I can't comprehend what's going on with the 2026 uncirculated mint set's
mach19
Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭
I understand the Lincoln , however , @ that increase **UNACCEPTABLE **!! Might you folks think sumpin else is behind this Before I CANCEL my orders ? I realize I have time to spare .
TIN SOLDIERS & NIXON COMING 
1
Comments
Nothing else is going on. As evidenced by the fact that they repriced prior years to the same level.
They just saw what happened in the secondary market last year, when people snapped them up at $33.25 in anticipation of grabbing the last cents, and then saw the secondary market skyrocket. The new Mint Director, who comes from the world of TV telemarketing, seemingly decided that the Mint should get in on the action.
Rather than making them to demand, or giving people a decent flip. As a result, they will be making them to significantly reduced demand, because they are not going to sell out 190K at $124.50 on an annual basis.
They are just going to drive away people like you. And then people looking for a flip, when they realize there isn't one.
And then everyone else, because very few are going to tolerate at 2100% markup to face value on base metal uncirculated coins, in the hope that two zinc cents priced at around $50 each are going to hold their value when they don't circulate and don't contain precious metal, just because there are "only" 190,000 of them. Not found in the wild, but bought directly from the Mint at a 500,000% markup to face value.
Nothing else is behind this. They will be one off type coins in the set, but we all know that. As @NJCoin said, they raised the price on all sets, not just 2026. The only question is whether the 2026 will end up being worth it. That is speculation at this point. $125 might be the right price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That's a very good point !
I have a subscription of 23 sets...... I will not honor this unless sumpin changes .
If you don't want 23 sets why not cancel some of them so others can overpay for them.
$33.25 for the set ( originally ) X 23 equates to $764.75 .....$5.80 x 23 equates to $133.4 ( face value EXCLUDING the Lincoln )
@ 124.5 ..... This equates to $2863.5 ( minus the Lincoln )
That's A tough pill to swallow !!
NO way.... LOL
So if I did that and turned my head sideways..... all the rocks would fall out !
I really choose not to be responsible for that ! :'(
In my lifetime of coin collecting, I've gone from Mint Sets that I've bought from the Mint for $6 to this.
Why would it be the Mint's job to give "people a decent flip?"
But that decent flip is an upright finger
It's not the Mint's job to determine what is a flip value or not. That is for the market to determine. The Mint's job is to produce circulating coinage and to provide reasonable quantity at a reasonable price. The vast selection of other non-circulating options the Mint produces is a different subject. But for a basic annual mint set, they should be producing enough at a fair price to reduce any incentive for a flip. My opinion since you asked for it.
So, unlimited mintages so they immediately drop to face value within the year? People all want what they want on their terms. The want the coins to hold value, they want rarities that they get to buy and flip. There's no solution that works for everyone. You make them limited and cheap, the flippers suck them up. You make them unlimited, no one wants them because they lose their value quickly. You make them limited and market price, people are mad that they aren't cheap enough to hold value or flip.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
For all the many options of special collector coins, everyone wants to have "value" for holding or flipping. That is a given. And the Mint has many options to do this, they have ASEs, they have AGEs, they have proof sets, they have silver proof sets, they have reverse proof coins, they have commemorative coins, they have retro coins, they have silver coins, they have gold coins, they have very special limited edition silver proof sets, they have lots of things to play the game of grabbing my money.
But for the average person that wants a no thrills basic circulation coinage set to maintain collector sets, these should be made to demand at a reasonable cost. If the demand for these is two million, great. If the demand is 500k, fine. If the demand is 75k, so be it. These sets don't have to be investment coins, they are basic circulation strikes made in the millions, none of which should be a rarity to carry much premium. For the person that wants to pop out a few coins to keep the albums up to date, this has always been a good option. Some of us do not have the luxury of running to a local bank and getting boxes of rolls of the newest coins we want. It might take years for the latest date coins to show up in circulation, and by then it is circulated. The annual mint set gives us access to the various coins in mint state condition at a reasonable price. A service that has been available to all collectors for many generations.
So to answer your question: "So, unlimited mintages so they immediately drop to face value within the year?" I will direct you to my previous statement... "The vast selection of other non-circulating options the Mint produces is a different subject. But for a basic annual mint set, they should be producing enough at a fair price to reduce any incentive for a flip. My opinion since you asked for it."
Because it's one of several reasons to buy things from the Mint. Take them away, and there is no real reason to keep the numismatic program going.
