Question about the "Mediolanum mint" issues of Trebonianus Gallus

As is typical for anything written by Mattingly, RIC states rather unequivocally that Trebonianus Gallus struck coins for himself and his son Volusian in Italy proper at two mints, Rome and Mediolanum (Milan). They are supposedly distinguished on the basis of their obverse legends, the Roman inscriptions being the longer IMP CAE C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG for Gallus and IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG for Volusian, and the Mediolanum inscriptions being shorter, reading IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG and IMP C C VIB VOLVSIANVS AVG, respectively.

However, Sear (RIC 5, vol. III, p. 227) notes there is considerable uncertainty about not only the location of the mint traditionally attributed to Mediolanum, but its actual operation during Gallus' reign. He writes, "Rome continued to be the principal mint throughout this reign and was supplemented ... by antoniniani from Antioch .... Attempts have been made to identify a second provincial mint which produced silver coinage with a more abbreviated form of obverse legend than the regular products of Rome (IMP C C VIB instead of IMP CAE C VIB). Both Milan and Viminacium have been proposed as the source of these coins and it is also possible that they represent a separate issue from Rome itself. In the following listings they are described as 'uncertain mint'."

Let me illustrate these with examples from my own collection:

ROME MINT (IMP CAE C VIB ...):


Gallus, APOLL SALVTARI, RIC 32; Cohen/RSC 20; RCV 9627; Hunter 21.


Gallus, IVNO MARTIALIS, RIC 35; Cohen 46; RCV --; ERIC II 73.


Volusian, P M TR P IIII COS II, RIC 141; Cohen 94; RCV 9793; Hunter 3.

MEDIOLANUM (RIC)/UNCERTAIN (Sear) MINT (IMP C C VIB ...):


Gallus, LIBERTAS PVBLICA, RIC 70; RSC/Cohen 68; RCV 9636; Hunter 50.


