Once they get the casino payout from the auction the mint will probably want more pulls of the lever. I hope we get gold lincolns for 2026 to make up for those who can't afford the front row seats.
@pf70collector said:
Coin collecting only for the elites. This wrong on so many levels. The U. S. Mint is supported by the common collector.
The US Mint is supported by coins for commerce. That is its mission.
As coins and currency disappear more and more from circulation, that mission is getting smaller and smaller.
On the quiz show, "Let's Make a Deal," at the end they ask people in the audience if they have dollar bills or small change. If they do, they win $300 or $400. You would be surprised at how many of them don’t have the coins, even though they should know that is one of aspects of the show.
For years, the mint has gotten to be like the Post Office with stamps. The mint issues so much stuff, you can't keep up with it, even if you have the cash to do so. How many people are collecting all of the quarters? I'd say a whole lot less than those who were following the State Quarters.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@HalfDime said:
Once they get the casino payout from the auction the mint will probably want more pulls of the lever. I hope we get gold lincolns for 2026 to make up for those who can't afford the front row seats.
It's a tough call on that one. If the mint issues gold cents in 2026, the people who paid big bucks for the 2025 coins will the ticked off because that will lower their value. My bet is, you won't see any more gold cents.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@GAC said:
I’m honestly confused at what people expected here. Last year when the Mint did the special gold privy mark, a lot of folks on the forum said it was “too much of a cash grab.” Now the Mint doesn’t do any special preparation, doesn’t polish dies, doesn’t strike anything with extra pressure, and just lets the last 232 cents come off the press naturally, and the complaint is that they’re “not nice enough” or “not special enough”?
These are literally just the final cents the Mint will ever strike. That’s the whole point. They weren’t supposed to be reverse proofs, SP70 candidates, or some kind of artificially enhanced modern rarity. They’re historic because of when they were made, not because of any special treatment. Complaining about grades on coins that were intentionally left as normal business strikes kind of misses the whole concept.
There are chain cents and 1793 wreath cents in much nicer shape than some of the Omega Zincolns. Producing mishandled, banged up, and spotted coins somewhat belies the claim that they should be treated as special by the collectors they're trying to sell them to. Of course, here's the rub. Had they produced 2/3 MS69 and 1/3 MS70 coins, the prices in the auction will likely have been fairly flat, with a small premium for MS70. The bigger cash grab is producing coins as normal and letting a small number of them be high grade pieces that would bring multiples of most of the rest. While I'm wondering if there was consulting between the mint, SB, and PCGS regarding the strategy of the manufacturing practice, I'm also reminded that the mint is a government organization and Hanlon's razor probably comes into play.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
Where does it end? Nothing is stopping them from striking.10 2027 Eisenhower dollars and selling them for 500,000 each
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
I also find this sort of collecting to be rather contrived. Let the Vault Box people have at them. I’ll stick to my precious crumbly copper coins from a time gone by. Thanks.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
Where does it end? Nothing is stopping them from striking.10 2027 Eisenhower dollars and selling them for 500,000 each
There is something stopping them. See if you can guess what that is...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
With the acceleration in the decline of circulating coinage, the subsequent reduced seignorage means less funding.
If you want the Mint to end up spitting out bland aluminum discs to satisfy the last vestiges of coin demand in commerce than think twice about how these sales and marketing initiatives are hurting the hobby.
Arguably these help future demand by enabling funding for continued investment in materials and craftsmanship (flowing hair commem) as well as stimulating interest in numismatics.
@Rc5280 said:
CAC Stickering has made an exception to their rules in this case imo.
Maybe someone can get a clarification from CAC or SBG, and get back to us? GC & CAC are tight - @ianrussell ??
If true, there will be plenty of stickered coins, especially the Gold.
Of the roughly 3 dozen lots that I've gone through online, I see (Subjectively) several 65 & 66 penny's getting stickered - just me. An MS69/MS66/MS66-D lot could easily see a 50k hammer price I'd say. Maybe more.
This CAC news is going to be a game changer. Some bidders may lose the CAC guessing game, some will win.
I'm guessing that the "in-person" lot viewing appointments are now booked solid.
I haven't closely examined all of the images, but I reckon that almost all would sticker or straight-cross. As someone who submits dozens of modern coins throughout each year to PCGS and has for over a decade, since the advent of CACG PCGS has really tightened up to where I believe the CACG and PCGS grading on modern coins is pretty close.
