With the exception of the six modern supply leaves, all of the paper bound into Egerton 2572 is hand-made, used in folio, with vertical chain lines and, where present, watermarks centrally placed. The first contemporary folio, not foliated and used as a flyleaf, includes a watermark depicting two lions rampant supporting the coat of arms of the city of Amsterdam, crowned. Both Churchill and Heawood depict examples closely approximating the ‘Amsterdam’ watermark which they date to c.1688. The design was commonly used in the Angoumois region of France by mills backed by Dutch investors importing paper to their own country. The same watermark is to be found upside-down on fols. 1–2; fols. 3–4 contain no watermarks.

The next paper folios in the volume commence on fol. 73. A watermark is present showing a pot design, a device commonly found in French paper exported throughout the seventeenth century. The arrangement of watermarks and empty pages between fols. 73–80 and fols. 81–88 suggests two quires of eight folios each. Fols. 73–74 show the pot watermark; fols. 75–76 are empty; fols. 77–78 with pot and fols. 79–80 without. This indicates a quire formed of four bifolia, particularly as fols. 76–77 remain conjoint. From that point, a pattern for the ‘pot folios’ is more difficult to discern. Fols. 81–82 are empty; fols. 83–86 alternate beginning with a watermark; fols. 87–88 contain the pot watermark, whilst fol. 89 is empty and belongs with the ‘Amsterdam folios’ that follow. Despite the arrangement of the paper sheets, fols. 84–85 are conjoint and indicate a second quire of four bifolia. This, however, is far from conclusive. The pot design resumes on fols. 112–114 concluding with an empty sheet not foliated, fol. 1141*. In total, eleven folios carry the pot watermark; nine are empty but carry corresponding chain lines. The two missing empty folios added to fols. 112–1141* would create a quire of at least six folios but no more than this tentative statement can be made from the physical evidence surviving in the book.

On fol. 90, the Amsterdam watermark resumes and again the arrangement is erratic, alternating with and without a watermark between fols. 90–95.