$124.50 for $6 worth of base metal coinage in a cardboard holder is a pretty good place to start, if that's where they want to go. That's why. It's why everything isn't just made to demand, or sold on eBay to the highest bidder.
I agree
You have a point. With most of what they produce. @Batman23 is right about the annual sets.
They shouldn't be hard to get and shouldn't be overpriced with respect to their cost of production and a reasonable margin for the Mint. People looking for things to flip shouldn't be looking at annual sets.
If no one wants them, that's fine. Because no one is going to want these, either, at $124.50, while hundreds of thousands of people who would have wanted the sets at $33.25 won't be able to get them.
@NJCoin said:
Any idea whatever happened to "Bank Sets"? Seems like they're ripe for a rebirth.
Never heard of them.
Anyone here ever collect Hot Wheels? Well, Mattel did exactly what the mint is doing now. Mattel decided they wanted a piece of the secondary market. Needless to say they polluted the waters with endless special limited editions, raising prices endlessly, and frankly flooding the market with junk. They literally killed the hobby. I'm guessing the new mint director is following the same game book?
Add: I will most likely end contributing to all my Dansco sets after 2026. Seems like a good year to end with.
USAF (Ret.) 1985 - 2005. E-4B Aircraft Maint. Crew Chief and Contracting Officer.
✓ Everyman Mint State Carson City Morgan Dollars (1878 – 1893)
✓ Morgan Dollar GSA Hoard (1878 – 1891)
✓ Everyman Mint State Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1958)
✓ Matte Proof Toned Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1916)
Privately made Mint sets. They were made from Mint sets & rolls but could just as easily be made from just rolls, minus the token.
You can buy lots of the tokens on eBay. Someone will do it.
How much do you want to bet that they cut the original mint pliofilm?
If there's enough profit in it to make it worthwhile to invest the time and effort, some enterprising businessman will put together $6 worth of base metal coinage in a cardboard holder for something less than $124.50.
Or maybe they won't, who knows?
People do this all the time on ebay.
For example:
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Ok then. Problem solved!
Message I sent to the US Mint thru their website's "Contact us" page:
I am writing because I saw that the 2026 Uncirculated set is being priced at $124.50, which is a nearly quadruple increase in price from 2025. I feel this increase is unjustified, as there is nothing in the metal of these coins that makes them intrinsically worth more, as opposed to gold or silver issues. Please reconsider this price and lower it. I have collected modern US coins since 1963 and have bought Uncirculated sets from the Mint for over 50 years.
Thank you.
I'm not a collector of the uncirculated sets, but personally I'd rather see them with a higher limit or unlimited and a fair price. These are one of the best products to get people into the hobby, especially next year with the cent and one-year designs. Pricing them too high to squeeze out market rates is just going to hurt the hobby in the long run.
It's time to JUST SAY NO.
Way back when I got started in numismatics I cut my teeth on mint sets. Now I’d be cutting a jugular vein.
Although they will not have the cent unless they buy from the mint.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@mach19 the easiest way to get more likes (and stars) in a legit way that doesn’t make people want to ignore you is by posting pictures of coins in your collection.
Mr_Spud
You cannot do that when some of the coins in the set are non-circulating.
Big middle finger from the mint.
You're right. That escaped me. It makes the Mint's pricing all the more predatory.
The Mint is now formally an abusive, crazy girlfriend. Admit it though. You'll get that midday text, "......is now available" and 30min later you’ll be sitting there with your Credit Card out and feeling ashamed.
Or all the more reasonable
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Ok- don't include non-circulating coins in your set then. There's no rule saying you have to.
Or the cent in the set makes it worth $125
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Yes! These are mint set coins.
I used to collect them but I had too much bulk. They come in nice boxes often with the bank's name printed on them. My bank had them but they were prohibitively expensive. And double that because each mint was sold separately.
Meh. The pricing is akin to the new "Personalized Dynamic Pricing", where the store knows your data (income level, spending habits, product loyalty, etc) and then calculates the max you'll pay and then shows you that price. The Mint knows their customer and I'm sure did something similar although more archaic. You might be right about the "worth" to the individual collector but it's about as ethical as charging $500 a burger in a famine you created.
All modern rarities are Mint created, intentionally. That doesn't stop people from buying the Flowing Hair coin or the Omega cents, etc. We can blame the Mint or we can blame ourselves. The famine metaphor isn't quite accurate. It's more like they are selling a $500 Kobe burger to someone who often only buys Kobe burgers.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Actually, the famine metaphor is spot on, because they are creating the shortage and then exploiting it. Understandable in the case of so very, very special artificial rarities designed to be auctioned off to the highest bidders. Less so with common annual mint sets of base metal coins.
