This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the whole list) o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
Thank you for following up Ed Dahl's request and posting a scan of the map. There are some indications that it might not be an original map, but others that seem to confirm that it is. The wide, even platemark is a typical feature of a modern photographic reproduction. And is it possible to see, faintly, at the top, the mark of a real platemark close in? What is the lettering, [something].com, lower left? Yet the map appears to have been mounted on a central guard (see the slight discolouration from the glue), which would suggest it is genuine. The brown stains also indicate a certain age. Does the map have pre-1800 chain lines? It is certainly puzzling. Perhaps one of our Dutch colleagues will identify it for you. Tony Campbell http://www.maphistory.info/fakes.html
_______________________________________________ MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. List Information: http://www.maphist.nl Maphist mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
