CCAC Meeting 2026 penny and nickel

WALLE

The mint website has images for the 2026 penny and nickel for the Semiquincentennial circulating coin program. Sorry could not get them copied to include here.

Eighteen63

https://www.usmint.gov/news/ccac-meetings/2026-semiquincentennial-circulating-coin-program-penny-nickel

JBK

https://www.usmint.gov/news/ccac-meetings/2026-semiquincentennial-circulating-coin-program-penny-nickel

Manifest_Destiny

It's going to be duel dates and privy marks? Lame.

JBK

They sure love that "6" on the cent. It's both taller and lower than the rest of the date.

Special Lincoln cents bother me only because zinc is such a terrible canvas. Maybe the proof versions will be bronze.

Manifest_Destiny

The CCAC has jumped the shark.

may

Not good.

Jacques_Loungecoque

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's going to be duel dates and privy marks? Lame.

I agree 100%, but given what I’m afraid the mint’s current “leadership” really wants to do…..

Namvet69

Why not use copper or bronze, which would improve the life of the strike.

MsMorrisine

i'm in for dual date no crappy privy

AlbumAccumulator

Minimum effort. I was really hoping for some special reverses.

jacrispies

@WALLE said:
The mint website has images for the 2026 penny and nickel for the Semiquincentennial circulating coin program. Sorry could not get them copied to include here.

Man, I finally got all the classic commemoratives down, now they want me to figure out how to pronounce "semiquincentennial"?!?!?

25 years from then will mean RIP for my tongue as it will be the Bicenterquasquigenary (275th).

BStrauss3

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The CCAC has jumped the shark.

Um... just pointing out that it's the MINT that prepared the designs, CCAC is being asked to make recommendations for the Secretary of the Treasury to make the ultimate decision.

You have the shark and the jumper backwards

BStrauss3

eBay listing "1776 SPECIAL PENNY PREDATES LINCOLN BIRTH"

coinbuf

@BStrauss3 said:
eBay listing "1776 SPECIAL PENNY PREDATES LINCOLN BIRTH"

I had the same exact thought. I can already see the flood of questions on forums like these about the special change finds.

Manifest_Destiny

@BStrauss3 said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
The CCAC has jumped the shark.

Um... just pointing out that it's the MINT that prepared the designs, CCAC is being asked to make recommendations for the Secretary of the Treasury to make the ultimate decision.

You have the shark and the jumper backwards

I get your point. My point is CCAC isn't an advocate of anything that collectors generally want. What they should do is tell the Mint that all of these are garbage and not recommend any of the designs. Check out the semisesquicentennial thread and CCAC's advocacy for "interpretive" designs. We should probably consider ourselves lucky if we just get duel dated garbage.

johnny9434

Any one know about the reverse design yet?

erscolo

The CCAC brings no value to the equation, inspired artistry in our coinage came to an end in 1947. It will never return.

MICHAELDIXON

I would prefer both coins be totally redesigned, not the same blase thing!

CascadeChris

How... uninspiring

BuffaloIronTail

That's what I like about this place.

There's always something new reported that I wasn't aware of.

Pete

KiwiNumi

I like the design with the double date and bell privy. I'm gonna be disappointed if there's no new reverse design. I do know that changes to coin designs have to be pre approved by congress, so I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

KellenCoin

Hi, everyone,

I am a member of the CCAC, and [just wrote a thread which touches on this].(https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101377/citizens-coinage-advisory-committee-meeting-recap-february-2024#latest).

@Manifest_Destiny We recommended skipping the privy mark and just doing the double dates. The Treasury Secretary will make the final decision.

@Namvet69 Discussion of different metals, especially for a limited celebratory strike, has been raised repeatedly by CCAC members during my relativly short time on the committee. There are a couple of issues which arise, mainly around finances, logistics, and risk. However, as a member of the public, you are welcome to submit this as a suggestion to the CCAC for futhre consideration.

@MsMorrisine That is what we recommended.

@AlbumAccumulator The main issues with the cent and nickel were financial and manufacturing contraints. Other denominations may have different designs in 2026.

@Manifest_Destiny @erscolo @MICHAELDIXON @CascadeChris As a Representative of the General Public, I'm always interested in your thoughts on how we should approach designs. Often we are constrained by the portfolio the Mint offers in consultation with program liasons, but I do my best to advocate for the best options and ensure we are bringing balance and artistry to our coins. Feel free to send me a PM with your ideas/suggestions, or contact the CCAC officially via its website (which will help ensure formal consideration of your ideas).

erwindoc

@KellenCoin

This is the opportunity to change the dime. It has been the same obverse since 1946! 80 years is long enough, and I am a Roosie collector! Maybe a 1 year circulating change to coincide with the celebration and a new obverse going forward?

KellenCoin

@erwindoc said:
@KellenCoin

This is the opportunity to change the dime. It has been the same obverse since 1946! 80 years is long enough, and I am a Roosie collector! Maybe a 1 year circulating change to coincide with the celebration and a new obverse going forward?

