Options
Papal Medal and Corresponding (Presumably Unique) Wax on Slate Model
Iosephus
Posts: 872 ✭✭✭
I recently acquired a lot consisting of two pieces which I found to be very exciting. The first is a (presumably unique) wax on slate model for the obverse of an early 18th century (posthumous) Alexander VIII medal by the French medallist Ferdinand de Saint-Urbain (74.5 mm Ø ):
In an article in the Autumn 2002 issue of The Medal cataloging a recent acquisition by the British Museum of 124 wax on slate models from the hands of the Hamerani, Jack Hinton provides some insight into the use of wax models for struck medals of this time period. One method of using the wax models would be to take a cast of the wax, which could be followed when cutting the intaglio die. The second method would be to use the wax model as a guide for creating a positive puncheon. This puncheon could then be used to press the design into the die.
It would seem that this particular wax on slate model was used as a guide in creating a positive puncheon; Hinton notes that many wax on slate models would be too fragile to survive the casting process. Hinton also comments about the methods used in France, and it would seem probable that the French medallist Saint-Urbain would utilize this same method. He writes that the method employed by the French "was to create a simplified version of the design in relief on a steel puncheon ... Further elements of the design, details which might have been lost during the transmission from the puncheon could then be worked directly into the die." The crude figures on the stole and the lettering would seem to also back up the assertion that this model was used as a guide and not for casting, as these details would be added later directly to the die (e.g., using individual letter punches).
The second piece in the lot, accompanying the wax on slate model, was a striking of the finished medal (64.5 mm Ø ):
Obverse: Bust of Alexander VIII facing left, wearing camauro, mozzetta, and decorative stole featuring the Virgin Mary holding the Baby Jesus. Around, ALEXANDER · VIII · OTTHOBONVS · VENETVS · PONT · MAX.
Reverse: The tomb monument for Alexander VIII, commissioned by the pope's nephew Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni. To the right of the monument, on the ground, stands a group of figures, including the architect of the tomb holding the plans for the design and Cardinal Ottoboni gesturing towards the monument and the plans. Around, PETRVS · CARD · OTTHOBONVS · S · R · E · VICECANC · PATRVO · MAG · BENEMERENTI · POSVIT · MDCC. In exergue, below the ground line, COM · CAROLVS · H-S · MARTIN · INVEN ·. In the middle of the exergue, the arms of Cardinal Ottoboni, flanked by S - V.
The purpose of the medal is clearly twofold: to honor the deceased pontiff (d. 1691) and to, in essence, "show off" the monument being constructed for his tomb by his nephew. Being commissioned by the pope's nephew, Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, it is not surprising that the obverse inscription remembers the late pontiff not only for his ecclesiastical role, but also as a member of the proud Ottoboni family from Venice. Rather than simply naming the pope and identifying him as Supreme Pontiff, the inverse inscription reads "Alexander VIII, Ottoboni, Venetian, Supreme Pontiff". The reverse inscription around the design also makes clear that the tomb is a gift from the cardinal-nephew, reading "Pietro Cardinal Ottoboni, Vice Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, to the Great Uncle, a Well Deserving Person, Built 1700". The line in the exergue identifies Carlo Enrico di San Martino as the tomb's designer, and the initials at the bottom straddling the cardinal's arms identify Saint-Urbain as the medallist.
Though Cardinal Ottoboni had hoped to have the monument completed (or at least, enough completed to allow for the transfer of the pope's remains to it) by the Holy Year of 1700 (as indicated by the date on the medal), this transfer was not possible until 1706. Research by Edward Olszewski published in his book Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni (1667-1740) and the Vatican Tomb of Pope Alexander VIII indicates that the medals were originally struck in 1706. This is based on a contract found in the Ottoboni archives indicating an order of 2 gold medals, 103 silver medals, and 466 copper medals. This contract does not indicate whom the medallist is, but Olszewski supports that it refers to this medal. The tomb was not completed until 1725, and the medal represents the intended design based on plans available to Saint-Urbain at the time of engraving, and not the final design.
The above example is a somewhat later striking of the medal. What was interesting to me, however, is that I already owned an early striking (perhaps original?) of this medal, shown here (65 mm Ø ):
Having both of these medals allows me to make some observations in person about the differences between early and late strikings.
