Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Roman Coins Discussion Forum
When is an ancient (Roman) coin a medallion?
Prieure de Sion:
Hello...
As the title says, I wonder when is a "coin" an ordinary coin and when is it a medallion? I ask because I am interested in a coin that could possibly be a medallion.
If I have understood it correctly, the size, i.e. the diameter, is not necessarily the decisive parameter between a coin or a medallion. Of course, a 15mm bronze will not be a medallion. But does a medallion really also have to be - as an example - larger than 40mm? Is the diameter really the decisive argument?
If I have understood and remembered correctly, the essential distinction between a coin and a medallion is the purpose for which the object was minted and issued, isn't it?
Coin: a specimen minted and issued for everyday payment transactions.
Medallion: a specimen that was not minted and issued for everyday payment transactions. A medallion was - as an example - a special coinage for a special event, for the commemoration of a special event, a gift, a donative, a commemorative coinage, etc. Furthermore, medals were often far more artistically sophisticated in design and also considerably fewer in number.
My question - a "coin" of about 37mm - whose portrait was elaborately and artistically beautifully worked out, whose reverse depiction is just as artistically more elaborate than other coins of this city - and if this coin is only known as a single piece according to the current state of affairs (would speak for a low mintage) - could well be a medallion? Or?
Curtis JJ:
It’s an interesting topic. I think the traditional distinction is, as you said, the purpose for which the coin was produced. As with all such distinctions, it’s easiest to recognize them at their extremes, but the fuzzy boundaries are where much of the fun is to be found.
In the ideal version, medallions would be “ceremonial,” marking a specific event or person, and dispersed ritually to important people. "Coins" -- even big & beautiful coins -- are ideally meant to be spent and fit well into known denominations.
To me, things get interesting where the categories overlap and/or when a thing that started out as one becomes the other. Such as the Alexandrian Drachms that were sometimes pierced to be used as "amulets" (possibly "funerary amulets"), one of mine in this comment: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=130587.msg780981#msg780981
I like the German term, “Großbronze” (large bronze). I think it can be used without taking a hard stance on whether something is a medallion or coin. I’ve got a few extra-large Roman Provincial Großbronzes from Cilicia that seem to fit.
I've just added the next two to my gallery, since I had photos ready. First one is 35-36mm, about 34g (sometimes called a "Hexassarion," this one is heavier than at least 27 of 28 specimens on RPC, the 28th a modified ex-jewelry coin):
Gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=181200
Another interesting one may be part of Antoninus Pius’ series of similar AE Tetrassaria (?) at Hadrianopolis (Thrace), though on an oversized flan (34mm, 21.25g). (Only example of this reverse type, so the comparison specimens are the other Antoninus AEs from Thrace.) It has the “look” and diameter of an AE Medallion, but not the weight.
Gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=181201 (see also: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=93598.msg779567#msg779567).
So, while I have some medallic coins, I’m not sure I’ve ever owned any actual ancient medallions.
I also like the small fractional medallions, sometimes called “medalettes.” (The big AV/AR medallions that get all the attention are multiples of standard denominations, though surely not intended as “money”; e.g., an AV Denio or “Medallion of Ten Aurei” [LINK] or “Medallion of 10 Denarii” [LINK]).
For the smaller ones, though, it seems like there’s often debate about whether they’re actually coins, tokens/tesserae, or medallions of some sort. I’m thinking, for example, of certain Quadrans-sized “medalettes” from 1st or 2nd century, and some of the 4th cent. Constantinople commemorative series. (I like the anepigraphic so-called AR Half-Siliqua Medalettes: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=287833.) Incidentally, Leu just auctioned a series of them from the collection of Lars Ramskold (https://independent.academia.edu/LarsRamskold), who published a series of interesting papers on medallions and Constantinopolis commemorative coinage. Leu WA 25, 2572-3263 [numisbids LINK]
Prieure de Sion:
Thank you Curtis JJ for your comments and explanations. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to grasp.
The reason for my question was the following bronze of Commodus (see picture attachment). At 37mm it is somewhat larger, but at just under 26 grams it is not particularly heavy as a medallion. But - the depiction of the young Commodus, the artistic reverse - speak in my view rather for a "special" coinage and not as an everyday means of payment. Moreover, the coin is so far a unique specimen.
I thought back and forth for a long time - I just bought the coin or the medallion (or whatever it is)... :)
Whoever would like to have more detailed information....
Here is the link to RPC: https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/17452
To my collection here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=181258
To my WordPress blog (with more information): https://yothr.me/crp/yothr-crp-641-1a/
mix_val:
Identifying a Roman provincial medallion must be done relative to existing coinage, style and weight. Your coin is certainly a beautiful example.
I always thought that a Roman AE medallion was identified by the absence of SC on the reverse. I have a few examples of As medallions and sestertius medallions in my collection.
Curtis JJ:
Bob, great gallery of Severus Alexander & family -- lovely collection of large bronzes!
--- Quote from: mix_val on March 16, 2023, 05:15:00 pm ---I always thought that a Roman AE medallion was identified by the absence of SC on the reverse.
--- End quote ---
I've seen that distinction used for Roman Imperial / Rome-mint bronzes, but not for Provincials. Being a Provincial bronze from Lydia, Tripolis, though, I don't think this one should get an "S-C" either way.
(I need to read up on this again to understand why, but some Provincial mints did use "S-C," some of the time. Antioch is the clearest example, including some coins with Greek legends (e.g., https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10616654 or https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/3591) and some with Latin.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version