That's a good question. It really depends on they system of Astrology you use, as to whether individual degrees have a quality associated with them, rather than being a mathematical division of a sign, or even a circle.
The main watershed is probably Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). Kepler was a Mathematician who did much work on the laws of planetary motion. Indeed his was a dominant voice up to the time of Newton. But as well as being a Mathematician/Astronomer, Kepler was an Astrologer and tried to reform Astrology to meet what he thought of as Scientific principles (he was neither the first not the last to try this). He introduced the minor aspects, that many Astrologers use today but the part of his legacy that is relevant here is that he shifted the focus from the nature of the Signs involved to the geometric relationship of the planets by degree. So after Kepler it was quite easy to state that a planet at 27 degrees Aries is in a square aspect to another planet at 3 degrees Leo, even though they are both in Fire Signs, which are Trine to each other. The quality of the degree gave way to the mathematical calculation.
This shift took time to take hold but today the only notable system that does argue for individual degree qualities is the Sabian Symbols of Marc Edmund Jones and Elsie Wheeler based on clairvoyance rather than Astrology. You will mind a lot of devotees.
Before Kepler there was much more acceptance that degrees were variable in quality. This might be through subdivisions of a sign, such as the Decans or the Terms. But there was also a consideration of other factors as well. Al Biruni in his Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology makes reference to other sub divisions such as the ninths and the twelfths of a sign (the latter being used since Hellenistic times and the former being used in Jyotish or Vedic Astrology). Each of these divisions of a Sign has a planetary ruler, and therefore is coloured to an extent by the nature of that planet, taking into account it's position and condition in the chart.
Al Biruni also mentions male and female degrees, bright and dark degrees, degrees of increasing fortune and places injurious to the eyes.
In the Seventeenth Century William Lilly listed these in a table which also included 'deep or pitted' degrees and 'degrees lame or deficient' together with instructions as to how to use them in horary readings.
I must admit I've never tried to implement his table but the point is that he saw individual degrees within a sign as having variable qualities.
You mentioned your Sun in the 29th degree of Gemini (by which I assume you mean the last degree of the sign). I have the Sun at 29, 45 Libra and Jupiter at 29, 59 Scorpio. Traditionally a placement in the last degrees of a Sign has been seen as unfavourable. This seems to be because the last Terms of a Sign is often ruled by Mars or Saturn, the traditional malefics. My Sun is in the Terms of Mars and Jupiter is in the Terms of Saturn, as is also the case for your Sun.
Oddly the unfortunate nature of the 29th degree is often trotted out by Modern Astrologers who don't use the Terms and therefore have no real basis for coming to that conclusion, other than 'change is bad' (though they never would put it that way).
How has that manifested for you?