Mitchell's 1867 Plan of Boston

On a trip to Boston I stopped in at Ward Maps (as always, no affiliation) which is a nice, neat, well organized map shop selling antiques, and I think also reproductions. I couldn't decide between two maps: one of, or perhaps the, first Boston public transit map ever produced or the one I actually bought. In the end, I think my choice was made purely based on aesthetics. The map I bought was simply more attractive. It's an 1867 Mitchell titled "Plan of Boston" with a beautifully coloured inset of the Boston region.

There are elements of this map that seem, to me at least, to scream that it's a Mitchell. For one, the border of the map, and something about the style, that I can't quite put my finger on, all seem to say that it's a Mitchell.

It's also a map that shows a Boston that's profoundly changed since the map was made. According to the general history of the city on Wikipedia, the mid 19th century, when this map was made, was an important time for the city. Boston was receiving many new immigrants and was growing. Neighborhoods were becoming little ethnic enclaves and the city needed more space. 

Compare the map above, to the boston of today:

 A number of differences stand out, including the absence of a "South Boston Bay", and some more subtle changes that are hard to see without more of a close-up. Many of these land reclamation projects were due to the growth of the city.

One, in particular is the addition of streets north of beacon street, which had been right up against the Charles River. After a major fire in the 1870s, so after this map was made, the debris from burned buildings was pushed into the marshy areas of the river to create new land for the city and creating what is today, Storrow Drive.

I also find the image above charming because of its depiction of the lovley Boston Common. In particular, I find that there's something somehow funny about the drawing of the pond with the note that it is indeed a pond on the common.

Another great aspect of this map is the inset, which also shows changes in the region over time.

This inset of the region around Boston shows how some areas had recently been incorporated into the town, such as South Boston and East Boston. Other areas, which are now part of the city, such as Dorchester, are shown as seperate areas from the city.

All told, this is an attractive map, with some interesting historic details of a great city. I'm pleased with my choice in this case!

5 Ways to Start Building a Map Collection or, a Beginner's Thoughts on "a Beginner's Guide" to Map Collecting

I came across this post on the Map Room Blog. In it, the author of the Map Room makes a few short comments about this article, in which the author talks about his new-found passion for collecting maps, specific British Ordinance Survey maps.

It made me realize a few things: 1) People collect maps that aren't necessarily old 2) there are dozens of ways to structure a map collection.

Honestly, the thought of collecting new maps, and things like road maps, has little appeal to me. I do love looking at maps of all kinds, but collecting, for me, means old, antique or otherwise unique maps.

I thought--especially in light of the upcoming Miami International Map Fair--I'd provide a list of things a new map-collector may want to consider when structuring or curating their collection. Of course, take your advice from who it comes: I'm an amateur and have my own reasons for collecting!

1)  Location Depicted: some people may want to collect only maps of a specific location. This allows you to build a collection that is deep, but potentially narrow. If you choose some place in Europe, your collection could potentially be quite large and cover a very long period of time, showing evolution over time.

2)  Location Made: Different countries have different traditions of map making. It's sometimes fascinating to see how, at different periods of time, some maps from different countries will show the same place quite differently. It's also sometimes fascinating to see maps of familiar places labeled in different languages. Some maps even show longitude differently, based on a place like Washington D.C. or Paris, instead of Greenwich.

3)  Age: Some people only want old maps. Some people, like the author of the article the Map Room commented on, only want relatively recent maps. I can see how--especially those with money--could be attracted to medieval maps, or original maps of early exploration, while others may prefer maps of the Victorian era, or from the colonial period of one country or another.

4)  Cartographer: Some map makers, like Blaeu, Mitchell, Johnston and Colton are well known and prolific, though some are rarer than others. I can see how someone may fall in love with a certain style (Blaeu's maps are particularly beautiful) and just want to amass as many maps by the same map maker as possible.

Blaeu's maps are undeniably gorgeous

5)  Specific Attributes: I realize this is a broad category, but there are so many ways to curate a collection that choosing a common element for all the maps in your collection is a good way to go. I prefer to collect maps only of places I've actually visited or been to (with rare exceptions). One may also consider a collection of maps linked to their family's genealogy. I've seen auctions for important military maps from various wars, or you can choose only to collect maps with blank spaces on them, or with sea monsters!

Some people may just enjoy maps and collect whatever they come across that tickles their fancy. That's great. For starting out though, I think it's probably worthwhile to have a sense of where you're going with your collection and what you're collecting for. I tend to have a good idea of the kinds of maps I want. That said, I can't pass up a dusty old book or map shop without going in to browse, even if I don't think they'll have what I want. The hunt is so much of the fun!

Missing Pieces: Mitchell's 1867 Washington, D.C.

For the few years I lived in Washington, D.C., anytime I found myself in Georgetown, I would make a point of trying to stop in at the Old Print Gallery. This was a unique shop. It didn't have that dusty, feeling of some map shops that I love, but instead was clean, sleek and modern feeling. It had row upon row of cases of maps and prints arranged by location, alphabetically, and it had some true

gems, like Bunting's Cloverleaf of the world with Jerusalem at the center.

They also had a beautiful original of the first plans for the city of Washington, D.C. in 1792 by Andrew Ellicott. It was being sold for over US$40,000. Living in Washington, I knew I wanted a map of the city, and the Ellicott was truly the pinnacle of all such maps, but for me, at that price, it may as well have been one million dollars. It was unobtainable.

This image is in far worse condition than the one at the Old Print Gallery

I no longer live in Washington, but I'm disappointed to learn that the shop has closed, and merged with it's sister shop in New York City. It's a shame, because it was such a wonderful place, and I don't know of any other shops in D.C. that were as specialized.

The price of the Ellicott map being what it was, I turned to the internet to find myself a nice map of D.C. to add to my collection and came across a shop in Vancouver, British Columbia called Joyce Williams Gallery who had a great selection and very fair prices.

After speaking and corresponding with their friendly owner, I settled on this beautiful, very fine 1867 Augustus Mitchell Jr. map of Washington, D.C.

There's a lot to love about this map. Its wonderful to look at. It has an attractive floral border that somehow just pops out, without taking away from the map itself.

It also shows a number of details which may have been common for the time, but that today we would recognize as archaic, or simply unusual. For example, the White House is referred to on the map as the "President's House", This is a use that may be considered even more unusual because, as wikipedia notes, the place was called the White House as early as 1811, some 56 years before this map was published.

Another wonderful thing about this map is what it doesn't show. Some of the things tourists flock to D.C. for are absent altogether. For example, the Smithsonian is shown on the map, but only one building, not the many large facilities that make up its network. The Library of Congress is not on the map, as it would not be built for another 30 or so years. There's no reflecting pool either, and one may notice that the National Mall is not at its full length.




Most stark, perhaps, was something that actually did not jump at me right away: There's no tidal basin! The famous cherry blossom ringed body of water, the site of the Jefferson Memorial, just did not exist at the time this map was made. I looked at this map for quite some time before I even noticed that! Indeed, apparently, the idea for the basin didn't even originate until the 1880's, almost 15 years after this map.



The Mitchell map certainly lacks the historic value of the Ellicott, but it's a gorgeous piece, and one that I'm very pleased to have in my collection.