... with just one tiny gripe.
Let's start with what I like - and there's a lot of it.
Obviously, with a dictionary, the "main feature" is the definitions it contains. Now I have not extensively poured through this dictionary, but I looked up a fair selection of words of my choice. I then opened it in a number of random places and looked at what I found. By no means a "complete" analysis, but what I found seemed ... well ... exactly what I would expect. Concise, compact definitions that give you what you need to know. Excellent.
The second "main feature" of this dictionary is it's size. Now small size comes with a disadvantage - a small dictionary hasn't the space to define all the words of a large dictionary. That said, while I WAS able to pick words that were not there, I had to select pretty obscure ones. If you're not a "specialist" user of English, or you're not being deliberately awkward (like me) you'll probably find a definition for almost everything you look for. Again excellent. The physical size of the book (4 3/4" x 3 1/2" x 1 1/2", 12cm x 9cm x 4cm) makes it GENUINELY pocketable in any decent sized pocket. Again excellent.
Finally the plastic cover seems - perhaps not a thing of beauty, but perfectly serviceable. The printing is clear. Good.
So what's the tiny gripe?
I have a Chambers dictionary (much bigger) that I use a lot. The paper in that dictionary is bright, white and "nice". OK - it's not WONDERFUL, but it's pretty damn good. At the other end of the scale is, say, newspaper - which is not very bright and white, somewhat "porous" and looks sort of cheap (because it is). The paper of this dictionary lies somewhere between the two. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad. It's CERTAINLY not newsprint, but it's just not as good as the Chambers either. I just with it was that TINY BIT better.