On the Greysheet podcast around minute 24 it sounds like dealer Kevin Lipton will suck up any of these sets that sell in the 20k's. Greysheet predicts $35-50k/set. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUdPxXwQZmo
@fathom said:
With the acceleration in the decline of circulating coinage, the subsequent reduced seignorage means less funding.
If you want the Mint to end up spitting out bland aluminum discs to satisfy the last vestiges of coin demand in commerce than think twice about how these sales and marketing initiatives are hurting the hobby.
Arguably these help future demand by enabling funding for continued investment in materials and craftsmanship (flowing hair commem) as well as stimulating interest in numismatics.
I'd like to see the math on how a few hundred thousand collectors are going to generate enough revenue for the Mint to supply coinage to 330 million people + overseas demand.
The more likely outcome is the acceleration to a digital currency of some type.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
Where does it end? Nothing is stopping them from striking.10 2027 Eisenhower dollars and selling them for 500,000 each
Why do you care? If they want to create "offerings" for the very wealthy, why would I possibly care (for the record, I am not "very wealthy," and I won't be participating in this game)?
Don't find an offering fron the Mint attractive? Don't buy it. Yes, it really is that simple.
@Connecticoin said:
Wow, the last Philly cent has major fingerprints - MS64RD might be generous. The last Denver cent fared better and got a grade of MS66RD
As many of us know, fingerprints like that usually get worse. Grading that coin “MS-64” is generous.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@fathom said:
With the acceleration in the decline of circulating coinage, the subsequent reduced seignorage means less funding.
If you want the Mint to end up spitting out bland aluminum discs to satisfy the last vestiges of coin demand in commerce than think twice about how these sales and marketing initiatives are hurting the hobby.
Arguably these help future demand by enabling funding for continued investment in materials and craftsmanship (flowing hair commem) as well as stimulating interest in numismatics.
I'd like to see the math on how a few hundred thousand collectors are going to generate enough revenue for the Mint to supply coinage to 330 million people + overseas demand.
The more likely outcome is the acceleration to a digital currency of some type.
Anyway you look at it , the budgetary impacts will be significant. We might be in a golden age of Mint marketing of manufactured collectibles. I don"t think anyone really knows how Congress will deal with the demise of circulating coinage.
In my little world of retail commerce, coins are disappearing at an alarming rate. Conversely card and app revenue continues to grow, the last few months have seen an enormous shift. Anecdotal of course.
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
@fathom said:
With the acceleration in the decline of circulating coinage, the subsequent reduced seignorage means less funding.
If you want the Mint to end up spitting out bland aluminum discs to satisfy the last vestiges of coin demand in commerce than think twice about how these sales and marketing initiatives are hurting the hobby.
Arguably these help future demand by enabling funding for continued investment in materials and craftsmanship (flowing hair commem) as well as stimulating interest in numismatics.
I'd like to see the math on how a few hundred thousand collectors are going to generate enough revenue for the Mint to supply coinage to 330 million people + overseas demand.
The more likely outcome is the acceleration to a digital currency of some type.
Anyway you look at it , the budgetary impacts will be significant. We might be in a golden age of Mint marketing of manufactured collectibles. I don"t think anyone really knows how Congress will deal with the demise of circulating coinage.
In my little world of retail commerce, coins are disappearing at an alarming rate. Conversely card and app revenue continues to grow, the last few months have seen an enormous shift. Anecdotal of course.
It's more than anecdotal. The data backs up your observation.
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
I disagree with you. I am harmed by this. My psyche can't handle this. I had a complete set of Lincoln cents. Now I don't. The emotional toll is unbearable. The pain and suffering... unfathomable.
Okay, maybe a bit extreme. But nobody is hurt by this... I disagree.
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
It's not a government monopoly. Private mints, such as Dan Carr's Moonlight mint, regularly produce competing coinage. Just because the market doesn't value the Moonlight Mint offerings the same as the US mint doesn't make it a monopoly.
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
It's not a government monopoly. Private mints, such as Dan Carr's Moonlight mint, regularly produce competing coinage. Just because the market doesn't value the Moonlight Mint offerings the same as the US mint doesn't make it a monopoly.
