Is my map an original?

I recently bought a supposedly original 1650 map of the British Isles by Mariette. The seller advised me that it is original (which I'm not doubting). But what I'd like to know if it actually dates back to 1650 or is it a reproduction made in the 18th century or afterwards? Please find images of the map attached to this question.

 

Full images please...

 

Woops sorry about that!

 

Thanks!
That is nice no matter what but I don't know about it.
See any dots up close?

 

That's ok, no probs. It is a very nice looking map, very pleased with it. Would be even nicer if I knew for sure it was original!

 

No I don't think I see any dots on it.. the paper feels really old and delicate if that helps? ><

 

If you've looked with a magnifying glass and not seen any that's good though the paper isn't enough to determine by.

 

What should I be able to see otherwise? just lines?

 

It must be on laid paper. That is paper made by laying the pulp on a fine wire grille or mesh to dry, this leaves characterisic lines across the paper. This was superseded by 'wove' paper in the late 18th C, wove does not have the typical lines. There may also be a watermark from the papermaker.

Often but not always maps were issed in atlases, it is almost always 2 sheets found joined at the middle. What does the back look like. Are there plate marks? (printing impression outline.)

 

Yes I think it definitely looks like laid paper. The back does confirm that 2 sheets of paper was joined at the middle. I can also see from the back that the text is engraved onto the paper. Would that indicate the plate marks?

 

I was searching around the internet and found this map identical to the one I have.. only difference is, it's not coloured as much..? Does this mean one of them is a reproduction? Or did Mariette issue both of these maps? Here is the link if you want to take a look:
http://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/AngliaeScotiae-sanson-1650

 

If you've looked with a magnifying glass and not seen any that's good though the paper isn't enough to determine by.

 

I thought I had sent that long ago.

 

Plate mark is critical. The image plus a bit of the border adjacent are noticeably, by both sight and touch, depressed relative to the edge.

 

Coloring can be added at any time and, if it was added much later, might be detrimental to the value.

Here's a different, early 17th C book that uses paper with the same watermark. According to this page, the watermark is called "Pomme de pin", and has been associated with Augsburg, Austria.
https://anguscarroll.wordpress.com/...aper-type-can-help-decipher-printing-history/

That page refers to two different editions of that book, one with watermarked paper and the other without. The "deluxe" edition (even back then!) used the watermarked paper, which was considered the better quality.

Here's a link showing a 1655 Sanson/Mariette atlas. Not the source of your print but does say who these people were. Note that in this description engraved plates of maps seem to move pretty freely from one publisher to another.
http://www.swaen.com/Sanson-world-atlas.php

All in all, looks like a good chance that yours is mid-17thC, but I'm in no position to say so definitively.

 

Ah that was interesting, thanks. Is there any way I can know for sure that the colour on the map is original and not added afterwards?

 

You would have to find someone familiar with the map in its original context. I believe it came out of a book - an atlas. An uninformed guess might suggest that it was colored when it was removed from the book to be mounted separately. No idea when that might have been, or if its true. Somebody specializing in old maps might have an idea as to the practice of coloring them.