It doesn’t really seem that illogical. Surely at some point in ancient times a moneyer would’ve tried to make a perfect example of a coin by polishing the dies and striking them more than once. If you made coins in ancient times wouldn’t you try to make a “perfect” coin at least once? It makes me wonder if there were ever any “proof” Athenian owls or Persian darics or something.
Blake, The Romans weren't capable of striking "proof" coins in the modern sense of the word, however, they did strike special coins of unusually high quality for presentation to the praetorian guard, high ranking officials, & foreign heads of state. This applies especially to gold coins. The sestertius pictured below of Gordian III is probably one of those coins. Gordian III, AD 238-244. AE Sestertius struck on a medallic flan. RIC 297a, variant. The gold aureus pictured below, set in a period mount, was also made for a special presentation, possibly for Gordian III.
View attachment 1334566 Gordian III, AD 238-244. AE Sestertius struck on a medallic flan. RIC 297a, variant. Great post Al, and great pix. I have been accumulating pix of what I call 'Ring Sestertii' -- like your Gordian3 pic. I have 21 pix of nine people, but none of Gordian3. Can you provide an auc-ref so I can add weight, sale-date, and price to my copy of your pic?
I posted a thread here about the Caracalla medallion found in Egypt featuring Alexander the Great on one side and Caracalla in heroic pose on the other side. Certainly this was not a "coin" in the traditional sense but hearkens back to Caracalla's schizophrenic belief that he was a reincarnation of Alexander. It may have been a presentation piece to the legion he outfitted with Macedonian weapons and armor in commemoration of Alexander. Closest thing to a "proof" that they might have produced at the time.
J.G., I'm pretty sure it's an aureus but wouldn't bet the farm on it . I can't find a reverse photo of the coin or an accurate description of it . Regardless if it's a coin or medallion, most Roman gold medallions were made in multiples of the aureus weight. Pictured below are three standard weight gold aurei of Postumus, also in period mounts that were stolen from the National Museum in Paris.
John, The magnificent bi-metallic medallion of Gordian III, pictured below, was sold at CNG Triton XVII for 30K . See the link for detailed info . https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=247006
Many thanks to "Gam3rBlake" in starting this thread. He asked a question that some might be afraid to ask. Proof coins are a more modern invention that evolved into a numismatic process that we possibly take for granted. The early medallions were a medium for marking a special person or event. The images and comments in answer to Gam's question are what this site is about. When I was a young lad in the mid-50's and just starting to collect I had heard about proof coins but had never seen one. I can remember getting a war nick with the letter "P" above Monticello. I was so excited, I just knew that it must be a proof. Off I went to my journey through numismatics. Thanks to so many I have made contact with on that circuitous exploration. Lets keep on travelling.
wow, those are awesome examples! I was just asking because I do not know of any military busts (with spear, shield, helmet etc) on the obverse of Aurei (or any regular non-provincial coinage, for that matter) before Postumus and Gallienus (sole reign). Before 260 AD, theses kinds of busts were exclusively used on rare Medallions, starting with Marcus Aurelius I think. The Aboukir Medallion is of a very similar bust design than the example you show which may not be a mere coincidence.
"Blake, The Romans weren't capable of striking "proof" coins in the modern sense of the word.." A minor point but I would disagree with this. Unless there's a formal definition I'm not aware of what is most readily identifiable as a proof coin is having mirrored devices. All ancient coin-making civs had the capability of polishing to a mirror finish. It's a pain to do this manually but not inconceivable that at one point they might have for presentation pieces. Rasiel
There is a definition of proof, but not everyone agrees with it: A polished planchet struck two or more times using specially polished dies. That notwithstanding I would think it would just be human nature to take extra care with the first few strikes and present someone with nice examples of the new product. As far as I know there were no order forms for proof sets though.
Why not? I thought a proof just meant that the dies were polished and the coin was struck more than once? Why couldn’t the Romans do that?
Before a coin can be called a proof it must meet certain requirements. Proof coins made before the mid 19th century are very rare, so the process is a modern one. Proof coins are made from machine-made dies, not hand engraved dies. The dies for proof coins are made from case hardened steel, a process unknown to the ancient coiners. Proof coins are struck from hydraulic presses using many metric tons of pressure, something ancient coiners were unable to do. The ancient coiners didn't have polishing equipment driven by electricity, so they couldn't duplicate the fine finish of a modern proof coin. That's why ancient coiners couldn't make proof coins. The process of making proof coins isn't as simple as you think it is.
They certainly could. That was my argument. Imparting a highly reflective surface onto a blank is not difficult, just tedious. Even frosting could be done via selective masking and exposing the remainder of the die to an acid. Whether an ancient engraver ever bothered is another thing. Remember the old saying though that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence :- ) Rasiel
Interesting points made. I've always wondered if the rare common type coin in exceptional style/strike for the time could have been a sort of proof. That was the first thing to cross my mind when I bought my Caracalla Engravers of the time were pretty skilled, but I've never seen so much care given to something as minute as the wrinkles at the top of his nose, perhaps except for the best Flavian or early Nerva-Antonine eras. Was this a presentation piece originally?
Ive always assumed that anyone making coins would at least try a few times to make the best coin they could. Just to challenge themselves. I know back in those days it was about quantity over quality and people didn’t care if it was struck in the center or not as long as the fine silver weight was correct. But at the same time I just think that the people making the coins would’ve been curious to see what the coins they were making would look like if they were strike hard and true with fresh polished dies. I know I would. If someone put me in charge of making coins I’d try to see if I could make a perfect coin at least once.
