and the Nine were intrinsically identical in their effects. The difference was extrinsic, in that men were utterly corrupted as the twist in their power, and Dwarves made covetous as the twist in their wealth. Working on this principle, one of the Seven given to a man ought to have the same properties as one of the Nine given to a man. Am I correct?

Was going to say 'disagree,' but started to think about it a bit...

As Celebrimbor and Annatar have not yet returned my calls, I'll speculate on the Rings specificity. The Seven and Nine, as far as we know, were never worn by people of different races (races referring to Elves, Dwarves, Men, Hobbits, etc), so there is no information there. Two of the Three, as far as we know, were worn by Elves exclusively. Narya was worn by both Cirdan and Gandalf, and so we have an example where the same ring imparted the same power to wearers of different races.

The One, which is a bit different than the others, was worn by a Maia, a Man and three hobbits. To each power was given, yet only in accord to each's innate ability. Don't think that the Ring made Sauron invisible, but this ability was given to the other four bearers. Hobbits and Men could be subsets of the same species/race, and so not sure how much information we get here.

Not even going to mention Bombadil...

So based on this scant evidence I would assume that a dwarven ring on the hand of a man would ignite a fierce desire for gold. A human ring on the hand of a dwarf would allow for some 'power' yet I don't think that a dwarf would be able to (1) use it to dominate the wills of other dwarves or (2) become a wraith. It may open the dwarf to suggestion by the bearer of the One, and turn the dwarf to the dark side, but I don't think that you would get a dwarven Nazgul (which is a good thing as they would look silly atop black horses...).