Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
|
|
Hammond Explorer World Atlas |
List Price: $12.95
Your Price: |
|
|
|
Product Info |
Reviews |
<< 1 >>
Rating: Summary: Wonderful Review: I bought this atlas based exclusively on recommendations I read here at Amazon.com. You wont be disappointed. This atlas has everything you will need and more for daily use. It is well bound, fits in a backpack, and is put together with extreme attention to detail and usability. The recommendations you find here are certainly valid. Unless you're a professional geologist or something, this atlas is quite sufficient for families, students, and the general masses.
Rating: Summary: Great atlas....amazing that it is so inexpensive Review: The Hammond Explorer World Atlas is incredible. I first bought the 1993 edition of the Explorer World Atlas. For U.S., I buy Rand McNally, but when it comes to world atlases, Hammond is the way to go. The maps are detailed, and the reference guide for individual countries is wonderful.
Rating: Summary: Great atlas....amazing that it is so inexpensive Review: The Hammond Explorer World Atlas is incredible. I first bought the 1993 edition of the Explorer World Atlas. For U.S., I buy Rand McNally, but when it comes to world atlases, Hammond is the way to go. The maps are detailed, and the reference guide for individual countries is wonderful.
Rating: Summary: Great , but it doesnt include Puerto Rico's flag Review: This atlas is great. I just bought it and Im amazed with it contents. The only thing is that it doesnt include the flag and reference guide of Puerto Rico. I hope this have been an edition mistake and for newer editions can be put right.
<< 1 >>
|
|
|
|