I honestly don't know what the proposals will be for the dime yet, but I shall keep this forum appraised once it enters into the public record! However, if there is a change it will be a one-year type as authorized in the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act rather than a completely new type going forward.

JWP

Is the mint going to play the change game with the reverse? Also, how many different issues for each year?

KellenCoin

@JWP said:
Is the mint going to play the change game with the reverse? Also, how many different issues for each year?

I'm not sure yet on the reverses. And these will be one-year types.

Connecticoin

Like others mentioned, not very inspiring. And I still think the Jefferson obverse is horrible - just stick with the original if we have to have the Jeffnick in perpetuity (which we should not, we
should bring back the Buffalo Nickel for real, on a nickel).

BStrauss3

Gang if you want to use and abuse Kellen's position, just wait until the post 2026 quarter designs "emblematic of youth sports" start to hit...

Basketball
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Football
Stick ball (for us NYC kids)
Hand ball

...

Madden
Halo
Minecraft

...

jesbroken

Our mint designs are so dreadful. Let Lincoln look forward, as to the future. Let Jefferson look to the left to represent looking at where we have been and not forgetting our errors, but correcting them. C'mon, I couldn't design a pencil, much less a coin. But our designers or their keepers are pathetic. JMO
Jim

CRHer700

@BStrauss3 said:
Gang if you want to use and abuse Kellen's position, just wait until the post 2026 quarter designs "emblematic of youth sports" start to hit...

Basketball
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Football
Stick ball (for us NYC kids)
Hand ball

...

Madden
Halo
Minecraft

...

Aren't they going to do disabled sports on our halves after 2026? How horrible our ideas are. Like who wants to have a half with wheelchair basketball on it? Come on people, at least go back to the old, pre-portrait, designs? That was what I was hoping for. Also, why do we have to have Lincoln on the cent, I mean, he's served his hundred and fifteen years now, why can't congress make a law that liberty must be on all of our coins? I wish that they would actually listen to their employers and deliver us some satisfactory coins, and raise the relief on them like the old issues.

olympicsos

@Connecticoin said:
Like others mentioned, not very inspiring. And I still think the Jefferson obverse is horrible - just stick with the original if we have to have the Jeffnick in perpetuity (which we should not, we
should bring back the Buffalo Nickel for real, on a nickel).

There should be a special numismatic version with Schlag's original design. Also for silver proof they could've brought back the silver war composition back when they started silver proof sets in the 90s as a WWII 50th anniversary special.

BStrauss3

There are many things the Mint COULD do if Congress would allow it. There are some things that the Mint can do within current law.

But the sad sad reality is any change will set off some nuclear idiocy on some side of the aisle or the other.

The other truth is that numismatic products are a small fraction of the mint's activities.

https://www.usmint.gov/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2023-Annual-Report.pdf

Bullion leads revenue at 69.8%, Circulating coins at 20.4%, and Numismatic items at 9.8%.

Within Bullion, sales of Gold (AGE+ABG) total just over 2.7 billion dollars, ASE are $548 million. Numismatic products are closer, Gold&Platinum total $212.6 million while silver is $173.4 million.

If you dig further, the mint is measured not by any kind of consumer satisfaction, but rather how cheaply they can make the coins the Federal Reserve orders.

EARNED REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (SEIGNIORAGE)
Numismatic Sales: Revenue from numismatic sales to the public is recognized when products are shipped to customers. Prices for most numismatic products are based on the product cost plus a reasonable net margin. Bullion coins are priced based on the market price of the precious metals plus a premium to cover manufacturing, marketing, and distribution costs.

Nothing here, no intention to make a profit. Manufacturing includes prepare the dies and wear/tear on equipment.

Numismatic Sales of Circulating Coins: Specially packaged products containing circulating coins are sold directly to the public rather than to the FRB. These products are treated as a circulating and numismatic hybrid product. Revenue is recognized when products are shipped to customers. > Circulating Sales: The PEF provides for the sale of circulating coinage at face value to the FRBs. Revenue from the sale of circulating coins is recognized when the product is shipped to the FRBs. Revenue from the sale of circulating coins to the FRBs and numismatic sales of circulating coins to the public is limited to the recovery of the cost of manufacturing and distributing those coins. Seigniorage is a financing source and not considered as revenue.

Again, no intention to make a profit.

Other Financing Sources (Seigniorage): Seigniorage equals the face value of newly minted coins, less the cost of production (which includes the cost of metal, manufacturing, and transportation).
Seigniorage adds to the government’s cash balance, but unlike the payment of taxes or other receipts, it does not involve a transfer of financial assets from the public. Instead, it arises from the exercise of the government’s sovereign power to create money and the public’s desire to hold financial assets in the form of coins. Therefore, the President’s budget excludes seigniorage from receipts and treats it as a means of financing.

If you are selling at cost, there's no incentive to sell more. If people remove coins from circulation, the Fed just orders more next year, and the seigniorage is more general funding.

Fraz

Don’t forget to drink your Ovaltine.