Huh? Only the US Mint can coin the last cent. Private mints can make assorted tokens, not coinage.
@BillJones said:
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
It's not a government monopoly. Private mints, such as Dan Carr's Moonlight mint, regularly produce competing coinage. Just because the market doesn't value the Moonlight Mint offerings the same as the US mint doesn't make it a monopoly.
Huh? Only the US Mint can coin the last cent. Private mints can make assorted tokens, not coinage.
And only Picasso can paint a Picasso painting. That doesn't mean he has a monopoly on painted canvas art.
The Moonlight Mint makes Amero coins which any two parties in the country could decide to use in commerce if they wanted to. There are other private mints also. We aren't restrained to only using US mint products for transactions or to collect.
@HalfDime said:
If they had released some omega cents into circulation.....
....Then the value of the gimmick omega cents being auctioned on thurs will tank.
If 2025 is the last year of the circulating cent, everyone who wants one can get one from circulation - at cost (1C).
The limited edition omega cents were never intended for circulation. The blanks used to produce the omega cents were circulation quality blanks(obviously). That is the only connection that they will ever have with each other(omega vs business strike).
@BillJones said:
I am totally disgusted with the mint. They are using their monopoly power to bilk collectors. If a private business did this the Justice Department would be after them under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the backbone for getting started as a coin collector was the Lincoln Cent. Collectors have loyally collected them for over a century. Now the mint has created a contrived rarity with a disgusting auction which is a discredit to the mint and people who run it.
I probably have the money to play this game, but I won't. I would rather have a decent Chain Cent.
As I noted above, I agree that this is a totally contrived offering. But I don't know why anyone would be "disgusted," or feel that the Mint is "bilking" collectors. And, no, the Sherman Antitrust Act would have no applicabliity to this were this a private outfit.
Nobody needs these things. Anyone who wants one enough to pay the auction price will be happy with the purchase, at least until these things lose value over time and people stop caring. But it's all voluntary, about a total non-necessity.
The mint’s behavior and pricing has become pretty gross. You can defend their policies all you want, but I know I’m not alone in my displeasure with their antics.
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
Please understand that I don't expect to change your view of this, nor do I care. To paraphrase your comment above, explaining to you why there's nothing wrong with this is useless; but you asked, so I'll answer your question.
If the Mint is going to play the "Omega" game, there are two choices: (i) release the coins into circulation, therby making a few lucky individuals lots of money, or (ii) sell them to a few wealthy people, thereby making the money for the Mint. The end result is the same--a few wealthy individuals end up with the coins. No, it is not "wrong" for the Mint to choose to make the profit.
I don't know if that's an example of grifting, the seller says right in the listing that these are fantasies and aren't the rare pieces being auctioned by the mint.
I don't know if that's an example of grifting, the seller says right in the listing that these are fantasies and aren't the rare pieces being auctioned by the mint.
But someone with negative intentions could buy one and potentially try to pawn it off to an uniformed/gullible individual. It's been done with other fake coinage.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
I don't know if that's an example of grifting, the seller says right in the listing that these are fantasies and aren't the rare pieces being auctioned by the mint.
But someone with negative intentions could buy one and potentially try to pawn it off to an uniformed/gullible individual. It's been done with other fake coinage.
They could, but that doesn't necessarily make the original fantasy a "grift". Counterstamping coins is legal and has been going on forever.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
I disagree with you. I am harmed by this. My psyche can't handle this. I had a complete set of Lincoln cents. Now I don't. The emotional toll is unbearable. The pain and suffering... unfathomable.
Okay, maybe a bit extreme. But nobody is hurt by this... I disagree.
I sympathize with you. My disappointment is the 1802 half dime, which is beyond my reach. At least that one was a natural, random happening rarity. This one was contrived.
Lincoln Cent collectors don’t get a lot of press because they are not the heavyweights in the coin market. Many of them dream, and save their pennies for a 1909-S-VDB. Now this thing comes along and shatters their dream for a complete set, which covers an amazing 116 years. No U.S. series is as long.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
I disagree with you. I am harmed by this. My psyche can't handle this. I had a complete set of Lincoln cents. Now I don't. The emotional toll is unbearable. The pain and suffering... unfathomable.
Okay, maybe a bit extreme. But nobody is hurt by this... I disagree.
