circa 1860s Rialto Base Ball club any info?

[jonathanb]

I'm a coin collector, sent here from one of the coin discussion boards in hopes that someone might have some more info about the Rialto Base Ball club.

I got the attached coin several years ago. This is (was) a two-cent piece. Yes, the US made 2-cent coins, and 3-cent coins also. These 2-cent coins were struck from 1865-1872. The front of this coin was ground off and then engraved for the Rialto B.B.C., with a ball and crossed bats and several pennants. It has a lot of wear on the side with the engraving, so someone kept it in their pocket for a long time. It must have meant something to them.

Google has a few references to a very early black club with that name, organized in Detroit in the 1860s. [1] [2]. There are also a mentions to somewhat later clubs in Allentown, Pennsylvania (1907) [3] and Washington, DC (1923-1925) [5], [6], [7] and Seattle (1917) [8]

I'd certainly love for this to be a piece of contemporary memorabilia for an 1860s black baseball club. It's a plus that the host coin is from the same period... or it could be just as likely that this coin was kicking around the back of someone's junk drawer and engraved much later.

So I have three questions that might or might not have answers...

Does anyone have a different or a better candidate for a Rialto Base Ball Club, beyond the ones I found?

The bottom of the engraved side of this piece has a P. C. in a border. Does anyone have a candidate for what that might possibly mean?

On the reverse of this piece, it looks like the T in CENTS has been intentionally removed. That leaves "2 CEN S"... which doesn't sound like anything to me. Does anyone have a candidate for what "2 CEN S" might mean, in a baseball context?

[GaryPassamonte]

I have nothing to add on the Rialto Club. The "PC" could be a player's initials. My guess is the "T" in cents was unintentionally obliterated at some time. Cool piece.

[swarmee]

I think the PC would be the initials of the engraver (or maybe the initials of the person/romantic interest the etcher gave it to).

[JustinD]

It’s very cool and I also think it is likely the artist initials are the PC.

I want it to be of age and the wear on the coin post engraving towards the edge would suggest so. However, the largest doubt comes from the missing T on the back. It certainly seems intentional and that makes me think it was done for legal reasons.

In US code title 18, section 331 it’s well covered that intentionally altering or mutilating coins is illegal. My guess would be the engraver did that as a “cover your ass” maneuver which seems a more modern fantasy artist thing to do.

I have no positive proof of age either way, but if I was a buyer I would lean toward fantasy piece because of that “T”. I really like and want it to be of the time, hopefully someone has some good info.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

It’s very cool and I also think it is likely the artist initials are the PC.

I want it to be of age and the wear on the coin post engraving towards the edge would suggest so. However, the largest doubt comes from the missing T on the back. It certainly seems intentional and that makes me think it was done for legal reasons.

In US code title 18, section 331 it’s well covered that intentionally altering or mutilating coins is illegal. My guess would be the engraver did that as a “cover your ass” maneuver which seems a more modern fantasy artist thing to do.

I have no positive proof of age either way, but if I was a buyer I would lean toward fantasy piece because of that “T”. I really like and want it to be of the time, hopefully someone has some good info.

They did not care about the U.S. Code in the 19th Century. It was quite common to take a silver coin (three cent piece, dime, quarter) and engrave it with initials and turn it into a charm, stickpin or momento to give to a sweetheart. I owned a few back in the late 1970's/early 1980's when I collected coins/currency. It was even quite common in the early 20th Century with Buffalo nickels. Just look up 'Hobo Nickels'. Wiki has an entry for them and there are quite a few images of them. If you look on ebay you will find quite a few listing for them. There you will see pennies, nickels and even Ike dollars that have been engraved.

[jonathanb]

The first three words of US code title 18, section 331 are "Whoever fraudulently alters..."

There is no fraud here.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Michael B

They did not care about the U.S. Code in the 19th Century. It was quite common to take a silver coin (three cent piece, dime, quarter) and engrave it with initials and turn it into a charm, stickpin or momento to give to a sweetheart. I owned a few back in the late 1970's/early 1980's when I collected coins/currency. It was even quite common in the early 20th Century with Buffalo nickels. Just look up 'Hobo Nickels'. Wiki has an entry for them and there are quite a few images of them. If you look on ebay you will find quite a few listing for them. There you will see pennies, nickels and even Ike dollars that have been engraved.

I think you are misinterpreting my doubt. When I added that it was in reference toward it being modern because no one cared at the time. If you made this currently as an artist you may do a cya move.

The wear on this coin prior to engraving would likely not suggest it was done in the 19th century. It could have been in the early 1900s as suggested by the op. I simply do not know, I am only throwing out options. Other than to deface the obverse and show there was nothing but artistic reason for changing the coin I cannot guess of a reason to purposely remove the letter.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by jonathanb

The first three words of US code title 18, section 331 are "Whoever fraudulently alters..."

There is no fraud here.

Not being petty but if you cut and pasted the entire sentence then it would violate numerous adjectives, seems silly to just have stopped there.

“Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States”

[GaryPassamonte]

The coin could have been engraved in the 19th century. The obverse was altered, but the reverse was left alone. The wear on the reverse could have happened after the engraving through normal handling as with any coin. If the owner of the coin carried it with them as a memento they could very well have caused the wear, after the fact. Also, since the obverse is incised, it would be less susceptible to wear.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The coin could have been engraved in the 19th century. The obverse was altered, but the reverse was left alone. The wear on the reverse could have happened after the engraving through normal handling as with any coin. If the owner of the coin carried it with them as a memento they could very well have caused the wear, after the fact. Also, since the obverse is incised, it would be less susceptible to wear.

It seems the scratches left where the T was definitively show its removal was purposely done. I think the only question is why.

As to the proving of this without a doubt, I think it’s a high challenge without identifying the artist to date it, and that is where the initials could help vastly. The artist would be key.

Without any real knowledge I would say value could only be what a buyer believes in at purchase because we have no provable facts at this point. It definitely is a interesting item.

[CTDean]

Originally Posted by jonathanb

The first three words of US code title 18, section 331 are "Whoever fraudulently alters..."

There is no fraud here.

+1 - No fraud with this coin and the code itself is outdated.

When the code speaks of diminishes, scales, or lightens that relates to the shaving gold or silver off of a coin. This was a problem in the 1800's and into the 1900's. No problem with that now.
The terms fraudulently alters and falsifies would cover things like taking an 1883 V Nickel with no CENTS and giving it a gold wash and then passing it for a $5 gold piece. This was a first year coin so people were easily fooled. They quickly added the word CENTS to the coin.

The line ends with "or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; In 1857 the United States passed a law that no longer allowed foreign gold and silver coins to circulate as currency in the United States. Another law allowed the mintage of the 1857 Flying Eagle Cent which was used to buy up foreign gold and silver coins no longer allowed to circulate.

The missing T on the reverse. The missing T and the problem with the S looks like a "filled die" mint error to me. The die doesn't always fill evenly, and you get marks where an element is missing. If you check eBay there is an 1865 2 cent piece missing the T and S.

I like the engraved 2 cent piece a lot. it looks like 1800's work but would be quite hard to prove. If it was pure fantasy, I think an 1860's date would be added.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by CTDean

+1 - No fraud with this coin and the code itself is outdated.

When the code speaks of diminishes, scales, or lightens that relates to the shaving gold or silver off of a coin. This was a problem in the 1800's and into the 1900's. No problem with that now.
The terms fraudulently alters and falsifies would cover things like taking an 1883 V Nickel with no CENTS and giving it a gold wash and then passing it for a $5 gold piece. This was a first year coin so people were easily fooled. They quickly added the word CENTS to the coin.

The line ends with "or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; In 1857 the United States passed a law that no longer allowed foreign gold and silver coins to circulate as currency in the United States. Another law allowed the mintage of the 1857 Flying Eagle Cent which was used to buy up foreign gold and silver coins no longer allowed to circulate.

The missing T on the reverse. The missing T and the problem with the S looks like a "filled die" mint error to me. The die doesn't always fill evenly, and you get marks where an element is missing. If you check eBay there is an 1865 2 cent piece missing the T and S.

I like the engraved 2 cent piece a lot. it looks like 1800's work but would be quite hard to prove. If it was pure fantasy, I think an 1860's date would be added.

I agree and this is now become one of those weird rabbit holes that people focus on a singular part of a statement. While technically a defaced and multilated item, hobo coins have long been considered legal as they are created to be artistic and not to commit fraud. No one is saying the coin is illegal, I was only adding it as a possible reasoning in the mind of the artist to alter the obverse. I am sorry if that was worded in a way that was somehow accusatory. I don’t think agents of the Treasury are going to knock on anyone’s door over this, I’m not a loon.

[FromVAtoLA]

There's a Rialto east of Los Angeles in Southern California. It wasn't founded under that name until the turn of the 20th century. The Los Angeles Herald ran a sports column around that time called "Rialto Gossip". Here's a version with baseball incorporated into the title/logo - https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...16/ed-1/seq-6/. I don't think the column title is a reference to the City located east of LA but an interesting coincidence.
Baseball was one word by then, not two, so the B.B.C. initials may not be applicable, but if you're thinking is that this is an old coin that was engraved by someone decades later then those are a few bread crumbs I can offer. Good luck digging for more info.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I think you are misinterpreting my doubt. When I added that it was in reference toward it being modern because no one cared at the time. If you made this currently as an artist you may do a cya move.

The wear on this coin prior to engraving would likely not suggest it was done in the 19th century. It could have been in the early 1900s as suggested by the op. I simply do not know, I am only throwing out options. Other than to deface the obverse and show there was nothing but artistic reason for changing the coin I cannot guess of a reason to purposely remove the letter.

I understand what you originally stated. I just wanted to point out the anomalies of the law versus reality.

I would suspect that the 'T' could have been removed back then. The person may have been trying to alter the words to read something else and it did not work. Those punches into the 'S' and the gash in the '2' appear to be attempts to modify them.

We will never know. The skepticism is warranted. Too many collectors in various fields look at an item and try to prove its legitimacy by what they find 'right' with an item rather than what is 'wrong' with the item. I would much rather take the latter approach than the former.

[packs]

I've seen later coins like this referred to as "hobo nickels". There are some really cool ones out there.

[Lobo Aullando]

There's mention of the hobo nickel, but not the potty dollar?