Roman Medallions

As I understand it, a Roman Medallion is an over-sized gold or silver coin that was nominally worth a multiple of a siliqua or an aureus.

Considering how much aurei or even siliqui were worth in terms of buying power, what was the purpose of the medallions? Did they serve a similar purpose to the old US $10,000 and $100,000 bills, where they weren't meant for actual circulation?

Here's an example of a massive gold medallion of Maximian and Constantius from the Getty Villa. (MAXIMIANVS AVG ET CONSTANTIUS C - Maximian Augustus and Constantius Caesar)
I believe the placard said this was worth 8 aurei, though how they determine that is beyond me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is an extract from a post I made previously:

This is a pictorial example (the reverse of which is my CT avatar) of a bronze copy of the famous ten aurei multiple (RIC VOLUME VI, TREVERI, No. 34) coin/medallion, the original of which presently resides in the museum at Arras and that commemorates the restoration of secessionist Britain to the Roman Empire by Constantius in 296. The reverse depicts the personification of Londinium (LON) kneeling and supplicating to Constantius (on horseback) outside of the City Fortification while a galley with Roman soldiers waits on the river Thames. The inscription REDDITOR LVCIS AETERNAE proclaims Constantius as the restorer of the eternal light (of Rome).


Obverse inscription: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOBIL CAES
Reverse inscription: REDDITOR LVCIS AETERNAE
LON (lower right) - PTR (exergue)

Bastien records the original (unique?) as No. 218 in his book on the Arras Hoard and mentions that galvano copies were made and sold by the Paris coin dealer Bourgey. At a weight of 23.0 grams I think the copy depicted here was cast in bronze from one of those galvano copies. There appears to be numerous other copies in circulation in a variety of metals - brass/bronze, silver, gilded copper, etc.

I think all of these gold medallions have a monetary value far above that of the usual collector “rarity” assessment or gold content because of their tremendous historical association. Some - like this Constantius medallion - might be priceless. Note that these particular aurei multiple issues are all cataloged as such in RIC, volume VI, Treveri (Trier) mint.

I do not know the answers to your questions - I am interested in seeing some responses to them also.

 

I always assumed they were given away as gifts and generally ceremonial in nature and not used for any type of commerce. I also assume the "worth" at the time would be determined by weight.
Someone else will have better information.

 

Although dated (1944), Toynbee's "Roman Medallions" is available at the ANS Digital Library: http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan8359

Also, a short blog post on Roman Medallions from the ANS on exhibit at major museums: http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/2020/07/

 

24 siliqua medallalion of Valentinian I...[edit: 48 siliquae]

 

Wow! that is impressive... what size?

 

Actually 48-siliquae

"In 2009, a huge medallion of Valentinian appeared on the market. [4] It sold at auction for $300,000. Weighing 104.3 grams and measuring 66 mm in diameter, it would have been denominated as a 48-siliqua piece–by far the largest surviving Roman silver coin."

 

Outstanding example @ancient coin hunter - thank you for posting it.

A friendly reminder for all: Please become a Coin Talk Supporter in order to help preserve and sustain this great hobby!

 

If the emperor gave you a medallion like today Presidents of the US give out Presidential Medals of Freedom, you probably did not weigh it or spend it in the market but in a couple generations some kid will not remember great grandpa and put it on eBay or sell it at some 'We Buy Gold' storefront. In some families, it takes more generations than in others.

 

This is exactly what I've always assumed -- that Roman medallions were not intended as currency. just as there has been the same distinction between commemorative medals/medallions and actual coins in modern times, i.e., since the 1500's. (When reading 18th century and even early 19th century numismatic literature in English, one has to get used to the fact that all Roman coins were often referred to as medals or medallions.)

 

I read somewhere (not sure where) that the medallion I showed was probably a celebratory piece designed to be presented to high court officials (e.g., the master of the Imperial bedchamber, the master of offices, master of soldiers, etc.)

 

Yes but they are described as Aurei (and multiples thereof) by Sutherland in his Introductory notes to the Treveri mint in RIC Volume VI. They are also cataloged as such starting at No. 27 and especially No. 34 and on.

 

Is there any evidence that they were actually used as such, and/or classified as such by the Romans themselves?

 

I do not know.

 

I guess if monetary value depended on AGW, then I suppose so?

 

Since nobody’s mentioned it yet - as the Toynbee book makes clear, medallions come in base metal as well, in fact that seems most common for the earlier Empire. My favourites are the bimetallic ones:

(not my coin!)

 

My study of the imperial titulature on Roman bronze medallions of 147-196 AD strongly indicated that virtually all of them, so doubtless virtually all of the earlier and later bronze medallions too, were struck late in each year but with their titles adjusted to fit with the upcoming 1 January, clearly with the intention of being handed out as New Year's gifts on that day.

One of the strongest proofs of this thesis is the year 193, when Commodus was assassinated on 1 Jan., yet what looks like a full year's production of medallions survives for him, many dated TR P XVIII (after 10 Dec. 192). For Pertinax alive, Didius Julianus and family, and Septimius and family (wife Domna and Caesar Albinus), in contrast, not a single bronze medallion of 193 survives, since none of their reigns included a New Year's celebration and they therefore had no need of bronze medallions.

One minor problem: a unique bronze medallion of Divus Pertinax is known. Either this was one of the very few bronze medallions which were produced for some other occasion than the New Year's celebration, or it might have been part of Septimius' issue of 1 Jan. 194, commemorating his consecration of Pertinax some six months earlier.

 

I think this small medallion of Severus Alexander was a New Years issue. It's not listed in RIC as TR P III, but the BM has one. (Acquired from you, @curtislclay, I believe!)


Here are my notes on this coin:

The large, carefully prepared flan and well centred strike indicates that this is a medallic as, possibly produced upon SA’s assumption of his third tribunician power, and given by the emperor to those present at the ceremony.

Toynbee: “In the second quarter of the third century miniature bronze medallions of dupondius and as dimensions were particularly in vogue, some pieces bearing the formula S C on the reverse, but inseparable, on grounds of style and content, from those without it…” She also notes the striking of dupondius and as types on sestertius flans (p. 35) under the heading of “pseudo-medallions” (though she considers them to belong to the medallic category in the purposes for which they were made). These were more common in the first and second centuries; Toynbee was aware of only 5 examples of Severus Alexander.

There is some evidence on the edge that this medallion may have been enclosed in a rim (as was often the case with pseudo-medallions.)
​

And here is a smaller medallic as without the SC, special emission for his 3rd Liberalitas, 226, RIC IV 455:

from the collection of the Marquis de Albrecht Hohenkubin (von Kubinzky)(1885-1972)

 

It certainly looks like those medallions circulated relatively heavily; I guess the recipient figure it would be more worthwhile to buy some bread or whatever than to keep the special medal

 

Isn't your Pax seated coin bimetallic, with red copper center and yellow brass rim? If so it is certainly medallic and might have been produced for distribution on 1 Jan. 224.

I can't recall that I ever possessed such a coin, however, nor was I aware that the BM has one. Presumably acquired after 1962, since I don't find it in Robert Carson's BMC VI of that year?

Your Liberalitas As, however, is from my collection; I bought it at Lanz's Hohenkubin middle bronze sale of 1974, but then let it go when I was hoping that my new collection too would end up in the BM, but they already have an EF specimen of the same coin from the same dies (BM 321, pl. 11). I might well have kept it had I suspected that the new antiquities laws would forbid the BM from acquiring my new collection, because largely unprovenanced!