I am only online for once a week, so I am not usging the online features of the Dictionary. To tell you sincerly, really I feel I do not have to! The dictionary is very Rich and described easily any phrase and word, including if it's British or an American word/phrase. It has after the charatcer J information about countries in the world, measures of feet inches cm which for me, as European, is a must. Often I get a letter from a friend saying it is 58 F degrees in Mexico for example, and all I have to do is look for the section after J charatcer and see the measures. The pages are light and I find the hard cover much better than the soft cover and so I bought it. The only thing I am not satisfied with is the word of introduction and References to the online Dictionary. I do not find it convinient to look online for any word I don't find in the head and I do not find it faster with online Dictionary. Perhaps soemtimes you don't have to know what a word mean, if you can understand the context of the sentence.

There is an addition to the Dictionary that those that came before did not have - certain words has addition(some sentences said)of the 1911 word used so you get a glimpse to the past.

I like the Dictionary, and the hard cover is of good quality. I would recommend the hard cover more, and the tradition of Oxford dictionaries being one of the best is in doubt. IT IS the best. at least for me

Buy them in book format before they start editing them before the New World Order is imposed!

As a keen amateur author, I’ve used the 11th edition of this software for many years. Even the British version of Microsoft’s Word dictionaries have an American bent and I write strictly British colloquial English (nothing upsets the Yank critics more. ;-)).

This 12 edition uses a larger, busier widow than my old version. It does have the facility that enables words to be book-marked, that I know I’ll find very useful in the long term. I envisage that I will be able to dispose of that text file of the unusual (or highly forgettable) that I’ve amassed over the years.

However, to make good use of it, I would say that a very large monitor is required (or double monitors as in my own set-up). The default window the program opens in is quite large (and as I said, busy) it takes up about a quarter of my second screen (I do have my monitors set at their maximum resolution, by the way.) and I can’t see that I’ll be able to use this version of the software on my laptop.

First impressions of a reference book are likely to come from its physical features, these including weight, dimensions, appearance. Here the new Concise deserves full marks. Nice size, nice thickness, nice weight in the hands. Paper is very nice too, with the perfume of quality. This is a book that deserves to be well taken care of.

A few reservations. I was disappointed by the quality of the English, which in general is fine but in an Oxford dictionary should arguably be perfect. From the second paragraph of the Preface: "It is interesting today to look back at that first edition of the Concise and compare it with the work today, now in its twelfth edition." There's a confusion here between a book and its editions. To convey clearly the message that is presumably intended would be a simple matter: "It is interesting to look back at that first edition of the Concise and compare it with this twelfth edition."

H.W. Fowler was vehemently against what he referred to as "fused participles". These things are now the rage in British journalism and on the BBC, but for a lover of good English they remain as objectionable as ever for two simple reasons. On the one hand they may result in ambiguity, while on the other they are aesthetically offensive owing to an absence of grammatical structure. There shouldn't be any of them in an Oxford publication, but an example shows up - like an earwig in an operating theatre, Fowler might say - in the last full paragraph on page xi ("...dependent for their evidence on someone having noticed...").

Where the definitions are concerned, I feel intuitively that they are in general very well done. I just object to a few pernickety details. For one thing I feel the constant use of the indefinite article is superfluous, e.g. in the case of "historian: n. an expert in or student of history". It does serve to indicate countability, but indication could be formal and more elegant. The expression "an expert in" rightly corresponds to "a historian".

Personally I would be happier with a format in which each of the words defined were itself in alphabetical order. Take for example the verb "immiserate". The closest thing in alphabetical order is the noun "immiseration", which indeed is very close but you must be careful not to miss "DERIVATIVES immiserate v." This strikes me as a gratuitously indirect way of doing things, while further I'm used to seeing an indication right away as to whether the verb in question is transitive, intransitive, or both. I see no good reason to omit "vt" or "vi", as applicable.

An older reader might be reluctant to accept the decision to forget about those nuances that at one time were signalled by a capital letter, at least in the writing of some authors. Under "capitalism" there is reference to "the state" as denoting the inherently uncountable abstraction that transcends the individual. It used to be permissible in this case to write "the State", with the uncountable thus elevated above the countable. A nice distinction, but one that for some reason editors now tend to disallow. The press is by degrees abandoning nuances. Similarly in the article on "communism" there is no reference to "Communism", no acknowledgement of a distinction once made, no explanation for the curious reader of an older text. Here, incidentally, "their" is used to refer back to "each person". From this and the use of other constructions it may be inferred that the Concise now defers to Political Correctness. Regrettable, in my view. There is a case for seeing PC as sinister and the brigade behind it as officious. These people will alter Shakespeare if they can get their hands on him ( "...thou canst not then be false to anybody").

"Arthrosis" and "regressivity" are two of the nouns I have so far failed to find. I was surprised. I looked up "jobsworth" and "address" to see what the Concise would say about stress, but in these two cases, and many others, there is no indication. In some cases the material to the right of a word is a mix of comment and definition, as in the case of e.g. "acerb: another term for acerbic" (the two nouns occurring in boldface). Why throw in "another term for"?