The first observation about the two medals is their overall look. While patination of medals can vary widely, even with medals struck around the same time, John Varriano in the exhibition catalog Roma Resurgens lists this as one item that can be helpful in attributing an age. He states that "The patination of early bronzes is usually richer, warmer, and more attractive than that of the restrikes, especially very late ones, which tend to be uniformly dark and dull-finished." This observation can be made with these two medals, where the early strike is a warmer, lighter brown in color, while the late strike is somewhat darker.
Wear can also be indicative. Obviously, an early strike, which will be older than a later strike, should tend to exhibit more wear and less detail. This is again observable on these medals, where the early strike has much more wear, and is marred by dozens of tiny nicks, especially noticeable on the columns on the reverse. A lack of detail on the early strike can also be from more primitive striking technology than available when later restrikes were made. The rims of the pieces also present differences. The early striking has rather rounded, uneven rims and edge, while the later striking has sharper and more square rims and edge.
One of the most definitive methods in the identification of a medal as an early or later striking is in the damage to the dies which can occur with age. Early strikings should, in most cases, be made from dies with few, if any, flaws. Late strikings, on the other hand, often show damage to the dies, such as die rust and die cracks. An example of an area which developed die rust can be seen on the obverse of the later striking, to the left and below the pontiff's ear (early strike on left, late strike on right):
A lump on the medal from damage to the die can also be seen in the obverse inscription between X and A on the later strike:
The obverse would become further damaged through use, as a large die crack extending from approximately 3 o'clock on the edge to the portrait of the pope is clearly evident on the example illustrated in the Relazione della Reale Zecca published by the Italian Mint.
The reverse has also not remained free of damage. At the top, where the monument comes to a point at the rim, die damage is again visible on the late striking:
However, where there is no die damage, this area does show increased sharpness over the early strike, no doubt attributable to superior minting technology.
I found this to be my most exciting purchase to date, a chance to acquire a unique piece of art which came directly from the hands of the artist, and a chance to compare early and late strikes of a medal. If you have any comments or further information that you could add, I would be more than happy to hear it.
In an article in the Autumn 2002 issue of The Medal cataloging a recent acquisition by the British Museum of 124 wax on slate models from the hands of the Hamerani, Jack Hinton provides some insight into the use of wax models for struck medals of this time period. One method of using the wax models would be to take a cast of the wax, which could be followed when cutting the intaglio die. The second method would be to use the wax model as a guide for creating a positive puncheon. This puncheon could then be used to press the design into the die.
It would seem that this particular wax on slate model was used as a guide in creating a positive puncheon; Hinton notes that many wax on slate models would be too fragile to survive the casting process. Hinton also comments about the methods used in France, and it would seem probable that the French medallist Saint-Urbain would utilize this same method. He writes that the method employed by the French "was to create a simplified version of the design in relief on a steel puncheon ... Further elements of the design, details which might have been lost during the transmission from the puncheon could then be worked directly into the die." The crude figures on the stole and the lettering would seem to also back up the assertion that this model was used as a guide and not for casting, as these details would be added later directly to the die (e.g., using individual letter punches).
The second piece in the lot, accompanying the wax on slate model, was a striking of the finished medal (64.5 mm Ø ):
Obverse: Bust of Alexander VIII facing left, wearing camauro, mozzetta, and decorative stole featuring the Virgin Mary holding the Baby Jesus. Around, ALEXANDER · VIII · OTTHOBONVS · VENETVS · PONT · MAX.
Reverse: The tomb monument for Alexander VIII, commissioned by the pope's nephew Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni. To the right of the monument, on the ground, stands a group of figures, including the architect of the tomb holding the plans for the design and Cardinal Ottoboni gesturing towards the monument and the plans. Around, PETRVS · CARD · OTTHOBONVS · S · R · E · VICECANC · PATRVO · MAG · BENEMERENTI · POSVIT · MDCC. In exergue, below the ground line, COM · CAROLVS · H-S · MARTIN · INVEN ·. In the middle of the exergue, the arms of Cardinal Ottoboni, flanked by S - V.
