I think the mystery of the overscaling of Antarctica on various old maps (Mercator, Finaeus) is a very important subject and I hope we can collect here the best ideas for an explanation to this mystery.
I feel that if this problem can be solved it may provide us with the key to the overall mystery of the ancient source maps.

To start with, just how much bigger has Antarctica been made on the various maps? Is the overscaling of Antarctica to the same degree on different maps by different cartographers or does the overscaling vary from cartographer to cartographer?

Also, do modern researchers agree on the amount of overscaling? For example, in Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings he says that the Finaeus Antarctica of 1531 is about 4 times too big whereas Doug Fisher's article 'Chapter 2 The Atlantis Maps' states that it is 2.5 to 3 times too big. It would be nice to get some clarity on this issue. 

Hello Geo,

Below I have attached an image of a polar projection with an outline of modern day Antarctica overlaid onto the 1531 Finé map where you can see the disparity in scale.

The differences in scaling ratios likely has more to do with area versus linear measurement. I believe Hapgood is comparing the area of the two maps. I don't have the proper tools to accurately determine the area of Finé's rendering of the continent, so I opted for linear measurement which can be determined across equidistant latitudes (approx. 69 miles per latitude). In this case, I compared the heights of Eastern Antarctica on each map and the combined distance across Western and Eastern Antarctica and in both instances Finé's rendering is roughly 2.5 times longer.

If I was more certain of Hapgood's area comparison I would have used it instead, but I believe Hapgood may have merely approximated the amount of times a template of Antarctica could be overlaid onto Finé's rendering. Personally, I have estimated the area to be closer to 5 times larger versus Hapgood's 4, but I know there is a sizable tolerance in my method.

In the end, as I said, I finally opted to present the disparity based on linear scale. I didn't think it was all too important at the time other than to acknowledge that these 16th century portrayals were grossly overscaled. I have often thought that reference should be reworked to state differences both linearly and areally, but have not made the time or had the means to accurately do so.

I have to leave for a bit, but I will follow up later today with more information.

-Doug