Mike Lyle schreef
I don't think what I said was matter of faith, surely? The
dictionaries have a better chance than I do of identifying the first
published use of a word, given that thousands of people like us are
constantly sending in verifiable dated references: this isn't
guesswork. When they quote examples from other dictionaries, they say
so.

Or do you mean they're not 100% reliable about the *meanings* of
words? Of course you have to use your judgement, as with any reference
book. No argument there.
Mike.

+ + +
I am not up to a detailed discussion of the relative merits of dictionaries.
Still, I went to the Merriam Webster on-line and typed in "redcedar" to see
when this was first used and if originally it might have been "red cedar".

However the (by now universally accepted?) "redcedar" is not even in there,
just "red cedar", which in all likelyhood is something entirely different
(probably Toona spp?).

Someone putting his faith in this dictionary would go badly wrong here.
PvR