Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2014, 05:40:39 pm
Search Calendar Login Register

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numism  |  Classical Numismatics  |  Topic: The Role of Medallions 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Role of Medallions  (Read 6119 times)
awl
Comitia Curiata
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 662


« on: February 10, 2007, 05:32:25 pm »

I was wondering if anyone knew the role of the large medallions in ancient Rome. Were the 40 mm coins used as currency or as show like military medals?
Logged
Mark F
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2007, 07:48:40 pm »

It is my understanding that medallion sized coins (for some locations, that could be from 34 mm and up) are not currency, in that they were not struck to be circulated, nor did they have an official denomination (this may be somewhat incorrect).

They were struck as commemoratives (of some event) or as offerings, amongst a host of other possible reasons.

While some official coinage, e.g., civic issues in the provinces, were struck to commemorate events, the distinction between those coins and medallions is probably in terms of purpose -- one coin circulated and had a defined value (rather than just intrinsic value), while the medallion was not.

Mark
Logged
GMoneti
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186



« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2007, 01:35:34 am »

Judging by the limited edition and superior craftsmanship on most medallions, I don't think they could have been in general circulation.  They most likely were presented as a "token" of appreciation to deserving people, hence the beauty of them, whether in gold, silver or bronze.  One of my favorites is this Faustina II AE medallion.  The obverse is certainly great, but the reverse is possibly one of the nicest on a Roman coin/medallion.  Simply classical Roman art.

Logged

Georgi
Pscipio
Tribunus Plebis 2009
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3709

Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2007, 03:55:28 am »

In my opinion, it is Commodus who has some of the greatest medallions. Here are an exceptional obverse and one wonderful reverse.

Lars
Logged

curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2007, 11:12:41 am »

As I showed in a paper read at the 1973 International Num. Congress, most Roman bronze medallions were struck in Nov.-Dec. of each year for use as New Year's presents on the upcoming 1 January. 

In the Antonine period, there were frequently changes of the imperial titles on the coins in the course of the year, but all medallions almost always belong to the earliest issue of the year, before any of the changes. 

Commodus became TR P XVIII on 10 Dec. 192 and was assassinated on 31 Dec. 192.  From the intervening three-week period, almost no coins have survived, but a full issue of medallions dated TR P XVIII, as many medallions as survive from any other tribunician year of Commodus'.  The reason why is obvious: THOSE WERE THE ONLY MEDALLIONS HE WOULD HAVE PRODUCED FOR THAT YEAR, AND THEY HAD ALL BEEN PRODUCED AND WERE IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC BEFORE HIS ASSASSINATION ON 31 DECEMBER.

Why are there no medallions dated to the 10-31 Dec. period in every year when the emperor assumed a new consulship on 1 January?  BECAUSE THOUGH THE MEDALLIONS WERE PRODUCED IN DEC. AS UNDER COMMODUS, THEY WERE MEANT AS NEW YEAR'S GIFTS ON 1 JAN.
SO ALREADY RECORDED THE EMPEROR'S NEW CONSULSHIP!  Commodus' medallions too, if he had been designated to become COS VIII on 1 Jan. 193, would have bourne that new consular number.

The Roman bronze medallions produced as New Year's gifts were a continuation of the old Roman custom of distributing money, particularly copper asses, to friends and family as good luck charms on New Year's Day.  Along with the medallions, the second-cent. Roman mint also regularly produced large issues of ordinary asses for use as New Year's presents, another discovery of mine that I presented at the 1986 International Congress, but which was not published in the Acts of that congress.
Logged

Curtis Clay
Roma_Orbis
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


ad avgvsta per angvsta


« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2007, 11:45:15 am »

It is my understanding that medallion sized coins (for some locations, that could be from 34 mm and up) are not currency, in that they were not struck to be circulated, nor did they have an official denomination (this may be somewhat incorrect).

They were struck as commemoratives (of some event) or as offerings, amongst a host of other possible reasons.

While some official coinage, e.g., civic issues in the provinces, were struck to commemorate events, the distinction between those coins and medallions is probably in terms of purpose -- one coin circulated and had a defined value (rather than just intrinsic value), while the medallion was not.

Mark

Then why many medallions bear marks of circulation?  e.g. http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=163901&AucID=201&Lot=417
It seems some medallions were put into circulation, at maybe a value of 2 Sestertii?

