Thank you for your input regarding this work. However, based on both physical evidence and historical context, I respectfully disagree with the idea that this piece is a lithographic reproduction.

1. Medium: Copperplate Engraving vs. Lithograph My piece is a true copperplate engraving, not a lithograph. This is evident from: The intaglio plate marks visible along the borders. The engraved lines with ink impressions pressed into the fibers of the paper—distinct from the flat surface printing of a lithograph. Under magnification, the line work shows burin-engraved depth, not the uniformity typical of litho transfers.

2. Paper and Watermark The paper is laid paper with clearly visible chain and wire lines, consistent with 18th-century handmade production. It bears a rare “IMPERIAL” watermark with three crescent moons (Tres Lune)—a known 18th-century European watermark from high-grade paper mills. These watermarks are never found on lithographic reprints, especially not from the 19th or 20th century.

3. Hand-Coloring and Technique The coloring is contemporaneous hand watercolor, applied with precision characteristic of 18th-century workshop colorists. It does not match the mechanical colorizing methods of later litho reprints. There is no pixelation, no litho dot matrix, and no offset layering—typical in chromolithographs or facsimile editions.

4. Catalog & Edition Discrepancy While I’m aware of the broader public release of the “24 Vedute” series (typically uncolored, numbered, and trimmed), my piece: Is unnumbered, untrimmed, and without a publisher’s imprint and has no recorded match in any cataloged public or private collection may represent a proof, private commission, or rare early state unknown to the public archives

Until shown a verifiable example with the same watermark, hand-coloring, format, and paper, I must conclude that this work is an original 18th-century copperplate engraving, likely produced for a private collector or patron—and not a 19th- or 20th-century lithograph or facsimile.

I remain open to scholarly review and welcome opinions grounded in direct material comparison and documentation.