Archive for the ‘New Jersey’ Category

Interview with New York’s DNAinfo news

December 7, 2013

The story so far…


About 4 years ago, whilst researching in one of our source archives I came upon a beautiful map of New York.  The entry in the archive log gave very little away as to what it was or indeed who had made it.  This map (actually it is both a map and a plan) is especially significant for two reasons.  Firstly it is a never seen before map of British troop positions on Long Island (Queens) and up across Harlem Heights in 1776, just after George Washington had escaped north out of the city. General Howe’s headquarters are even marked..


The map also contains, at its centre what I believe to be Bernard Ratzer’s finished drawing for what is now known at the Ratzer Map of New York City which was published in 1776 by William Faden and Thomas Jeffreys.


Over the past few years Heritage Charts has tried to bring the map to the attention of the wider antiquarian map world and also to that of American academics. It was About a year or so ago I met with Bob Singleton from the Greater Astoria Historical Society who has been instrumental in bringing the map to the attention of other historians and academics, all of whom currently share Bob’s concern that the map is authentic…

The centre panel from the map


Detail from the Ratzer plan


The interview

The questions were asked by Jeanmarie Evelly of New York’s

If you could tell me a bit about Heritage Charts and the work you do there ?

I am the founder and owner of Heritage Charts.  I have the best job in the world.. researching and bringing beautiful and historic documents in the form of charts, maps, plans and surveys to light.

Heritage Charts is dedicated to opening up the British archives (we Brits have everyone’s history!), and making otherwise unaffordable (never mind unobtainable) manuscripts to light and accessible to the public.  The world is full of Antiquarian map dealers (many whom I call friends incidentally) who will sell you an original of a rare publication for more money than most people can only imagine.  Heritage Charts is able to make available stunning giclée reproductions of these originals at fraction of the price of an original.

A large part of the Heritage Charts collection is comprised of reproductions of original surveys made by British cartographers and hydrographers, from which London publishing houses of the time such as Faden, Sayer, Bennet & Jefferys made copies and published.  These manuscript surveys which form the basis of the Heritage Charts collection are one-off pieces.  There is only one of each original, in the hand of the very men who did the surveying; men such as Charles Blaskowitz, Thomas Wheeler, Bernard Ratzer, James Grant, Willliam Owen, Henry Bayfield, George Gauld, James Cook, John Knight, & Samuel Holland.  These ‘manuscript’ surveys are the Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vince & Shakespears’ of their time.  Priceless if they ever came on the open market (which they won’t because they belong to the British nation and are held in archives, public record houses and museums).  This is the service Heritage Charts fulfills… uncovering.

In the past few years Heritage Charts have actively tried to work with a number of historical societies and museums up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States (The original 13 mainland colonies).  A glance at our ‘Logbook’ is testament to our travels and our dedication to bringing these beautiful, historic, document to life and also to our efforts to raise funds for such societies ad organizations.

By the way, many people make the mistake that these are American documents.  They are not, they are British, by the British, for the British… because the British were either attacking something or defending something at the time.

How did you come across the NYC map, and what about it piqued your interest?

How long have you got?…
I was looking for documents relating to the New York and the Revolutionary war.  Having uncovered some copies of the famous ‘Ratzer Plan’ of New York I came across various other documents relating to the war around NY in 1776 (some of which are still as yet unpublished.  Amongst those which really caught my eye was a very brown and dusty plan which showed Manhattan and the surrounding districts of Long Island and NJ.  What was of immediate interest was the inclusion on the map of british troop positions, including General Howe’s headquarters at Newtown, LI.  Closer inspection showed the discrepancy in the paper used.  In the middle of the map was a small (12″ sq) piece of paper which clearly showed Manhattan in much greater detail than the ‘battle plan’ seemed to warrant.  Even closer inspection (over several visits to view the document) revealed the fact that the central piece of paper was more familiar than I had originally thought.  It was in fact identical in detail to Bernard Ratzer’s Plan of New York as published by William Faden & Thomas Jeffreys in 1776.  Identical, except in one detail – the inclusion of tide arrows on the North (or Hudson) and the East rivers.  In tune with fashion at the time amongst the London publishing houses was the inclusion of ‘tide arrows’ – these would have been added to the publisher’s copy.


The reality of this map or plan is that in 1776 the British were at war.  No matter how valuable this piece of paper may be to the world of map enthusiasts, historians and the like today, it was more useful to the British for it to be reused (after it had been copied) as the centre piece to a hurriedly made battle plan leading up to the British offensive North out of New York through Harlem heights and White Plains.

