Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
324 of 339 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
THE GOLD STANDARD, October 14, 2002
By A Customer
In choosing a world atlas for my family, I looked at all that were available: from Oxford, National Geographic, Rand McNally, Hammond, DK, and other publishers. This new edition of the Oxford Atlas of the World is clearly the gold standard. Just published, it is of course the most up-to-date atlas available. More importantly, it is accurate and detailed, exquisitely produced (a joy to look at)and very readable. Unlike other atlases, for example, the maps do not run into the gutters. The introductory section containing informational maps and data (country population, income, products,languages, etc.) and stunning satellite photos is virtually a book in itself and worth the price of admission. And for all that one gets, the price is more than reasonable. This is more than a reference book--it's a good read. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
90 of 91 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not the gold standard - but the best value for money, November 11, 2005
This is the best atlas you can get in this price category. The gold standard of world atlases - The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World - will cost you three times as much as this one.
The features of the Oxford University Press's "Atlas of the World" are quite similar to the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. It has the same user-friendly overview over the maps contained in the atlas ("Key to the World/European Map Pages") on the insides of the front and back hardcover. And it has the same comprehensive index of names in the back, featuring not only the location of a certain place on the grid of a map, but also the place's longitude and latitude. As a bonus, there are 16 pages with stunning satellite pictures of - among others - cities like Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo, Sydney and Naples with Mount Vesuvius.
The main difference is the size of the two atlases: The Times Atlas is 19 by 13.3 inches, the Oxford Atlas is 15 by 11.3 inches. The bigger-sized maps of the Times Atlas allow greater detail.
If you still have small kids in the house who love to thumb through your books, this atlas will be your best choice. In its price category it is absolutely a 5-star book.
|
|
|
182 of 191 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Ultimately disappointing, January 3, 2004
At first glance this is a beautiful, almost spectacular, book. Lots of color, dramatic aerial photos of the earth, and a large section devoted to topics ranging from the earth's history to modern population shifts. But as a reference book it falls short. There are a lot of maps, but there is really less there than meets the first look: a lot of space is taken up with a narrowing down of detail - one map shows the hemisphere, then another an area of the hemisphere, then another a detail, of sorts, of the area. And often a detail of the detail. The cost to the reader is a lot of redundancy, and that very few countries get a full, detailed, page of their own. And many of the larger maps, especially, are quietly inaccurate. Towns are shown in the wrong places, major towns are missing at the expense of smaller ones. For a representative example: on map number 147, Statesboro, Georgia, which is 23 miles north of the I-16 expressway, is shown south of it; one of the largest cities in the hundred miles north of Atlanta, Marietta, is not there at all, but Roswell, 13 miles away, is shown at Marietta's location. Similar problems abound in other places. As a geographical reference it lacks any claim to completeness: hundreds of towns that are shown and indexed in my forty year old Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas are not in the new Oxford at all. There are over 84,000 listings in the old Britannica, Oxford claims 75,000, but quite a few are duplicates, because the same city appears on several of the various sized maps. Elkhart, Grapeland, Latexo, and scores and scores of other Texas towns that made it into the Britannica forty years when they were much smaller, are nowhere to be found in the new Oxford. They may be comparatively small towns, but a good atlas should show such things: I don't need an expensive coffee table book to find Dallas three times. And even when a town makes it, it gets short shrift: the Britannica index told us the county, state, and population of Creede, Colorado; the Oxford lists it merely as Creede, U.S.A. Unfortunately, the Britannica appears to be out of print, but if you have one, don't replace it with the splashy Oxford, even tho it does have pretty pictures of the earth from outer space.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|