Pathfinder 1E Cost of mingling unmingleable spells to create magic items

What do you suppose it would cost to hire a wizard/sage to research a way to use permanence on a zero-level spell that isn't usually compatible with permanence?

I'm imagining unbreakable items that have a permanent mending cast upon them. You smash somebody over the head with a wooden chair which flies apart on impact, only to immediately fly back together, ready for the next combat round. Or the inn serves food on unbreakable fine china. Or any of a bazillion other applications.

A similar thought I had was what I'd call "Platonic Ideal Bonding". In this version of the solution to unbreakable items, the thing you want made unbreakable must have an identical copy made of it. (Perhaps magically.) This copy serves as the platonic ideal for the subject. Whenever the subject breaks, it instantly reassembles it's pieces back into the condition of its platonic ideal.

To combine both ideas into a story element, I imagine a wizard who tried to develop the first method and found it to be impossible. Then he came upon the second idea and made it work. He sells this service to anybody wanting unbreakable things, but tells them that it is the first method he is using when it is actually the second. He stores the platonic ideals in a secret storage house. Why does this matter? Well, imagine this: Oh, they say the king carries an unbreakable sword and unbreakable armor? Well, if you are in on the secret, then for the right price you can buy the platonic ideals for the sword and armor (or steal them from storage), and have them on the battlefield with you. At just the right moment, you break the ideals and the kings armor and weapons fail.

But what would be the cost, in the Pathfinder milieu, of creating such a process? (Either of the two.)

Really? No replies at all? I'm a bit biased, of course, but I kinda thought this was a pretty cool idea. Figured it would get some love. Eight months later I'll bump it and see if anybody has any ideas. (Hey, at least I'm not one of those guys that bumps every couple days.)

I really like this idea, especially the method of having the platonic ideal of whatever was made unbreakable. If I was GMing this into my game (And I honestly might) I think I'd just use the process used to create a "Greater Permanency(GM Only)" spell and make the cost to cast it extremely expensive, so only the vilest of "villains" could afford such a service to keep their armor and weapons safe from sundering and such.

Hunting down then and finding the storage house and circumventing the obvious numerous traps guarding it would be an excellent "next to last" adventure the PCs could go on before taking on the villain.

I think Sarac actually hit in the problem. In an essentially destructible world, indestructible items can thwart basic fundamental mechanics, and there's potential for abuse.

As a GM I would not allow it (just my opinion). I think 'indestructible' should be saved for very, very special items.

An excellent point, and this would definitely be an extremely limited thing.

I do like the idea, though, of the archvillain having a seemingly indestructible thing which must be destroyed by first going off and doing something else like tracking down and destroying the platonic ideal.

It's much like The One Ring which was all but indestructible except for one weakness - the lava of Mordor. Nobody would suggest that The One Ring makes Middle Earth a broken setting. It's just a matter of being careful and not having it be a common thing. (My unbreakable dinnerware notwithstanding - that was a sort of tongue in cheek example.)