Jérôme
Logged
areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9653



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2007, 02:18:09 pm »

Why does it have to be from circulation?
Who knows how long these pieces have been in collections.
Logged

Roma_Orbis
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


ad avgvsta per angvsta


« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2007, 02:20:50 pm »

Coins staying for dozens of years in a cabinet don't see their grade diminished by rubbing, fortunately!! And ... original patina in ON the flatness.
No, this circulation is contemporary to the coins.

Jérôme
Logged
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7137


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2007, 03:18:44 pm »

How do we know how wonderful ancient medallions were handled in Charlemagne's time, by Ottonian nobles who might get them, by fast living Renaissance dudes, by monastic and cathedral treasuries, for that matter?  It was a long time before a medallion made it into a proper coin cabinet, in many cases.  And why do we see even European, post-Renaissance medals sometimes with wear from handling and from cloth or leather?
Just a question.  Pat L.
Logged
Gavignano
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1687

"I check Forvm daily, and take a multivitamin."


« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2007, 07:26:46 pm »

Also, could the medallions:
1. have been pocket pieces (a.k.a. good luck charms!!)?
2. and therefore even rubbed by th owner, whether in a nervous moment or to invoke some "help'?
3. have been traded, or even sold as collectors items to others who wanted them?
Being so big and high on the artistic scale, a secondary market is possible!
Can you imagine what a second century Roman coin shop would look like? Just speculating.  Joe
Logged

"May all your campgates be Ticinums"
Mark F
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2007, 08:10:54 pm »

I believe that while wear, such as that posted in the medallion above, is indicative or circulation, it does not conclusively demonstrate that circulation actually occured. If the coin was a Mercury dime, there would be no other conclusion. I'd expect that any 1800 year old coin could display wear, even though it was never circulated, just for the reasons others listed above.
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2007, 08:37:15 pm »

Gold and silver medallions seem to have had a monetary value, since their weights are usually an even multiple of the weight of the standard gold or silver coin of the era.

Gnecchi suggested that large bronze medallions too were money, namely double sestertii, since despite wide variations of individual weights, the average bronze medallion weighs about twice an average sestertius.

In the bronze coinage, however, orichalcum (in sestertii and dupondii) was worth twice as much as copper (asses, quadrantes).  Dupondii, though about the same weight as asses, were worth twice as much.  Bronze medallions, if intended as double sestertii as Gnecchi suggested, should therefore always have been struck in orichalcum.  In fact they were struck sometimes in orichalcum, sometimes in copper, and sometimes bimetallic with (usually) a copper central disc surrounded by a ring of orichalcum.

So it doesn't look like monetary value played much of a role in the creation of bronze medallions.  The different metals were chosen for their different colors, and for the contrast of colors on the bimetallic pieces.  It's apparent that it must have cost more than two sestertii to produce these elaborate bimetallic medallions from carefully cut dies.  The regular omission of the letters SC from bronze medallions, contrasted with their inclusion on all monetary bronze coins from double sestertii on down, also seems to separate bronze medallions from the circulating bronze coinage.

This doesn't mean that the recipients might not sometimes have spent them, who knows at what monetary value.  I think that enough of the surviving medallions have clear signs of wear as to suggest that circulation was not a rare phenomenon.

There are no texts, inscriptions, or hoards, however, that clearly prove that bronze medallions were or were not a normal part of the circulating currency, so all we can do is speculate!
Logged

Curtis Clay
Roma_Orbis
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


ad avgvsta per angvsta


« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2007, 02:43:59 am »

The Roman bronze medallions produced as New Year's gifts were a continuation of the old Roman custom of distributing money, particularly copper asses, to friends and family as good luck charms on New Year's Day.  Along with the medallions, the second-cent. Roman mint also regularly produced large issues of ordinary asses for use as New Year's presents, another discovery of mine that I presented at the 1986 International Congress, but which was not published in the Acts of that congress.
Curtis,

  That's very interesting! Do you have the intention to publish your discovery some day? Could you give some examples about these large issues of asses made for New Year's present? Was it peculiar to the 2nd cent. only? Was it completely discontinued in the 3rd cent. though there were issues of regular medallions?

Jérôme
Logged
Frans Diederik
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2431


carpe diem, vita brevis est!


« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2007, 08:19:20 am »

Interesting thread!
Yesterday I midssed out on a Republican as 'with a club' Cr.89 which was indicated to weigh 52 grams, which is far above the standard weight at the time. Could this have been one of the 'ptesentation asses"?


Frans
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2007, 07:01:40 pm »

Jerome,

There are two second-cent. issues which prove my point, and incidentally solve seemingly intractable chronological problems.

