Oxford Dictionary of English

I encountered no hidden expenses or taxes, delivery was quick, and by buying the OED on Amazon.co.uk, I ended up paying somewhere between half and two-thirds of what it would have cost me here in Denmark, shipping fee included. The dictionary itself was in perfect condition and correctly packaged, so I can warmly recommend it for any student of English, as well as the mode of purchase.

Potentially, I had thought, this publication was exactly what I had wanted - somewhere between a dictionery and a concise encyclopedia, as I simply want to look up something quickly. Sadly, it doesn't tick all the boxes and I'm still left with a visit to the internet.

If it says 'Oxford' on it, it's worth a look. The 'Oxford Dictionary of English' is my well-thumbed resource for the definition and description of just about any word I seek. It's not the most complete dictionary of English, but for everyday desk use it's almost perfect. It's not a replacement for a good thesaurus or style guide. The 9pt serif type on a bright white background is quite legible. The book is 11 x 8.5 x 2.5 inches, and weighs about 5lbs. There are 2,054 pages of actual dictionary, in addition to front and back matter. The binding needs to be stronger, and the slick paper jacket slips and rips with constant one-handed retrieval from the shelf, so you might want to take it off.

The American usage version -- almost a necessity nowadays for writers and editors -- has identical specs.

At school I used the Pocket Oxford. At home I used the Concise Oxford. Until now. Having purchased new new edition of the Oxford Thesaurus I decided to purchase the Oxford Dictionary of English too. This volume surpasses my expectations. An example. Last week I needed to look up the word "koinonia". There on page 968 I found a most lucid definition. In the latest editions of both the Collins English Dictionary and the Chambers Dictionary this word was not to be found.
I am not so sure that I will soon be asking myself how I ever managed without this dictionary. For the price here at Amazon I would choose it instead of the Concise as the main Oxford dictionary for home use. The advantage of the Concise it that it has been more recently updated.
My advice would be: buy it! I have a feeling that a new edition will soon be forthcoming (why would the price of this edition be so low otherwise?), but that should not stop you. Oxford has come a long way in the past years. The dictionaries have become more accessible (due to the influence of Collins?). Unlike Chambers, compounds of nouns etc. each have their own entry instead of being placed in one block under the headword. Unlike the Collins, this volume looks and feels more adult.
If you need a dictionary that gives good coverage for words that are no longer in common use, then go for either Chambers or the Shorter Oxford.
If I have given this dictionary too much praise, do take me to task.

Beats the competition (Chambers Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary) on price and on competence as a dictionary. The encyclopaedic entries are better than Collins (which ignores people for this purpose) and Chambers which simply doesn't have any.

Definitions are clear, there are 20-odd appropriate appendices, and some daft stories like "Port out, Starboard home" are quietly dealt with. Sample definition differences: "axel" (ice skating jump) - Oxford and Collins name the edges involved, whereas Chambers just says "from one skate to the other"; trombone (shape thereof): Chambers has the tube "bent twice on itself, with a slide", Collins has "a tube, the effective length of which is varied by means of a U-shaped slide", and Oxford has "straight tubing in three sections, ending in a bell over the player's left shoulder, different fundamental notes being made using a forward-pointing extendable slide". Oxford's seems clearest, with "extendable" a crucially important word in conveying what happens, and the right sense of "bell" clearly explained too. (This is a book crying out for a "Look Inside" option with some well-chosen pages. Come on OUP - it'll get you more copies sold!)

There are informative usage notes dealing with issues like the difference between life assurance and life insurance, the incorrectness of "you should of asked" (under "of", and cross-referenced under "should"), confusions like site/sight and your/you're, sensitive stuff like Lapp/Sami, informal words like "innit", and grammar niggles like "a sandwich or other snack is included" vs. "a sandwich and other snack are included". Looking at these at random, every one seems appropriate, and based on experience of mistakes that people make or questions that often arise. There are also short factual notes about all sorts of topics - as the dictionary's introduction recognises, these are arguably content for an encyclopaedia rather than a dictionary, but they don't seem to get in the way. Examples: blood - what it's made of and what roles the components play, and its former role as a "bodily humour"; Beethoven - his main works, special nature of the 9th symphony, and bridging role between classical and romantic movements; Barium - what some of its compounds are used for; Bangladesh - dates when it broke away from Pakistan and joined the Commonwealth; black holes - a crisp explanation of how they ("probably") work.

All-in-all great compromise between the scholarship of the OED and the common sense of the Concise Oxford. Unless you're mad about crosswords or other word games based on Chambers, once you've got this you're set up with a dictionary which will serve all purposes for a couple of decades at least.