The beginning of the end of the hobby, at least we have come to know and love it, is when seemingly intelligent people like you start analogizing annual base metal coin sets to Kobe beef,
Everybody needs to eat. Collect coins? Not so much.
Agreed. But the part about them creating a shortage and then excessively profiting from it is spot on.
The part about people not needing 2026 uncirculated Mint sets to survive is why they are unlikely to sell out at $124.50. Doesn't diminish the point that they are going out of their way to exploit collectors. Without whom there is no Mint numismatic sales function.
It's a matter of perspective. Collectors aren't opposed to shortages as long as they can profit from them (see: flipping). When they're on the outside looking in is when those profits become excessive.
Feed them ramen.
My wife ignores the HA overnight FedEx guy who knows my name and DL number. I just keep telling her what sounds sort of true. It's just a penny (we didn't go into it being an MS64RB 1917 DDO Lincoln), and that was not a lie just all she needed to know. Although I did feel a little bad calling it a penny and not a cent.
Of course, she can spend anything that she wants, fortunately she does not want much as I give her stuff all the time.
I used to buy a lot of Mint stuff, 3 or 4 sets of the 4 gold proofs starting in 1987, but they were pretty cheap back then at around $800. I don't really need the mint set or proof set for the Lincoln, but I might want one eventually.
I really collect wheats, but do have some varieties for later Lincolns, got a nice 2014 MS67RD Lincoln FS-101 so far this year and a pretty nice 2006 MS66RD FS-102 so I do have some modern Lincolns.
True. Everyone likes making money, and everyone likes having what they buy hold its value.
Doesn't mean it's okay for them to exploit the market for annual Mint sets. Those should not be made as rarities, should not be bought with an expectation of a profitable flip, and should be made to demand, to allow whoever wants them to buy as many as they want.
At a reasonable price that represents a reasonable margin for the Mint. Not a gouge price because the Mint thinks it might be able to get it by artificially restricting the supply of something that really should be widely and readily available.
JMHO. If you like this because you think there will be a robust secondary market for these at a price significantly above $124.50, or because you think these will constitute a wise investment for you to put a few away for your heirs, good luck to you.
I happen to think that what happened last year was a one-off, and there is nothing special enough about the cents in those sets, given that like a half billion others were made, to warrant what happened in the secondary market. And that the Mint is playing itself by thinking people are now going to give that premium directly to the Mint, on an ongoing basis, for the privilege of being the proud owners of 190K zinc cents that don't circulate, and are unavailable elsewhere.
Because the Mint makes lots of other things, with far lower mintages, that are unavailable elsewhere that no one cares about. Uncirculated sets at $124.50 and proof sets at $107.00 are going to be added to that list for many people.
I'm sure that's so. But then again, whatever the mint does, somebody will be disappointed.
True. That said, do you seriously think anyone was NOT disappointed in a quadrupling in the price of uncriculated sets, year over year? Or a near tripling of the price of the base metal proof set?
Or that it's justified, because the Mint should be pricing to the secondary market? If so, proof ASEs should be sold through APs, and priced like bullion, since they don't seem to carry much of a secondary market premium. Certainly not any other than the "special" ones with lower than typical mintages.
Think that's going to happen any time soon? Are unsold back year sets going to be reduced when their price falls in the secondary market? Or is the secondary market only going to be turned to for pricing inspiration when it provides a justification to engage in a little price gouging?
But it's not a shortage. And people WANT the rarities. That's why the metaphor fails horribly. All of these threads have not been banging for b unlimited mintages, they've been speculating on which mintages are low enough to hold value.
And unlike the misplaced famine metaphor, the thread are now full of people canceling because the price is too high to be profitable.
Now, an argument can be made that the Mint should go to unlimited mintages. But look at what has happened to the coins and coin sets with unlimited mintages: the sales drop EVERY year because they don't hold their value.
The fact is that "we" (most not all) only want the (artificial) rarities. You even did it yourself with Superman per the other thread. You bought them when you thought they were going to short strike them then returned then when it turns out the mintage limit was fully struck.
Yes, there are some people who buy them to stuff in albums. But I think they are in the minority relative to people trying to find value. It's not starving men, it's drug addicts. We can say "no".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The subscriptions for these are currently available. I took 10.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.