(1)  The three-standards asses of Hadrian in 118, PONT MAX TR POT COS II, which however oddly still show his old long obv. legend in the dative case, WHICH IN ALL OTHER DENOMINATIONS WAS SUPERSEDED BY A SHORTER NOMINATIVE LEGEND LATE IN 117.  Why the persistence of the old obv. legend into 118 on the asses only?  Very simple: these asses were produced as New Year's gifts late in 117 BEFORE THE CHANGE OF THE OBV. LEGEND, but were of course dated ahead to COS II, a title that it was known Hadrian would assume on 1 Jan. 118!

(2)  The HILARITAS, FELICITATI CAES Galley, and PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS asses of Commodus Caesar, the last showing clasped hands before standard on prow, with the enigmatic obv. legend COMMODO CAES AVG FIL GERM SARM COSCOS means 177 AD, but we know that Commodus was more than merely Caesar at that date: late in 176 he was granted the title IMP and the tribunician power so that he could triumph together with his father on 23 Dec. 176.  All other denominations accordingly always call Commodus IMP and TR P in 177.  Why do these strange asses persist in denying him those titles in 177?  Again very simple: the asses were produced as New Year's presents late in 176, at a time when it was known that Commodus would become COS on 1 Jan., BUT BEFORE IT WAS KNOWN THAT HE WOULD ALSO BE ASSUMING THE TRIBUNICIAN POWER AND THE TITLE IMPERATOR BEFORE THAT DATE!  The bronze medallions of Commodus meant for the same New Year's, incidentally, were obviously produced LATER THAN the asses, since they all correctly call him IMP and TR P as well as COS!

As to the third century: in 196 Septimius, apparently in connection with his anger at the Senate for supporting Clodius Albinus whom Septimius had defeated on 19 Feb. 196 (not 197 as the books all say!), cancelled the large annual New Year's issues of both medallions and asses.  Such issues exist for 1 Jan. 194, 1 Jan. 195, and 1 Jan. 196, in fact they account for almost all of the asses produced by Septimius during those years; but from 1 Jan. 197 on the bronze medallions disappear almost entirely, and the large issues of asses at the beginning of each year disappear with them.

Bronze medallions are almost or totally non-existent for the rest of Septimius' reign, and for the reigns of his successors Caracalla, Macrinus, and Elagabalus; only during the reign of Severus Alexander was a fairly regular production of bronze medallions resumed.  There are several indications, however, that the issues of New Year's asses might have resumed 10-15 years earlier than that.

Septimius died on 4 Feb. 211 in York, and Caracalla became P M and P P, Geta P P only, when the news of that event reached Rome.  Yet there is a surprisingly large issue of asses of Septimius' last tribunician year TR P XIX, and Caracalla's corresponding TR P XIIII and Geta's TR P III without the P M and P P of their joint reign.  Sestertii and dupondii with these dates, in contrast, are comparatively rare.  The asses look rather like a New Year's issue for 1 Jan. 211.

All asses and dupondii of Macrinus are rare to very rare, with a single exception: his asses dated TR P II COS II, with five different rev. types, which turn up again and again.  Now in my paper on the coinage of Macrinus, I showed that these titles were a MISTAKE of the mint of Rome, since Macrinus had decided NOT to call himself COS II in 218; when the news of this decision reached Rome, probably no later than early February 218, the mint of course reverted from TR P II COS II to TR P II COS.  All of those asses with the erroneous consular number must have been produced before early Feb. 218.  I think there can be little doubt that they are a New Year's issue, produced in Nov.-Dec. 217, but dated ahead to 218, with the wrong consular number as it turned out.

Perhaps the New Year's issues of asses were resumed around 207, when asses become commoner than they had been from 197 to 206, though unfortunately none of the issues before that of 211 can be dated more exactly within the relevant tribunician years.  We can assume that most of the bronze medallions and asses from Sev. Alexander's reign on, until the end of the bronze coinage under Gallienus, were issued as New Year's gifts, but it is hard to cite actual proof for this hypothesis, since there were far fewer changes of the imperial titles on the coins in the course of the tribunician year in this era than in the Antonine and early Severan period.  The main reason is that the coins had stopped recording the emperor's imperatorial acclamations, as they had done from 147 until 198.

Frans,

The earliest New Year's issue of asses that I can definitely prove is Hadrian's in 118; I have conjectured, for reasons I can't explain here, that it was Trajan who instituted the custom of striking and distributing specific New Year's issues of asses and bronze medallions.  The asses used for New Year's presents before then will simply have been extracted from ordinary circulation by the intending donors.