The purpose of the medal is clearly twofold: to honor the deceased pontiff (d. 1691) and to, in essence, "show off" the monument being constructed for his tomb by his nephew. Being commissioned by the pope's nephew, Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, it is not surprising that the obverse inscription remembers the late pontiff not only for his ecclesiastical role, but also as a member of the proud Ottoboni family from Venice. Rather than simply naming the pope and identifying him as Supreme Pontiff, the inverse inscription reads "Alexander VIII, Ottoboni, Venetian, Supreme Pontiff". The reverse inscription around the design also makes clear that the tomb is a gift from the cardinal-nephew, reading "Pietro Cardinal Ottoboni, Vice Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, to the Great Uncle, a Well Deserving Person, Built 1700". The line in the exergue identifies Carlo Enrico di San Martino as the tomb's designer, and the initials at the bottom straddling the cardinal's arms identify Saint-Urbain as the medallist.
Though Cardinal Ottoboni had hoped to have the monument completed (or at least, enough completed to allow for the transfer of the pope's remains to it) by the Holy Year of 1700 (as indicated by the date on the medal), this transfer was not possible until 1706. Research by Edward Olszewski published in his book Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni (1667-1740) and the Vatican Tomb of Pope Alexander VIII indicates that the medals were originally struck in 1706. This is based on a contract found in the Ottoboni archives indicating an order of 2 gold medals, 103 silver medals, and 466 copper medals. This contract does not indicate whom the medallist is, but Olszewski supports that it refers to this medal. The tomb was not completed until 1725, and the medal represents the intended design based on plans available to Saint-Urbain at the time of engraving, and not the final design.
The above example is a somewhat later striking of the medal. What was interesting to me, however, is that I already owned an early striking (perhaps original?) of this medal, shown here (65 mm Ø ):
Having both of these medals allows me to make some observations in person about the differences between early and late strikings.
The first observation about the two medals is their overall look. While patination of medals can vary widely, even with medals struck around the same time, John Varriano in the exhibition catalog Roma Resurgens lists this as one item that can be helpful in attributing an age. He states that "The patination of early bronzes is usually richer, warmer, and more attractive than that of the restrikes, especially very late ones, which tend to be uniformly dark and dull-finished." This observation can be made with these two medals, where the early strike is a warmer, lighter brown in color, while the late strike is somewhat darker.
Wear can also be indicative. Obviously, an early strike, which will be older than a later strike, should tend to exhibit more wear and less detail. This is again observable on these medals, where the early strike has much more wear, and is marred by dozens of tiny nicks, especially noticeable on the columns on the reverse. A lack of detail on the early strike can also be from more primitive striking technology than available when later restrikes were made. The rims of the pieces also present differences. The early striking has rather rounded, uneven rims and edge, while the later striking has sharper and more square rims and edge.
One of the most definitive methods in the identification of a medal as an early or later striking is in the damage to the dies which can occur with age. Early strikings should, in most cases, be made from dies with few, if any, flaws. Late strikings, on the other hand, often show damage to the dies, such as die rust and die cracks. An example of an area which developed die rust can be seen on the obverse of the later striking, to the left and below the pontiff's ear (early strike on left, late strike on right):
A lump on the medal from damage to the die can also be seen in the obverse inscription between X and A on the later strike:
The obverse would become further damaged through use, as a large die crack extending from approximately 3 o'clock on the edge to the portrait of the pope is clearly evident on the example illustrated in the Relazione della Reale Zecca published by the Italian Mint.
The reverse has also not remained free of damage. At the top, where the monument comes to a point at the rim, die damage is again visible on the late striking:
However, where there is no die damage, this area does show increased sharpness over the early strike, no doubt attributable to superior minting technology.
I found this to be my most exciting purchase to date, a chance to acquire a unique piece of art which came directly from the hands of the artist, and a chance to compare early and late strikes of a medal. If you have any comments or further information that you could add, I would be more than happy to hear it.
0
Comments
Thanks for sharing also!
Jim
Iosephus, Now this is what it's all about with collecting! No grades, no plastic, just history and art....nirvana. Thanks!!!!!
karlgoetzmedals.com
secessionistmedals.com
FOR SALE Items