When you look at this stone in the first photo, it leaves no doubt that it is just a piece of quartz. But when you look at it up closely you can see that it appears to have a simi-metallic luster and that it looks highly compressed. If you research the luster of quartz, you will find that the one luster that quartz is not ever found in is metallic, yet here we are. Also, the Mohs hardness of quartz is 7.0 and this stone appear to have a hardness of 9.0+. Okay, I paid good money for a Raman analysis, and it came back saying that the stone is quartz. I then sent it off to the GIA to see what they would come up with and they identified it as chalcedony. They did not send any info on its hardness, SP or RI so as of now it's just one very hard mystery. The composition of the stone is Si, O and C and I'm told that the C should not be there. Three such stone were found; this is the smallest one at about 2 carats. There's also a 10 carat and a 50 carat.

Yes, Jay, chalcedony is a form of quartz that people love to debate.
Is it agate or chert or flint or jasper, that sort of debate. It can have many different appearances, colors and luster, caused by different mineral inclusions and the clear to white-ish forms are typically called chalcedony.
But as you say, Carbon ain't supposed to be in there.
You may have already found this in your own surfing of the net;

Can carbon dioxide and silica form a new material?
Scientists have created a new material by successfully combining for the first time, carbon dioxide and silica. The gas and solid were previously thought to be incompatible but under extremely high pressure and temperatures at the European Synchrotron, the ESRF, they combined to produce a hard, light carbon-rich crystal.

Well, there's nothing too earth-shaking about the 3% corundum and that doesn't help establish this quartz as a "new mineral". Corundum is not carbon, so this seems like a little step backward. I don't know what happened to the initial Carbon signature? But all information is good.