Have been thinking about this guide for a while now, and wonder if they are better splitting it into two volumes (maybe more?):
One for 45s (and maybe 78s included), and one for albums.
They'd be able to keep the size / volume, but get more in each of use, rather than ever thinner info on too broad a range of items.
Perhaps, in the fullness of time, they could do one for CDs and / or cassettes?
...Or, another idea, may be the ring binder idea, where they could update individual discographies on a more frequent and necessary basis, and include "packets of pages" in the magazine (help justify the ever escalating cost of the magazine!), with the option to buy more discography page packs by mail / online order?
(A more fluid, and evolving price guide).
After all, this is all there really is offline in physical world, and whole businesses are based around record values... probably deserve a better, and more comprehensive valuation guide system in hand.
They always do that. It irritates me a little, but that's just the way it goes. My guess is, they want it to look in date up until the following one comes out - as we go into 2016, expect the 2018 guide to appear shortly!
The plastic "lamination" on my copy of this is peeling away off the front edges now... gradually making a retreat toward the spine.
I don't know why they bothered, as the underlying card cover Would be as good, maybe save a few penneth on production costs by leaving it off, and so be able to sell any future editions cheaper as a result!
Even this weighty tome is losing it's usefulness now, as the depth of variations in each record's issue that people now look for is getting too much for a book like this to contain, and express to those of us who (try) to use it regularly... You could probably give a whole page to each Beatles album on it's own now, so it seems they have to sacrifice this subtlety of difference to accommodate more entries, which is made possible only by raising the minimum qualifying valuation bar for each record in every new edition, meaning that there's more rarer records than ever, and fewer of what people may reasonably expect to get will be in it.
(My other bug bear is those entries who have no sale provenance to base a valuation on, because nobody's ever seen one, and so they list it with a big fat "0" as the value. Why bother?)