I sympathize with you. My disappointment is the 1802 half dime, which is beyond my reach. At least that one was a natural, random happening rarity. This one was contrived.
Lincoln Cent collectors don’t get a lot of press because they are not the heavyweights in the coin market. Many of them dream, and save their pennies for a 1909-S-VDB. Now this thing comes along and shatters their dream for a complete set, which covers an amazing 116 years. No U.S. series is as long.
There are plenty of Lincoln collectors who only collect business strikes for the obvious reasons. There is no reason why anyone needs to consider these coins to be part of the series.
Plenty of people collect classic commemoratives and not moderns.
We had a similar discussion about the 2021 et al Morgan dollars: are they part of the set of not? Most people chose not. Did Dansco put a slot for the 2016 gold Merc in the Mercury Dime book? Perhaps we should find some outrage for the 1913 Liberty Nickel.
I don't need or want this coin at this price. It seems like a waste of energy to rail against collectibles.
I look forward to the complaints when they make 500,000 2026 gold Lincolns that the mintage is too high.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I just cleaned up my type sets to get rid of 20th century bullion and all non-circulating 21st century coins, other than a few historic commemoratives. I was simply tired of keeping up with all the material coming out of the mint. Much of it is very attractive and appealing, just not my thing any more.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice. If you consider that from the mint's perspective, they and the public wanted to "do something" to commemorate the end of the cent but given the time and logistical constraints I'm guessing this is probably the best they could do.
I know a lot of people think they are miracle workers and can just poop out tens or hundreds of thousands of coins in retail packaging like it's nothing, but I think the effort is way more than people know.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
If the govt wants to end the cent does it make sense (cents) to allow the Mint to mass market a "last cent" run and have the general public scrounging for these in commerce or at the retail marketplaces?
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
@fathom said:
If the govt wants to end the cent does it make sense (cents) to allow the Mint to mass market a "last cent" run and have the general public scrounging for these in commerce or at the retail marketplaces?
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
And you think the Mint customers would tolerate shrink wrapped gold cents?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
And you think the Mint customers would tolerate shrink wrapped gold cents?
Personally, I don't think the gold cents should be part of the Lincoln cent set. They could be more like a commemorative, sold special. But for the omega zincolns, they could have sealed them in wrappers and added them to a mint set, just like they did with the 2020-W reverse proof nickel.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
Facts matter. Trump "instructed" Bessent to end cent production in February, but the mint didn't stop ordering blanks until May. So clearly the official decision wasn't made until May at the earliest, otherwise they would have stopped ordering blanks sooner. How much notice did General Mills have? Not only does GM have an ongoing supply of cereal packaging on order, they had a established method of distributing trinkets within their products. As @jmlanzaf alludes to, all US Mint gold retail boxes have custom packaging. The mint knows that their customers would want and accept nothing less. A lot of people here live in magical fairy manufacturing land where you can not only will products into existence on a whim, the mint always has adequate staff to squeeze in extra retail product production as well. Ignorance is bliss, I am jealous.
@124Spider said:
Generally speaking, I don't much care, one way or the other, what others find "collectible."
But this set, to me, seems entirely contrived. Not that there's anything wrong with that; this branch of the Mint is in business to make money. But it just seems soooooo contrived.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice.
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
And you think the Mint customers would tolerate shrink wrapped gold cents?
Personally, I don't think the gold cents should be part of the Lincoln cent set. They could be more like a commemorative, sold special. But for the omega zincolns, they could have sealed them in wrappers and added them to a mint set, just like they did with the 2020-W reverse proof nickel.
Right, and the 3 2019 W Lincoln cents. I agree they should have done something for all collectors with the P and D and or a W. Obviously the gold would be special and could be auctioned off, and not seen as part of a complete Lincoln cent collection, like the gold re issues of the walking, standing, and winged liberty coins. The RCM handled it quite nicely by producing rolls of the last cent and selling them to collectors.
I wish the US Mint would throw some randomly into a mint set instead of consigning them to Stacks Bowers for auction. Also a question, will 2026 mint and proof sets contain a "cent"?
@Coin Finder said:
I wish the US Mint would throw some randomly into a mint set instead of consigning them to Stacks Bowers for auction. Also a question, will 2026 mint and proof sets contain a "cent"?