Logged

Curtis Clay
Roma_Orbis
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


ad avgvsta per angvsta


« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2007, 04:31:39 pm »

Curtis,

  As a collector of imperial mid-bronzes, I'm of course fascinated by these explanations! This then raises many questions, among which:
- were for instance some preferred topics for reverses (linked to the glory of the emperor rather than classical deities)?
- you say that possibly "most of the bronze medallions and asses from Sev. Alexander's reign on, until the end of the bronze coinage under Gallienus, were issued as New Year's gifts"; but mid bronzes exist, even if rare, for emperors having reigned less than one year, reign ended before 31st Dec.; Balbinus and Pupienus were emperors from February to May 238, so without any possible New Year issue, yet they issued mid bronzes? Do you mean that the bulk of the Asses emissions were done as New Year's gift, with some scarce emissions in the rest of the year?

Jérôme
Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2007, 06:56:18 pm »

Jerome,

Yes, the New Year issue of asses was annual and fairly substantial, but asses could of course be issued at other times of the year too, in smaller or larger volume.

I think Macrinus' commonish asses dated TR P II COS II were a New Year issue, as explained above, but Macrinus also issued rare asses during his Issue 1 (c. May-July 217) and during his Issue 3 (c. March-July 218).

The rare asses of Septimius Severus dated TR P COS (June-10 Dec. 193) were clearly not produced with New Year's 194 in mind!

You mention the rare asses of Balbinus and Pupienus (c. Feb.-May 238) as clearly being unconnected with the New Year's celebration.  Ditto the rare asses of Aemilian, c. June-Sept. 253.

There are occasional large bronze medallions too that bear dates not appropriate for the New Year's celebration.  We might conjecture that they, and perhaps some asses too, were sometimes given as presents on other anniversary celebrations also, for example on birthdays and accession anniversaries.  Asses, of course, must often have been produced simply for payments and for circulation as money, but medallions at other dates than 1 Jan. presumably imply other celebrations.

The unique large bronze medallion of Pupienus in BM would be such a case, but I am not 100% sure that it is authentic!

As to the rev. types of the New Year's asses, I think we can suspect a New Year's issue whenever we observe asses using their own types which do not appear on any other denomination.

Such is the case with Hadrian's Three-standard asses of 118, and with Commodus' issue of 177 that I also described above.  The FELICITATI CAES Galley type of that issue also appears for Marcus Aurelius with legend FELICITATI AVG, on common asses and scarce dupondii only, the asses doubtless also forming part of that New Year's issue of 177. 

Of course another reason for giving asses their own rev. types, prevalent in the first century and even under Trajan and Hadrian, was merely to distinguish them from dupondii, not to mark them as a New Year's issue!

The New Year's asses of Septimius in 194-6 and of Macrinus in 218 merely used the rev. types that were also current in the other denominations, and this seems to have been the rule from the reign of Commodus on.

To get a firm grasp on this topic, you've got to undertake a detailed study of the entire Roman bronze coinage fron Trajan on: chronology, size of the various issues, use of types!

Logged

Curtis Clay
Jay G
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2007, 05:01:15 am »

I would like to understand if there was a difference between the Roman (read Latin) and Greek Imperial medallions of the provinces such as those in Asia Minor and elsewhere?
Logged

http://guberman.blogspot.com/
A Survey of Ancient Coins
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2007, 07:42:49 am »

Who knows?  We can only conjecture.

My discoveries regarding Roman medallions and asses depended on our ability to date them exactly to a period of only months or weeks within a particular year.  That is almost never possible with Greek imperial medallions, the sole exception being the medallions of short-lived emperors, which must of course date to the time of their reigns.

I have not attempted to study provincial medallions in detail, however.
Logged

Curtis Clay
otlichnik
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2058



« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2007, 08:29:08 am »

Dear Curtis,

Thank you for these fascinating explanations.

To re-ask an unanswered question from above - Do you intend to publish any of this?  I am not sure if your articles which you referred to above are available anywhere but I think your latest research, combined with appropriate images would be very well received. 

I for one am ready to buy a copy!

Shawn Caza
 
Logged

SC
(Shawn Caza, Vienna)
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2007, 08:17:29 pm »


As to the third century: in 196 Septimius, apparently in connection with his anger at the Senate for supporting Clodius Albinus whom Septimius had defeated on 19 Feb. 196 (not 197 as the books all say!), cancelled the large annual New Year's issues of both medallions and asses.  Such issues exist for 1 Jan. 194, 1 Jan. 195, and 1 Jan. 196, in fact they account for almost all of the asses produced by Septimius during those years; but from 1 Jan. 197 on the bronze medallions disappear almost entirely, and the large issues of asses at the beginning of each year disappear with them.

