constantinopolis

[Flav V]

hello,

I start a heavy subject. Im searching for medaillons of Constantinopolis. First, the RIC VIII Rome 106 is here (but misdescribed): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7166068 (bust only cuirassed). It is a 17.00 mm diameter. RIC consider it as a base bronze around 1.67 grs. The coin linked is 2.80 grs! Is it the same coin described inRIC VIII? I think it is considered as ''medaillon'' only because <<must have been made for the festivities held in Rome in 348 to commemorate the 1100th anniversary of Rome's foundation; similar to those struck a century earlier by Philip I.>> sic comment on link page.

How many coins discribed in the RIC VII or VIII are existing? I found those ones: https://www.nummus-bible-database.com/rechercher-une-monnaie.htm?page=1&personnages=15&ateliers=&collections=&vendeurs=&motscles=m%C3%A9daillon&numric=&numnbd=&legendes=&nombreResultats=50&btRechercher=Rechercher
And some other in ac search or museums. But many coins miss. In your actual knowledge, do you know if some coins in RIC do not exist?

Is there other coins with low weight and diameter, similar to little bronzes, but considered as medaillon?

[Heliodromus]

I'm not sure there's any universally agreed definition of what's considered as a "medallion" in Roman numismatics, but it doesn't necessarily imply large .. just any coin-like object that wasn't really a coin - something struck for a special occasion, likely without any standard denominational value.

Here's what Toynbee (author of a book on Roman medallions) has to say:

http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan8359

There are a number of smaller pieces that arn't really coins (e.g. festival of isis, or O C-S C/star pieces), but nothing else comes to mind with Constantinopolis on it.

In general there are for sure a few things in RIC that don't really exist, or are misdescribed. I'd be a bit suspicious of anything where RIC could only cite something like Cohen or Voetter, not an actual known specimen the authors saw for themselves.

Not related to medallions, but here's an example.

RIC VII Rome 341 cites only a specimen in the ANS, but the ANS coin, below, is in fact from Aquileia !

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.6.rom.341

Incidentally, RIC 342-343 likely also don't exist - they are probably misattributed specimens of the later RIC VII Rome 52-53, from which they could only be distinguished based on bust style.

The ANS OCRE "online RIC" database makes the same mistake and illustrates specimens of RIC VII Rome 52-53 in place of RIC 342-343.

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.6.rom.342
http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.6.rom.343

Ben

[Flav V]

Thanks,

im reading Toynbee works but i dont understand what are the numbers on the index. RIC numbers? It dont correspond.

[Heliodromus]

They're page numbers in the paper edition of the book. You can use your browser (CTRL-F) to search the electronic version instead.

Ben

[Flav V]

Oh yes, obviously... page of the complete book. Sorry id didnt saw it was a book, i thinked it was an article.

[Flav V]

I didnt found the book on internet. If someone has any pdf, ill be glad of it.