Comments
Once they get the casino payout from the auction the mint will probably want more pulls of the lever. I hope we get gold lincolns for 2026 to make up for those who can't afford the front row seats.
As coins and currency disappear more and more from circulation, that mission is getting smaller and smaller.
On the quiz show, "Let's Make a Deal," at the end they ask people in the audience if they have dollar bills or small change. If they do, they win $300 or $400. You would be surprised at how many of them don’t have the coins, even though they should know that is one of aspects of the show.
For years, the mint has gotten to be like the Post Office with stamps. The mint issues so much stuff, you can't keep up with it, even if you have the cash to do so. How many people are collecting all of the quarters? I'd say a whole lot less than those who were following the State Quarters.
It's a tough call on that one. If the mint issues gold cents in 2026, the people who paid big bucks for the 2025 coins will the ticked off because that will lower their value. My bet is, you won't see any more gold cents.
There are chain cents and 1793 wreath cents in much nicer shape than some of the Omega Zincolns. Producing mishandled, banged up, and spotted coins somewhat belies the claim that they should be treated as special by the collectors they're trying to sell them to. Of course, here's the rub. Had they produced 2/3 MS69 and 1/3 MS70 coins, the prices in the auction will likely have been fairly flat, with a small premium for MS70. The bigger cash grab is producing coins as normal and letting a small number of them be high grade pieces that would bring multiples of most of the rest. While I'm wondering if there was consulting between the mint, SB, and PCGS regarding the strategy of the manufacturing practice, I'm also reminded that the mint is a government organization and Hanlon's razor probably comes into play.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Where does it end? Nothing is stopping them from striking.10 2027 Eisenhower dollars and selling them for 500,000 each
I also find this sort of collecting to be rather contrived. Let the Vault Box people have at them. I’ll stick to my precious crumbly copper coins from a time gone by. Thanks.
Empty Nest Collection
There is something stopping them. See if you can guess what that is...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
With the acceleration in the decline of circulating coinage, the subsequent reduced seignorage means less funding.
If you want the Mint to end up spitting out bland aluminum discs to satisfy the last vestiges of coin demand in commerce than think twice about how these sales and marketing initiatives are hurting the hobby.
Arguably these help future demand by enabling funding for continued investment in materials and craftsmanship (flowing hair commem) as well as stimulating interest in numismatics.
I haven't closely examined all of the images, but I reckon that almost all would sticker or straight-cross. As someone who submits dozens of modern coins throughout each year to PCGS and has for over a decade, since the advent of CACG PCGS has really tightened up to where I believe the CACG and PCGS grading on modern coins is pretty close.
http://ProofCollection.Net
On the Greysheet podcast around minute 24 it sounds like dealer Kevin Lipton will suck up any of these sets that sell in the 20k's. Greysheet predicts $35-50k/set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUdPxXwQZmo
http://ProofCollection.Net
I'd like to see the math on how a few hundred thousand collectors are going to generate enough revenue for the Mint to supply coinage to 330 million people + overseas demand.
The more likely outcome is the acceleration to a digital currency of some type.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Wow, the last Philly cent has major fingerprints - MS64RD might be generous. The last Denver cent fared better and got a grade of MS66RD
Again, I say only that I see no reason for getting upset at the Mint for this contrived offering. Don't like it? Don't participate in the auctions (as I certainly will not participate; but I don't "participate" in most of the Mint's offerings). But to call it "gross" is to assume your conclusion, not to convince anyone that there's anything "wrong" with what the Mint is doing here.
Why do you care? If they want to create "offerings" for the very wealthy, why would I possibly care (for the record, I am not "very wealthy," and I won't be participating in this game)?
Don't find an offering fron the Mint attractive? Don't buy it. Yes, it really is that simple.
As many of us know, fingerprints like that usually get worse. Grading that coin “MS-64” is generous.
The mint should be neutral provider in the production of numismatic items. It should not be creating intentional, contrived rarities to sell to the highest bidder. It is a government agency which was funded by the taxpayers.
I contrast the current behavior with the mint in the 1880s. Gold dollar mintages were low during that decade, but the mint saw to it that those mintages were not so low that it created major rarities. Any collector who wanted one of those coins could acquire it at a reasonable cost.