Bronze medallions are almost or totally non-existent for the rest of Septimius' reign, and for the reigns of his successors Caracalla, Macrinus, and Elagabalus; only during the reign of Severus Alexander was a fairly regular production of bronze medallions resumed.  There are several indications, however, that the issues of New Year's asses might have resumed 10-15 years earlier than that.

Perhaps the New Year's issues of asses were resumed around 207, when asses become commoner than they had been from 197 to 206, though unfortunately none of the issues before that of 211 can be dated more exactly within the relevant tribunician years. 


The fact that small issues of large bronze medallions apparently resumed in 207-210 supports my suggestion that New Year's issues of asses too might have resumed in 207.

The surviving large bronze medallions of the reign of Septimius Severus may be inventoried as follows.  The figures come from my Oxford thesis on the coinage of 193-8 and the material I have gathered but not published for the remainder of the reign.

Issue of 1 Jan. 194:  23 surviving pieces, 11 of Sept. Sev., 2 of Domna, 9 of Albinus Caesar, 1 of Divus Pertinax.

1 Jan. 195:  24 pieces, 16 of SS, 2 of Domna, 6 of Albinus Caesar.

1 Jan. 196:  33 pieces, 18 of SS, 6 of Domna, 9 of Caracalla Caesar.

197-206:  From these ten years only 1 large bronze medallion is known, a piece of Septimius datable to 200 or possibly 1 Jan. 201, with rev. RESTITVTOR VRBIS, Septimius sacrificing before seated Roma, that I illustrate below.  The alleged piece of 202 in Paris with Septimius wearing lionskin on obv., and busts of Caracalla and Plautilla on rev., Gnecchi pl. 152.6, also illustrated by Cohen p. 103, is unquestionably modern.

207-210:  Regular production of large bronze pieces seems to have resumed, though in much smaller volume than up to 195.

Sept. Sev.:  3 large bronze medallions known, 1 of 207 and 2 of 208.  All three types are illustrated in the thread A New Large Bronze Medallion of SS in 208 under Roman Coins.

Caracalla:  4 pieces known, each unique, 1 of 207, 1 of 208, the other 2 undated but probably of 209 and 210 respectively.

Geta Caesar:  1 type known, CONCORDIA MILITVM, Prince standing with five standards, probably of 208, 4 spec. from a single die pair.

Julia Domna:  3 types known, in 4 or 5 specimens.

With the death of Sept. Sev. in 211, this modest renaissance in the production of large bronze medallions ended:  none whatsoever are known from Caracalla's sole reign or the reign of Macrinus.  The production of New Year's asses, however, which was also apparently resumed in 207, would seem to have continued during these two later reigns.



Logged

Curtis Clay
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021



« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2007, 04:28:09 pm »

The following comments, that I made concerning contorniates and protocontorniates in another thread, are relevant here too:

Contorniates were probably produced each December for use as New Year's gifts, continuing the earlier imperial tradition of producing both bronze medallions and ordinary copper asses at the same time of year for the same purpose.

Ordinary 1st-3rd cent. bronze coins with hammered-up edges, the so-called protocontorniates, were apparently also used as New Year's gifts, perhaps especially in the late third century and the first half of the fourth century, when the mints were producing very few bronze medallions and no larger bronze coins for circulation.

This custom influenced the design of the contorniates in two ways: their raised rim and incised groove imitated the hammered-up edges of those bronzes, and their types frequently copied old bronze coins, e.g. obverses of Augustus, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, and corresponding reverses too, sometimes even taking over the letters S C of the prototypes.

The countermarks on contorniates, and many of the types too, apart from those copied from old coins, had to do with chariot races and other entertainments in the Circus. I proposed a possible reason for this Circus connection in my unpublished paper presented at the 1986 International Numismatic Congress in London: the New Year's medallions and asses, and later the contorniates, may have been distributed at circus games held in honor of Sol on 25 Dec. each year.

It was Trajan who first began striking medallions omitting SC, and he may also have been the emperor who began issuing New Year's asses and began distributing them at the 25 Dec. circus games, which he himself may have instituted!

So there was excellent reason to commemorate him, whether as Divus or living emperor, on contorniates struck for the same purpose and distributed at the same games two hundred and fifty years later!
Logged

Curtis Clay
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numism  |  Classical Numismatics  |  Topic: The Role of Medallions « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.502 seconds with 68 queries.