Thus a handful of negative points, none of them calamitous, while at the same time my fairly large Webster, fifteen years old or thereabouts, is agreeably more rigorous and consistent. (Also more expensive, to be fair.) I've nevertheless no regrets about having bought this volume, chiefly because, as I say above, it's very nice to handle and the definitions per se strike me as meticulous. There are a lot of new inclusions, some of them terms long established and some of them terms of recent origin. Where the recent ones are concerned, it will be some time yet before writers use an adjective like "impactful" in a formal text, but in most cases it is not easy to find a good reason for objecting to them and they are there for the reader who looks them up. Also included, among a vast number of entries overall, are a lot of those pairs that a reader may at some moment want to find, e.g. "coordinating conjunction". (There is no entry for "fused participle", interestingly enough.) Plenty of everyday terms are included, along with a great many formal or academic terms used less frequently - clearly this dictionary is not aimed only at people who will never look up an esoteric term. The boxes used for qualification, e.g. in the case of "gentleman" on p. 594, are a nice touch. Where pronunciation is concerned, the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet is laudable. Its appearance in many an article will appeal to those who are tired of the ad hoc guides found in some established dictionaries, my Webster included.

The punctuation throughout deserves special mention. It contrasts agreeably with what is now encountered daily in the press, where editors and their proofreaders no longer demand such things as the comma that mere decades ago a journalist would insert before a nonrestrictive relative clause. These people are determined, even under threat of torture, not to allow the second comma in "A, B, and C". In the Concise this comma, which in many a case serves to prevent ambiguity, is used without shame, apprehension, or apology. And rightly so.

Intuitively I feel this is a work that can be counted on where the primary business of a dictionary is concerned, i.e. that of telling the reader what a term means. It is manifestly the outcome of a vast amount of work. The history related in the preliminary pages, involving a great number of people and their dedication, is highly interesting and even moving.

Huge improvement on previous editions. Okay for adults, but the paper thickness for the pages is very thin, I worry about them easily tearing. However this is good value for money.

Comparing definitions of mitosis from the 1964 and currently reviewed 2011 edition of this dictionary, illustrates a vast improvement in technical definition over the intervening five decades. This form of cell division was already well defined in 1964 as evidenced in A E Needham's book The Growth Process in Animals (Pitman), but the earlier dictionary defined it as 'division of a cell into minute threads'. The current edition of the OED says 'a type of cell division that results in daughter cells each with the same number and kind of chromosomes as the parent'. This also illustrates how the dictionary has changed over the years to one exploring specialised areas rather than confining itself to general conversational and cultural contexts. You will find a definition of Fauve in the 2011 edition and as the Fauvists were an early 20th century artistic group, their absence from the 1964 edition further demonstrates a broadening cultural outlook over the same period. You will also find bootylicious, but whether this represents a cultural advance depends upon your point of view!

This sits next to my reading chair, and I am continually refering to it.

Sometimes multiple times in a 10-min interval.

Arrived on time and beautifully wrapped

Ottimo, completo, pratico

Precisa och koncisa definitioner, gillar den!

Good

Das Concise Oxford English Dictionary habe ich erworben, um meine Englischkenntnisse zu erweitern und als zuverlässige Referenz für alltägliche Sprachfragen. Die Wahl fiel auf dieses Wörterbuch aufgrund seines hervorragenden Rufs und seiner umfassenden Datenbasis.

Die Qualität des Nachschlagewerks ist erstklassig. Die Einträge sind klar strukturiert, präzise und beinhalten nicht nur Definitionen, sondern auch Beispielsätze, die den Gebrauch der Wörter verdeutlichen. Zudem bietet das Wörterbuch umfangreiche Informationen zu Wortherkünften und verwandten Begriffen.

Die Stärken des Concise Oxford English Dictionary liegen in seiner umfassenden Abdeckung der englischen Sprache und der Benutzerfreundlichkeit. Die klare und übersichtliche Gestaltung erleichtert das schnelle Finden von Informationen. Besonders beeindruckend ist das Jubiläums-Insert, das die Entwicklung des Wörterbuchs über 100 Jahre dokumentiert und interessante Einblicke bietet.

Ein kleiner Schwachpunkt könnte die Größe des Buches sein. Es ist etwas schwer und unhandlich für den täglichen Gebrauch unterwegs. Zudem könnte die Auflage von 2011 einige neuere Begriffe und Slangausdrücke vermissen lassen.

Insgesamt bin ich mit dem Concise Oxford English Dictionary sehr zufrieden und vergebe fünf Sterne. Es ist ein unverzichtbares Werkzeug für alle, die die englische Sprache ernst nehmen und regelmäßig damit arbeiten. Eine klare Empfehlung für Schüler, Studenten und Sprachbegeisterte!

　POD に、記載の無い場合、引く辞書。発音記号は、POD とは、異なる。こちら（COD）の方が、親しみやすい。

　「文章語の定義」は、類書中、「最も、詳しく、正確」。これは、英文学を読む際、信用できる。

　POD「第１１版」 は、定義文が、one が⇒you、one's が⇒your, oneself が⇒yourself となっており、たいそう、読みにくいのであるが、当COD は、その点、読みやすい。こう言った点、正当に、評価できる。

　「POD は、紙質が悪い」、と言う意見も有るが、その点、当COD は、紙質も良い。

　ただし、アメリカ系辞書とは、異なり、百科辞典的要素（例えば、「アンコールワット」）は、記載が無い。

　英文学を読むのならば、当「COD」ですネ。近代詩人の、W.B.Yeats も、読めないようでは、困るのです。