hello felix and hans,

about the dimitriadis TBR; this is the book i have in daily use as my main repertory. without it i would never have understood what hans was referring to in his rediscovery of original homoeopathy.

my first choice, if i could read german would be the original boenninghausen TT that hans recommends. no question.

as it is, even using hans' english index to re-title the german TT leaves all the rubrics in random [non-alphabetized] english order.
i do not find this a feasible tool for daily use in this form and i think it would be great if a publication could be made of the TT with rubric titles translated accurately and simply re-arranged into english alphabetical order, but until that is done, I think the dimitriadis TBR is the best tool available to practitioners in english.
it is one thing for students to use the translations in the german copy, but to use this in daily practice would be cumbersome and slow.

regarding the differences between the TT and the TBR:
rearrangement - a negative change, but it does make logical sense in the TBR order

lack of concordances at the end - a huge omission, and a main reason why the rearrangement should not have been done. you can still get the concordances at the end of boger's boenninghausen rep, unaltered.

merging of some rubrics - this seems logical - for instance the TBR would combine the rubrics:
limb< hanging down
and
limb>holding up
into one rubric, with a note that the rubrics had been combined. if there were still the two original rubrics, which would one choose, since logically they mean the same thing, yet contain different remedies? i.e they tried to make it a more user-friendly logical repertory [without understanding its workings as well as hans weitbrecht does.]

rubric titles in the TBR have been worked on by bilinguists and should be the most accurate translation of the original TT titles in any edition.

numbering and footnoting of every rubric - a very beneficial addition in the TBR which explains the meaning of the rubric titles, sometimes with examples from old medical and homoeopathic literature. the TBR is worth buying for this feature, though i have noted two footnotes that are wrong - the definition of exanthemata and the definition of thin stool.

noting the alterations made from the so-called i-copy of the TT - it is good that these upgrades are signalled throughout the text, but unfortunate that other additions, such as those from the aphorisms and the kv, are added without flagging it in the text. again, it is intended to make the TT a better tool, but how would they know in what grade to enter boenninghausen's comments from the aphorisms?

the TBR also changed the grading from 1-5 to 1-4 which was unnecessary and not helpful in my opinion.
my conclusion is still that the TBR is the best current rep, despite its flaws, for the english speaking practitioner.