The lower part of the central section are clearly missing or torn off as the words ‘Part of’ (in Brooklyn) are missing.  Likewise the top half of the map/plan.  This struck me at the time as being significant inasmuch as this was clearly just the middle section of a much larger plan of the British strategy in 1776-7.  The fact that the central piece of paper – Ratzer’s original finished copy – was just a starting, or focal point, for the geography became even clearer.  By this stage I’m not so sure that my interest was ‘piqued’, so much as pumped!


What also needs clarification are the grid-lines which cover the central piece of paper – the ‘Ratzer Map’. These are copy grid lines which were drawn on an original in order to facilitate an accurate enlargement of the original.  Scaling up would be the norm.  This is a feature of countless British Admiralty surveys which I have seen in my research.  Yet another clue as to the connection between this scrap of paper and the Faden and Jeffrey’s ‘Ratzer Map’ is the fact that the British Admiralty (and her surveyors), from the mid 1700s had been collaborating closely with the London publishing houses in the sharing of information and both cartographic and hydrographic data.  This would have been just such an example.  All surveys remained the property of the British Admiralty and were stored by them – often quite carelessly.  Accurate records of manuscripts held by the Admiralty were not kept until many years after the end of the Revolutionary war although to be sure, once surveys were lodged with the Admiralty they rarely came out again, probably as no one knew where to find them again so poor was the record keeping!  Even today it can be quite a challenge to track certain types of document down.

Detail showing the barge used for the ‘retreat’ from Governor’s Island, with a 32 pound gun and 40 oars


How did you get involved with Bob and the Greater Astoria Historical Society?

For a couple of years I’d know what I’d found.  How important and how valuable (historically rather than monetarily – as the only copy of this is not for sale) this scrap of paper was – especially to American historians and map enthusiasts.  For some time I attempted to get the attention of institutions such as NY Public Library, who sadly refused to even grant an interview.  I therefore went ‘local’.  Bob Singleton’s name came up in several discussions with assorted historical societies in Queens and Long Island and he was gracious enough to let me in to his office.  What I found especially engaging about Bob was his very modern approach to history.   He didn’t care that what I showed him was a reproduction.  He totally got it when we talked about the fact that it was what was on the map which mattered, not whether I’d walked through the door with a priceless original.  The fact that I was able to substantiate the source of the material was enough.

What’s your gut feeling on the document, in terms of whether or not you think it’s authentic?

I am very conscious that there is skepticism as to the original document’s authenticity although knowing the integrity of the source I do find it amusing.  Most people have no idea what is hidden and lost in the bowels of their own national institutions.  Why would such a find be so surprising?  Now, when a private art collector suddenly comes up with a lost masterpiece, that may well be suspicious.  When you have touched, and have worked with as many original documents as I have over the past few years, know where they are and understand their lineage you would know.  If anyone is suggesting that two hundred plus years ago – because that is how long this document has been in British Admiralty hands – someone had the foresight to make a forgery, well, lets just say its unlikely.  If anyone thinks I drew it, then think again, I struggle to draw a cheque!

Here is an example of what concerns people who look at the map:  The central square (the finished copy of the survey which was used to make the published Faden and Jeffrey’s Map) is very accurate.  The surrounding piece of paper and especially the map drawn upon it is clearly not to scale and is possibly even inaccurate in its detail of roads etc.  Does that matter?  If you were a British surveyor in 1776 tasked with drawing a plan of the current battle positions for your Commander-in-Chief (overnight?), what would you do?…. grab the nearest scrap of a starting point (Ratzer’s finished copy which was now redundant), stick it on to a larger piece of paper and sketch out the environs, putting in the salient information such as troop positions, villages, roads, ferries, redoubts, etc… This is by definition a Map, with a Plan at its centre.  A map does not need to be accurate in a geographic sense.  A plan does.

My hope throughout all of this is that people – especially institutions – come to better realise that owning or displaying a perfect reproduction of an other wise out of reach original is better (and more realistic) than not having the information and beauty contained within available for people to enjoy and learn from.  This is a story-board of significant magnitude.

What are your next steps, in terms of trying to determine whether the map is real?