Anyway you look at it , the budgetary impacts will be significant. We might be in a golden age of Mint marketing of manufactured collectibles. I don"t think anyone really knows how Congress will deal with the demise of circulating coinage.
In my little world of retail commerce, coins are disappearing at an alarming rate. Conversely card and app revenue continues to grow, the last few months have seen an enormous shift. Anecdotal of course.
The retail arm of the mint is a for-profit business. They will make a nice profit with this. Nobody is hurt. I don't see the harm in it, even if I fail to see the attraction of this contrived offering.
We disagree. It's not actually the first time someone has disagreed with either of us, nor will it be the last time.
It's more than anecdotal. The data backs up your observation.
https://www.frbservices.org/news/press-releases/051325-findings-from-2025-diary-of-consumer-payment-choice
Cash is 3rd among all payment methods at only 14% of transactions and less prevalent among younger consumers.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Explaining to you why it is wrong for a government monopoly to do this is useless.
What is wrong with offering the last of the Lincoln Cents to ALL collectors instead of the wealthy when the entity selling the merchandise is a publicly funded agency?
I disagree with you. I am harmed by this. My psyche can't handle this. I had a complete set of Lincoln cents. Now I don't. The emotional toll is unbearable. The pain and suffering... unfathomable.
Okay, maybe a bit extreme. But nobody is hurt by this... I disagree.
It's not a government monopoly. Private mints, such as Dan Carr's Moonlight mint, regularly produce competing coinage. Just because the market doesn't value the Moonlight Mint offerings the same as the US mint doesn't make it a monopoly.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Huh? Only the US Mint can coin the last cent. Private mints can make assorted tokens, not coinage.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Did someone say that would be wrong?
And only Picasso can paint a Picasso painting. That doesn't mean he has a monopoly on painted canvas art.
The Moonlight Mint makes Amero coins which any two parties in the country could decide to use in commerce if they wanted to. There are other private mints also. We aren't restrained to only using US mint products for transactions or to collect.
http://ProofCollection.Net
If they had released some omega cents into circulation.....
....Then the value of the gimmick omega cents being auctioned on thurs will tank.
If 2025 is the last year of the circulating cent, everyone who wants one can get one from circulation - at cost (1C).
The limited edition omega cents were never intended for circulation. The blanks used to produce the omega cents were circulation quality blanks(obviously). That is the only connection that they will ever have with each other(omega vs business strike).
non-omega cents would be altered with little omega stamps in garages across the country.
Please understand that I don't expect to change your view of this, nor do I care. To paraphrase your comment above, explaining to you why there's nothing wrong with this is useless; but you asked, so I'll answer your question.
If the Mint is going to play the "Omega" game, there are two choices: (i) release the coins into circulation, therby making a few lucky individuals lots of money, or (ii) sell them to a few wealthy people, thereby making the money for the Mint. The end result is the same--a few wealthy individuals end up with the coins. No, it is not "wrong" for the Mint to choose to make the profit.
They're already grifting....
https://www.ebay.com/itm/366044555627
I don't know if that's an example of grifting, the seller says right in the listing that these are fantasies and aren't the rare pieces being auctioned by the mint.
But someone with negative intentions could buy one and potentially try to pawn it off to an uniformed/gullible individual. It's been done with other fake coinage.
They could, but that doesn't necessarily make the original fantasy a "grift". Counterstamping coins is legal and has been going on forever.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I sympathize with you. My disappointment is the 1802 half dime, which is beyond my reach. At least that one was a natural, random happening rarity. This one was contrived.
Lincoln Cent collectors don’t get a lot of press because they are not the heavyweights in the coin market. Many of them dream, and save their pennies for a 1909-S-VDB. Now this thing comes along and shatters their dream for a complete set, which covers an amazing 116 years. No U.S. series is as long.
There are plenty of Lincoln collectors who only collect business strikes for the obvious reasons. There is no reason why anyone needs to consider these coins to be part of the series.
Plenty of people collect classic commemoratives and not moderns.
We had a similar discussion about the 2021 et al Morgan dollars: are they part of the set of not? Most people chose not. Did Dansco put a slot for the 2016 gold Merc in the Mercury Dime book? Perhaps we should find some outrage for the 1913 Liberty Nickel.
I don't need or want this coin at this price. It seems like a waste of energy to rail against collectibles.
