New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[Mellon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why? JRRT tells us that the Arkenstone was cut and fashioned by the Dwarves, so why should it not be true? Or are we free to disregard anything written in the Hobbit that tells of things that happened long in the past but cannot be sustantiated by a character with first hand knowledge or corroborated by evidence elsewhere in JRRT's writings?

I've never actually posted an online opinion before and I am certainly no expert like many people here seem to be but I'd like to raise an issue I have reading the posts that dismiss the idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril simply because of the 'cutting and fashioning' statement. As I understand it the arguments against are these
1) a Silmaril cannot be marked/cut in any way
2) it is not possible/plausible for the Silmaril to have become encrusted with lava/gems
3) the fact that Tolkien actually wrote those words is more important than the fact that the story related in 'The Hobbit' is supposed to be Bilbo's account
4) from statements 1-3 it must be accepted that Tolkein intended to convey the impression that the Arkenstone had been cut by dwarves and therefore could not be a Silmaril

In favour of the for argument I submit the following
1) I think we can all agree that the Silmarillion makes clear that the Silmarils are peerless gems, the most incredible ever seen
2) IMMEDIATELY before (about 8 lines to be precise) the words 'cut and fashioned' appear is this statement 'indeed there could not be two such gems...even in all the world' (emphasis is mine)

I submit that the doubters can't have it both ways, either Tolkien chose each word himself and intended the Arkenstone to be an even greater gem than the Silmarils (being natural, and without peer when the Silmarils are 3) OR the statement about the Heart of the Mountain being 'cut and fashioned' was merely a confused and overwhelmed Hobbit's assumption on being presented with a hoard of dwarf-wrought treasures; just as the statement about the Arkenstone being one of a kind was.

I'm not a student of Tolkien, or of literature. As is probably evident from my post I'm in law, and perhaps someone can counter this but that is my take on the matter, for what it is worth.