Reenchanting?

I'm looking for a skilled mage to help me reenchant a little trinket I stumbled upon. It's a small gold pendant from the Inverted Tower that grants the ability to Windwalk to it's wearer. I'm just trying to check prices right now, find out who would be best fit to do the deed and what I would have to trade for it.
If you know anyone, or are interested yourself, please let me know as soon as possible.

My thanks,
Clytie Corentin

If is indeed what we call "trinket" it cannot be re-enchanted. They are limited use items.

I think I viewed this item so I don't expect that my opinon will be overruled by another mage.

If you wish me to explain what needs to be done, I can be located at the Mage's Guild.

Ardin Silverbow

Wotcher,

If we can, for just a moment, put aside any notion of "enchanting," I believe I may be able to offer a more logically sound approach to this quandary - the likes of which you may be interested in pursuing, Miss Clytie.

As it happens, I was a part of the party responsible for sourcing the pendant which now resides in your possession. Looking back upon my field report from the expedition, it would seem that the ruin from which we retrieved the pendant (the "Inverted Tower," to use its local moniker) was unusually warm - several areas of the substructure had been damaged by local wildlife, allowing hot geothermal gases to slowly rise into the upper floors by convection. This raised temperatures within the ruin to well above that of the air outside - which, given that it was the height of Summer, was rather cosy to begin with.

Over the intervening weeks, my instruments have detected that the daily peaks in Travance's ambient temperature have been steadily decreasing- a trend which would appear to correlate with the observed gradual decline in your pendant's efficacy.

As such, it may be possible that the strange phenomena exhibited by the pendant are somehow linked to its temperature (a sort of annealing, perhaps.) You might like to conduct experiments of your own by placing the pendant in a furnace and recording any observable changes - or, better yet, bring the pendant back to the Inverted Tower, where you may expose the pendant to precisely the conditions in which we first discovered it.

The latter would seem a particularly lenient choice, as even if your experiments should prove unsuccessful, you may nonetheless discover other artefacts exhibiting similarly unusual properties.

Very good Miss Clytie - I wish you the best of luck with your studies.

Ardin, someone else actually offered to work with the pendant in the manner requested. You did look at it, and thanks very much for doing so. Don't expect my not utilizing your services to reflect in any way your standing in my list of favorite elves.

Goggins, while I respect your well-thought-out explanation, did you ever consider that the phenomena of magic isn't caused by technical or geological forces (etcetera etcetera...), but by the biology of the beings that cast it? Check with me next moon, I'll show you something that has been considered magic in the past as well as it's logical explanation. Perhaps the conversation will reveal to both of us different ideas regarding magic.

Wotcher Miss Clytie,

It would seem that there are several points of confusion in your note; one being that "magic" is not itself a phenomenon (at least not in a scientific sense,) but rather a terminating hypothesis used by less advanced societies - allowing them to make sense of otherwise apparently inexplicable naturally occurring phenomena, such as lightning and combustion.

A second is this notion of "technical" forces - while the concept of "force" is undoubtedly useful for understanding and designing subjects pertaining to industrial science, it's not common practice to call any one force "technical" in and of itself. The reason for this is quite straightforward: Consider the set of all forces A, and the set of all "technical" forces (those exploited by industrial science) B. There are no forces that industry is inherently unable to exploit, and so every member of set A is also a member of set B, and vice versa. As forces are uniquely occurring, we can see that A and B are equivalent. As such: what additional semantic value do we add by describing forces as "technical," rather than as simply "forces?" (why, the answer is none!)

As such, I'd like to take you up on your offer of a conversation at the next possible occasion; if anything, it would perhaps serve you well to iron out these inconsistencies before you get cracking on your investigation.

Very good Miss Clytie. I look forward to seeing you soon.

Goggins is correct the term "magic" is simply a method used to provide meaning to the unknown, for examples explorers use the phrase "the new world" to define what lies beyond the horizon, before it is discovered and given a proper scientific name forever destroying these nonsensical notions of a non quantifiable phenomenon.
If it was such a phenomenon the use and future manipulation of it would be impossible as there would be no point at which to begin, but because of the limitations placed on it and the fact that it can be destroyed, what you refer to as "magic" is actually anything but magic, thus due to its nature as a catalyst for change, it is better to refer to it as an undefined energy source in order to remedy the silly notions that calling it "magic" brings.
As such rather than "enchanting" anything it is infinitely more likely that you are storing energy within an object for a period until that energy is used, which would more than likely be the reason why this device is malfunctioning. As such rather then seeking a "magician", you would be more likely find better results seeking a scholar specializing in the nature of energy to fix such a device.