I look forward to the complaints when they make 500,000 2026 gold Lincolns that the mintage is too high.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I just cleaned up my type sets to get rid of 20th century bullion and all non-circulating 21st century coins, other than a few historic commemoratives. I was simply tired of keeping up with all the material coming out of the mint. Much of it is very attractive and appealing, just not my thing any more.
We have to remember that when the year began no one knew the cent program would be ending. I'm guessing it would be quire a feat for the mint to just "whip up" a 10k - 100k (or more) product run for Omega cents with full retail packaging. The announcement came May 22. I just don't think the mint has or had the capacity to plan a mass market retail offering with that little notice. If you consider that from the mint's perspective, they and the public wanted to "do something" to commemorate the end of the cent but given the time and logistical constraints I'm guessing this is probably the best they could do.
I know a lot of people think they are miracle workers and can just poop out tens or hundreds of thousands of coins in retail packaging like it's nothing, but I think the effort is way more than people know.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Nonsense. They whipped up this plan quickly and were able to coordinate it with both PCGS and SB (or at least just SB) before making the official announcement of what they were doing. There were PCGS spec numbers for all of them before they were even struck. There's little difference between making 232 and running the press until the omega dies gave out. They easily could have decided to make more and promoted them in a more traditional manner. Had it taken another month to source and handle packaging, collectors wouldn't have minded.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
If the govt wants to end the cent does it make sense (cents) to allow the Mint to mass market a "last cent" run and have the general public scrounging for these in commerce or at the retail marketplaces?
Ignorance. The route they chose takes little advanced planning or logistics. All they had to do was procure cent-sized gold planchets and augment some dies with the Omega privy. Then ship the coins to PCGS and make a phone call to SB. That's several magnitudes easier than designing packaging, approving packaging (several iterations I'm sure), bidding out the packaging, selecting a supplier, getting the supplier to rush produce mass quantities, deliver the packaging, allocate mint resources from an already full production schedule to produce and package 100k+ (estimate) of an unplanned product, then sales, marketing, and shipping in a 4 month time frame. You think that's so easy? I'd like to see anyone do it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The Mint doesn't need to mass market the "last cent" run at all.
The 2025 P&D's are the last circulating cents struck. All 1.34 Billion of them.
The secondary market, and the FOMO crowd are taking care of the mass marketing and the scrounging side of the last cents meant for circulation...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=2025+p+d+lincoln+cents+pennies&_sacat=0&_from=R40&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
4 months? Sec. Bessent was ordered to stop making them back in early February, plenty of time for planning a last cent retail release had they wanted to. As for packaging 100,000 cents? If the Mint couldn't handle that, perhaps General Mills could have. They didn't seem to have trouble packaging 10,000,000 of them 25 years ago.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
And you think the Mint customers would tolerate shrink wrapped gold cents?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Personally, I don't think the gold cents should be part of the Lincoln cent set. They could be more like a commemorative, sold special. But for the omega zincolns, they could have sealed them in wrappers and added them to a mint set, just like they did with the 2020-W reverse proof nickel.
Facts matter. Trump "instructed" Bessent to end cent production in February, but the mint didn't stop ordering blanks until May. So clearly the official decision wasn't made until May at the earliest, otherwise they would have stopped ordering blanks sooner. How much notice did General Mills have? Not only does GM have an ongoing supply of cereal packaging on order, they had a established method of distributing trinkets within their products. As @jmlanzaf alludes to, all US Mint gold retail boxes have custom packaging. The mint knows that their customers would want and accept nothing less. A lot of people here live in magical fairy manufacturing land where you can not only will products into existence on a whim, the mint always has adequate staff to squeeze in extra retail product production as well. Ignorance is bliss, I am jealous.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Right, and the 3 2019 W Lincoln cents. I agree they should have done something for all collectors with the P and D and or a W. Obviously the gold would be special and could be auctioned off, and not seen as part of a complete Lincoln cent collection, like the gold re issues of the walking, standing, and winged liberty coins. The RCM handled it quite nicely by producing rolls of the last cent and selling them to collectors.
I wish the US Mint would throw some randomly into a mint set instead of consigning them to Stacks Bowers for auction. Also a question, will 2026 mint and proof sets contain a "cent"?
it is expected for future mint sets to include a cent based upon the mint including a half when those were not minted for circulation
Yes