I have added 3 citations denoting the "regift" sense. Leasnam (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
However, I think you've put the etymology in with the meaning. It should be in the etymology section. Attestability is a matter beyond that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes I noticed that too. It was already like that when I came upon it. It should be moved... Leasnam (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Leasnam, did you even look at the links I provided above? Two out of your three citations are obvious mentions. The sense is still uncited. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
They are usages accompanied by mentions (for reader comprehension)--a usage can contain a mention and still be a usage. This is the reason why I chose these specific snippets, as they leave no doubt as to how the word is meant. Leasnam (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If the two are the ones below (please forgive me if these are incorrectly the ones):
2003, Ralph C. Wood, The Gospel According to Tolkien:
They store seemingly useless articles for future use, calling their collected stuff mathom (usage). Far from being "junk" that we would discard, these leftovers are precious matter to the hobbits, for the word mathom (mention) means "treasure" in Anglo-Saxon.
2006, Gail Carson Levine, Writing magic:
A mathom (mention [somehwtat]) is an object you don't want but can't stand to give away or throw away. Do you have a mathom (usage)? Most of us do.
I hope you will find these adequate. If not, I suppose we can continue searching...Leasnam (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've altered the definition a bit to fit a wider range, as I am finding extended uses of the word that really do not fit into Sense 1, and which aren't different enough from Sense 2 (other than the regifting part) to warrant a separate Sense. I have changed the "regifting" criterion to a "often". Leasnam (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I see I was rather rude above. 2006 is fine, but 2003 is just mentions ("calling their collected stuff mathom" is not a use by our standards). It looks like you have enough cites at the entry, although based on context I would guess that at least one or two of them really support the first sense. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Of the citations of the first sense, both are valid. Of the citations of the second sense, the 1994 and 1999 ones are uses (not mentions), but they could just as well be of the first sense, the 2000 one is in quotation marks (mention-y), both instances of the term in the 2003 one are mentions, and the 2006 one is a use, but again, it could just as well be of the first sense. I do not see two separate senses. I suggesting combining them into "A trinket or piece of bric-a-brac; knick-knack, often used in regifting." - -sche(discuss) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I have combined the senses in the way I proposed, because I think they are the same sense (I think sense 2 was simply rather poorly defined). undo my merge of them if you can supply citations that demonstrate them to be separate. - -sche(discuss) 05:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)