Gallus, PAX AETERNA, RIC 71; RSC/Cohen 76; RCV 9639; Hunter 51.
Note: CNG, in its description of an example of this coin in their auction 302, attributes this not to Mediolanum or an uncertain mint, but assigns it to a special emission of the Rome mint.

~~~

So, this brings me to my question: How do we know IF and WHERE this second provincial mint was? What's the evidence for Mediolanum? For Viminacium? For a "special emission" of Rome?

Of course, feel free to post your Trebonianus Gallus or Volusian coins, comment, or post anything you feel is relevant!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Fairly recent pick -up is this sestertius of Volusian, almost certainly the Rome mint. FELICITAS PVBLICA

 

Trebonianus Gallus. 251-253 AD . Æ Sestertius. Rome mint, 4th officina. 1st emission, 251 AD. Obv: Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right. Rev: Roma s td left, holding Victory and spear; shield at side. RIC IV 120. Splendid portrait and patina, but the reverse leaves much to be desired.

 

Previously shown on CT:
Volusian. 251-253 AD. Æ Sestertius. Obv: IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG, laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind. Rev: IVNONI MARTIALI, S-C across fields. Juno seated facing, holding wheat-ears and scepter in r. hand; all within domed distyle temple, set on three-tiered base. RIC IV 253a; Hunter 30.

 

Interesting question. I have several coins of Trebonianus Gallus and when I try to attribute them, I am somewhat confused by some of the mint information out there (I do not have RIC, however).

Have you checked out the site Four Bad Years? http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/index.htm

This site divides TB silver mints into "Rome, Branch Mint, Uncertain/Contemporary Forgery, Antioch 1st-2nd Issue, Antioch 3rd Issue"

This probably won't answer the question posed, but I really find this site helpful and easy to use. The guy running it will answer questions too!

 

Yes, helpful site, indeed. What he calls "branch mint" RIC calls "Mediolanum," Sear calls "unknown mint," and CNG calls a "special emission" from Rome.

 

The issues struck at the so called Milan mint of Gallus had one major problem. The big problem was the number of muled coins with the obverse coming from one mint and the reverse the other. This has been noted in a number of hoard studies. It seems more likely that the so called Milan issue was struck in Rome.

 

Speaking of mules and Milan, here is one (I think) from Trajan Decius/ Herennius Etruscus (or Hostilian):




Trajan Decius Antoninianus
(250-251 A.D.)
Milan mint
IMP CAE TRA DECIVS AVG, radiate, draped & cuirassed bust right draped / PIETAS AVGG Mercury standing left, holding purse & caduceus.
Unlisted mule; Her. Etruscus or
Hostilian rev. with Decius obv.
(3.63 grams / 21 mm)

 

Here is an example of one of these Rome mint obverses and "Milan" mint reverses The Obverse reads IMP. CAE. C. VIB. TREB. GALLVS AVG. Reverse is the standard "Milan" mint reverse PAX AETERNA Pax standing left holding branch in outstretched hand and tranverse sceptre.

 

This is a second one Rome obverse "Milan" Reverse PIETAS AVGG

 

Are these 'mixed' coins showing 'Milan' reverse dies also known with 'Milan obverses or just the types but not the same die? The proof of one mint is strong with the same dies but the use of the same types could also be explained by dies prepared in one location for use in the other. The questions I have with this reassignment also involve the long period of time starting with Decius which weakens my view of the 'special issue' theory. Has a metallurgical study been done of the two? No single bit of evidence 'proves' anything in either direction. Is there a published overview of the matter that takes all matters into consideration or just 'we found a die match so Mattingly was wrong' style articles?

 

In my Trajan Decius example, I am calling it a mule only because the reverse type (Mercury) is known only for Herennius Etruscus or Hostilian, at least from what I can find (OCRE, etc.) Corrections always welcome!

I didn't try to analyze the style/dies too much - because I don't know enough to do so competently. Although I will suggest my example seems rather "provincial" in appearance, rather than a Rome mint product. Mine might even be a forgery of some sort.

Terence's Trebonianus Gallus examples have a "higher" style, in my opinion (for what that's worth!). Rome mint, or Rome mint dies used elsewhere, I would guess (and I mean guess!).

 

In reply to dougsmit. Yes these reverses are also paired with "Milan" obverses. The only two I have are of the Rome/ Milan combination. There are examples of Milan obverses paired with Rome mint reverse dies. I do not know of any metallurgical study other than the one done in the BAR series many years ago using XRF. I could be wrong but I believe the "Milan" issues of Decius which are generally those with the shortened obverse legends are now seen as late Rome issue. I have not looked at that issue for a number of years now.

 

The last article I read on this object was by J.Mairat Rome XI in 2002.
Here is the link ( but it is in french ) :
http://www.inumis.com/ressources/rome/articles/galle/

 

RIC 72; RSC 88;

 

Just acquired this one at auction, which had been misidentified by the auction firm as being from the Rome mint. I think it's pretty. It's unlisted in Sear and Cohen and, without any examples at Wildwinds, one very worn example at OCRE and one other example at acsearchinfo, apparently scarce. The British Museum has two examples in their collection -- both from the Dorchester hoard -- and it is mentioned in the antiquarian catalogs of Wiczay and Banduri.

This reverse type is described by RIC as being used for coins of Volusian and is considered by Mattingly to be a hybrid of sorts. It is also well-known with the longer Rome mint inscription, IMP CAE C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG and the Antioch mint inscription, IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG.


Trebonianus Gallus, AD 251-253.
Roman AR antoninianus, 3.60 g, 22 mm, 7 h.
Uncertain mint (formerly attributed to Mediolanum), AD 251-253.
Obv: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, right.
Rev: FELICITAS PVBL, Felicitas standing facing, head left, holding long caduceus and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC 75; Cohen --; Sear --; ERIC II --; Wiczay 2509; Banduri p. 59.

For fun, here's the listing in Banduri, published in 1718:

 

Good info, nice coin, and great photo!