I’m going to sit back while someone else interrogates the British government department responsible for the archive, the archive itself (and hopefully obtain a carbon fingerprint on the document).  In the end I know what it is.  The fact that the question of the map’s authenticity has now hit media status means that the history and beauty itself has already been subjugated to that modern cancer… everyone’s an expert and there will now be two sides of belief.  We call it Democracy, with all of its freedom of thought and expression.  Excellent!  On that basis the map is innocent until proven guilty….  Just be ready when I say ‘told you so!’


Is this Bernard Ratzer’s original drawing for the ‘Ratzer Plan’ of New York?

September 5, 2012

This section is the centre piece of a larger plan dating from 1776 which may be viewed at:

This section was added to at the time to become the centre piece of a battle plan for the skirmish up at Harlem heights.

If you would like to know more about this document please contact us at:

Defending the Delaware

June 1, 2012

The River Delaware played an important role in the American struggle to regain Philadelphia from the British in 1777.  The city itself had, since the fall of New York in 1776, served as the seat of the Second Continental Congress and the Nation’s Capital until it fell to the British on the 26th September 1777.  Access to it was vitally important for the British, first under Lord William Howe and later under General Cornwallis.

Despite the loss of Philadelphia, and never beaten, Washington and his Continental Army fought on throughout 1777 and harassed the British where they could, before settling in for the winter at Valley Forge.

Two forts had been constructed either side of the Delaware River as far back as 1771.  Fort Mifflin on the Pennsylvanian side on what was then an Island (Mud Island) and Fort Mercer (named after the Brigadier General Hugh Mercer who had died at the battle of Princeton in January 1777), on the New Jersey shore at Red Banks.  Both forts held the key to unhindered access to the Capital city.

The forts are clearly depicted on J. F. W. Des Barres’ beautiful 1779 Chart of the River Delaware and ‘Plan’ of the position of British ships on the 15th of November 1777 in the upper reaches of the river.

(Click on image for more information)

Des Barres’ chart of Delaware River from Bombay Hook to Ridley Creek and A plan of the Delaware River from Chester to Philadelphia. 1779

An original copy of his magnificent Des Barres chart is available for viewing at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (click).

Fort Mifflin & Fort Mercer in close-up

Fort Mercer at Red Banks and Fort Mifflin on Mud Island

The ‘Plan’ (on the right hand side of Des Barres’ chart) is in fact no less to do with the position of British ships than it a survey of American defenses as drawn by Lt. John Hunter, RN.

(Click on image)

Heritage Charts A309

This beautiful chart is one of the latest in the Heritage Charts collection

Even though the British under Howe had successfully taken Philadelphia, General Washington ordered the American defenses be strengthened further down river and work started to adapt the old fort at Red Bank.  This work involved reducing its size in order to make it more manageable.  River defenses were also put in place in the form of underwater obstructions known as Cheveaux-de-Frise.  These were of a similar construction to those put in place on the Hudson River to impede British advancement past Forts Montgomery and Clinton (see Heritage Charts A206)


A closer look at Lt. John Hunter’s original survey of river and the state of the American defenses clearly shows the thought process behind it all.  The Cheveaux-de-Frise were placed so as to force the British ships through certain channels which would then put them within range of the guns from Fort Mifflin in particular.  Hunter even marks in red the channels which the British ships used.

From John Hunter’s original survey of American defenses along the Delaware River. November 15th 1777.

(Click on image for an expanded view)

Intriguingly this survey was completed just three days before the British landed some 2,000 troops in New Jersey to finally take Fort Mercer and break the American strangle-hold on the river.  Fort Mercer had in fact been the subject of a fierce British attack (by 1,207 Hessian troops) on the 22nd October 1777.  On that occasion the American fort had repelled the assault with the loss of only American dead and 23 injured.  The Hessians had suffered huge losses with 514 casualties, including Count Carl Emil Kurt von Donop, their commander.  The American garrison was led by Colonel Christopher Green of the First Rhode Island Continentals (1737-1781).

The site of Fort Mercer is now a National Park and it includes the James & Ann Whitall House (click)

The site of Fort Mercer now looks like this…

Fort Mercer today

With a view of the river Delaware…

River Delaware view from Fort Mercer

And… James and Ann Withall’s House which served as a field hospital throughout the engagement on the 22nd October 1777.

James & Ann Withall House, Fort Mercer, Red Bank, NJ

Finally, lest anyone forgets…

The Hessians are coming!..

Previously unpublished Plan of New York Harbour and part of North River showing events between August and November 1776

January 30, 2012

There are some times in this business when you see something which rings a bell.  Nothing wrong with hearing bells, whistles or hooters come to that, provided that you can remember where and when, when it matters.  In a recent search I came accross this rather battered and lonely manuscript.  In fact I’d been looking at it on and off for a number of years, deciding if it would or indeed should be incorporated into the Heritage Charts collection.

Having finally made the move the next stage was, as always, to decide its relevance.  It told a fairly well-known story and the world is not short of maps, plans, charts, and other doodles which all do the same and are of a lot more interest… Or are there?

3 Questions:

What is it?

What was it a ‘rough’/draft/survey for?… These guys didn’t waste a thing.

Who did it?

Answers as follows:

1.  A manuscript  ‘rough’ of one of the most important events in American history.  Simples!  Not too hard a task inasmuch as it was clearly New York in 1776.

2.  It ended up as a Joseph Frederick Des Barres Map.  (A good copy of which may well set you back a mere $25,000, by the way).  Specifically it ended-up as ‘A Sketch of the Operations of His Majesty’s Fleet and Army Under the Command of Vice Admiral the Rt. Hble. Lord Viscount Howe and Gen./Sr.Wm. Howe, K.B. in 1776.’  Published in London Jan 17, 1777.

How do I know this?

Well, the References give it away.  This charming little unattributed ‘rough’ offers the following…


… Which are labelled A – I.

When put up against the Des Barres References they correspond as follows:

The Letters in bold type on the Heritage Charts (A212) plan corresponds to the reference letter directly below on the Des Barres ‘Sketch:

A. ‘The place where the Troops landed on the 22nd Aug’t 1776′
F. ‘Landing of the Kings Troops on the 22nd August’

B. ‘Where the Action happened on the 27th of Aug’
G. ‘Field of Action on the 27th’

C. ‘Where the Troops landed on the 15th Sept’
H. ‘Landing of the Troops on the 15th September’

D. ‘Where the Rebels retired to’
I. ‘Where the Enemy retired to’

E. ‘A Rebel Post which the Troops took possession of the 23rd Sept’
K. ‘The Enemy post at Paulus Hook taken on the 23rd September’

F. ‘Where the Rebels endeavouryr’d to stop the passage of the River’s by sinking Vessels and Frames of Timber’
E. ‘Where the Enemy endeavourd to stop the passage of the River by sinking Vessels & Frames of Timber thro which the Phoenix, the Roebuck & the Tartar forced their way

up the River on the 9th Oct’r’

G. ‘The place where the Rebels attack’d the Phoenix & Rose on the 4th August 1776′
C. ‘Where the Enemy attacked His Majesty’s Ships, the Phoenix and the Rose, on the 4 August 1776′

H. ‘The place where the above Ships was attacked by the Fire Ships’
D. ‘Where the Enemys Fire Ships engaged the Phoenix and the Rose on the 16th August’

K. ‘The Encampment of the Kings Troops’
M. ‘Encampment of the Kings Troops’

L. ‘The Line of Encampmant of the Kings Troops after the leaving Dobb’s Ferry untill the reduction of Fort washington marked by the letter D.’
N. ‘The Line of Encampmant of the Kings Troops after the leaving Dobb’s Ferry untill the reduction of Fort washington.’

M. ‘The Rebels Fort call’d Fort Constitution, or Fort Lee’
B. ‘Fort Constitution’

N. ‘Place where the Troops Embarked to attack Fort Constitution three days after the Reduction of Fort Washington & landed at H’
O. ‘Where the Kings Troops embarked on the November for the Attack of Fort Constitution and landed at D’

O. ‘The Detachment of the Troops Occupied the 28th Nov’r’
P. ‘A Detachment of the Kings Troops in possession of this Post on the 28th November’

I. ‘The Place where the Troops landed the 12th Oct’r 1776′
L. ‘Landings of the Troopson the 12th October’

No reference on the ‘rough’ to Des Barres reference ‘A’ – Fort Washington – becuse he sneaked it in later!

The J.F.W. Des Barres A Sketch of the Operations of His Majesty’s Fleet and Army under the Command of Vice Admiral the Rt. Hble. Lord Viscount Howe and Genl. Sr. Wm. Howe, K.B., in 1776 ( London: Des Barres, 1777) may be viewed (amongst other places) at

So, that just leaves the all-important question of who did it?  Well, my preference is Col. Mustard in the Kitchen with a lead pipe but somehow I think it has more to do with who was in NY at the time, who had the skills, who wrote like this:


%d bloggers like this: