You're cherrypicking data. That's an auction from a seller with a feedback of 8. The price is still in the $140 to $150 neighborhood and it was never much higher than that for the Marine corps issue. It's the Army issue that was closer to $200.
Not to mention, the Marine Corps Commemorative Dollar is NOT the Marine Corps Privy ASE! Different coins, different prices.
True. Although the coin shown is actually the ASE. I'm sure mischaracterizing it didn't help the auction result.
Correct. Except, in my experience, the sellers usually know what they have, and it's the buyers trying to pick them off who usually get burned. My bet would be that the image was an intentional effort to get people to overbid for the commemorative, rather than the seller costing himself $40+ with a sloppy description.
How does a return work when the item is exactly as described, but does not match the image? In any event, that seller does not accept returns, so what does that tell you about the "mischaracterization"?
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The coins in question include the cent, which is what is driving all this IMO, and is not available other than from the mint or later in the secondary market. However, I don’t think the word “gouge” is correct. “Gouge” today has legal connotations in many states and should be thought of as having a more sinister purpose than just overcharging. Collector coins are luxury items which are priced at whatever the seller feels they can get. As luxury items we can buy them or not without consequence. Gouge laws apply to food, shelter, transportstion -necessities.
You're cherrypicking data. That's an auction from a seller with a feedback of 8. The price is still in the $140 to $150 neighborhood and it was never much higher than that for the Marine corps issue. It's the Army issue that was closer to $200.
Not to mention, the Marine Corps Commemorative Dollar is NOT the Marine Corps Privy ASE! Different coins, different prices.
True. Although the coin shown is actually the ASE. I'm sure mischaracterizing it didn't help the auction result.
Correct. Except, in my experience, the sellers usually know what they have, and it's the buyers trying to pick them off who usually get burned. My bet would be that the image was an intentional effort to get people to overbid for the commemorative, rather than the seller costing himself $40+ with a sloppy description.
How does a return work when the item is exactly as described, but does not match the image? In any event, that seller does not accept returns, so what does that tell you about the "mischaracterization"?
Nothing, because you have to assume too many things to make it other than a mischaracterization. No seller would do that intentionally because it guarantees a SNAD.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You're cherrypicking data. That's an auction from a seller with a feedback of 8. The price is still in the $140 to $150 neighborhood and it was never much higher than that for the Marine corps issue. It's the Army issue that was closer to $200.
Not to mention, the Marine Corps Commemorative Dollar is NOT the Marine Corps Privy ASE! Different coins, different prices.
True. Although the coin shown is actually the ASE. I'm sure mischaracterizing it didn't help the auction result.
Correct. Except, in my experience, the sellers usually know what they have, and it's the buyers trying to pick them off who usually get burned. My bet would be that the image was an intentional effort to get people to overbid for the commemorative, rather than the seller costing himself $40+ with a sloppy description.
How does a return work when the item is exactly as described, but does not match the image? In any event, that seller does not accept returns, so what does that tell you about the "mischaracterization"?
Nothing, because you have to assume to many things to make it other than a mischaracterization. No seller would do that intentionally because it guarantees a SNAD.
Does it? That's my question. The listing says "Seller does not accept returns," and the item is EXACTLY as described, a "2025 U.S. Marine Corps 250th Anniversary Proof 99.9 Silver Dollar COA COIN."
Would a SNAD actually be successful just because the listing contained a picture of a Marine Privy ASE box? Not coin, but box.
If I was the seller and had to deal with a SNAD, I'd fight it, and I think I'd win. So do all the bidders who only bid it up to $105, not even the value of the commemorative dollar, due to the sketchy listing and low feedback.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
The mint is creating tomorrow’s rarities today. Their pricing assures this.
Not even close. Even if it badly undersells vs. the any mintage limit, the mintages aren't actually low enough for coins which will have such high survival rates for as long as it matters to anyone reading this thread. The relative preference is also too low.
A virtually 100% survival rate on coins with mintages of 100K+ isn't a low number. Yes, prices are set by the marginal buyer but absent maybe temporary interest, I'd expect it to be mostly forgotten decades from now with the rest of 21st century circulation coinage.
This is both accurate and incorrect. Sure, for things with mintages of 100k+, they aren't rare. But the Mint has created rarities with mintages of a couple hundred and lower. Those are "rare" even with 100% survival
If you are referring to gold, platinum, or palladium NCLT, I don't consider those real coins but even for those who do, it isn't equivalent to circulating coinage.
There are so many US modern NCLT with a lot more to come, decades from now I expect practically all of it to sell for melt, "rare" or not.
If you are referring to the omega cents, yes, those gimmicks are rare.
I am referring to things like the flowing hair dollar and the omega cents, both copper and gold. All Mint numismatic products are NCLT, base metal or precious.
Whether you consider them "coins" or not is quite beside the point. How did the person you responded to classify them? I assume you don't consider 1804 dollars or 1913 liberty nickels to count as rarities either because they are NCLT?
Yes, I get that there are exceptions to my prior point. I already knew it prior to your response.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
@NJCoin said:
If I was the seller and had to deal with a SNAD, I'd fight it, and I think I'd win.
Maybe, maybe not. I once sold a toned coin, described as toned in the title and description and including an image of a toned coin. The buyer wanted to return it because it was toned- he wanted an untoned one. I told him he could send it back for a refund but he didn't want to pay for postage, so he filed an SNAD claim. He told me he was doing this through eBay's message system. I contacted eBay and explained the situation. Upon reviewing the message thread, they agreed with me that the buyer violated their policies regarding SNAD claims. eBay still required me to pay for the return postage.
You're cherrypicking data. That's an auction from a seller with a feedback of 8. The price is still in the $140 to $150 neighborhood and it was never much higher than that for the Marine corps issue. It's the Army issue that was closer to $200.
Not to mention, the Marine Corps Commemorative Dollar is NOT the Marine Corps Privy ASE! Different coins, different prices.
True. Although the coin shown is actually the ASE. I'm sure mischaracterizing it didn't help the auction result.
Correct. Except, in my experience, the sellers usually know what they have, and it's the buyers trying to pick them off who usually get burned. My bet would be that the image was an intentional effort to get people to overbid for the commemorative, rather than the seller costing himself $40+ with a sloppy description.
How does a return work when the item is exactly as described, but does not match the image? In any event, that seller does not accept returns, so what does that tell you about the "mischaracterization"?
Nothing, because you have to assume to many things to make it other than a mischaracterization. No seller would do that intentionally because it guarantees a SNAD.
Does it? That's my question. The listing says "Seller does not accept returns," and the item is EXACTLY as described, a "2025 U.S. Marine Corps 250th Anniversary Proof 99.9 Silver Dollar COA COIN."
Would a SNAD actually be successful just because the listing contained a picture of a Marine Privy ASE box? Not coin, but box.
If I was the seller and had to deal with a SNAD, I'd fight it, and I think I'd win. So do all the bidders who only bid it up to $105, not even the value of the commemorative dollar, due to the sketchy listing and low feedback.
Yes. It would be successful. M
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
Elsewhere, it says they will be in annual year sets.
Please indicate any time on the last 100 years where they took such a consignment.
If they took such a consignment for the first time in 100 years, it would tank their sales of annual year sets.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
The reason "this couldn't happen" is because the US Mint is not Dan Carr, and does not manufacture on consignment for private parties. Moreover, doing so would totally kill the Mint's ability to sell uncirculated sets for $124.50.
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
No gas on the fire for now. It’s too expensive to waste. Besides my cardiologist says to stay calm as my EF has dropped to 32% and my heart has enlarged. But not to worry as
“Only the good die young” That leaves me out . 😈
" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. " The 1st Law of Opposition from The Firesign Theater
No gas on the fire for now. It’s to expensive to waste. Besides my cardiologist says to stay calm as my EF has dropped to 32% and my heart has enlarged. But not to worry as
“Only the good die young” That leaves me out . 😈
Hope your health improves. That's more important than internet forums.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
Elsewhere, it says they will be in annual year sets.
Please indicate any time on the last 100 years where they took such a consignment.
If they took such a consignment for the first time in 100 years, it would tank their sales of annual year sets.
I'm not saying it's ever happened, in fact I said it would be novel. But something tells me the mint is going to be more enterprising going forward. There's already a trend started in this direction with things like the Omega cent auctions and the lottery Silver Privy coins which are both things that haven't happened before. I'm not saying it's likely, just there's a possibility.
I disagree that it would tank the mint set sales or compete. There have been lots of companies who have repackaged annual US mint products into their own sets and I doubt the US mint even noticed. First of all the mint could ensure that the cents are distributed in a non-competitive timeframe (ie., months after the mint sets are released) and second, collectors prefer the US mint packaging even if it's overpriced and especially if they don't know that the Franklin Mint, Coin TV Shopping channel, Modern Coin Mart, etc type organizations have a deal in place to produce the sets in Q4. I don't know if a $10M check would move the needle for the mint or not but a business could easily pay $1 for this $.037 product and really help the mint's bottom line which has been struggling a bit. In 2024 the net profit on numismatic items was $79M so yeah, a $10M order could be persuasive.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
The reason "this couldn't happen" is because the US Mint is not Dan Carr, and does not manufacture on consignment for private parties. Moreover, doing so would totally kill the Mint's ability to sell uncirculated sets for $124.50.
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
You have lost all credibility and been completely wrong on your assertions in the past. Your reply completely ignores that fact that companies such as the Postal Commemorative Society have produced their own US mint sets for years so no, US coin sets are not and have not been sold "exclusively by the US Mint." There are (or have been) alternatives.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
Elsewhere, it says they will be in annual year sets.
Please indicate any time on the last 100 years where they took such a consignment.
If they took such a consignment for the first time in 100 years, it would tank their sales of annual year sets.
I'm not saying it's ever happened, in fact I said it would be novel. But something tells me the mint is going to be more enterprising going forward. There's already a trend started in this direction with things like the Omega cent auctions and the lottery Silver Privy coins which are both things that haven't happened before. I'm not saying it's likely, just there's a possibility.
I disagree that it would tank the mint set sales or compete. There have been lots of companies who have repackaged annual US mint products into their own sets and I doubt the US mint even noticed. First of all the mint could ensure that the cents are distributed in a non-competitive timeframe (ie., months after the mint sets are released) and second, collectors prefer the US mint packaging even if it's overpriced and especially if they don't know that the Franklin Mint, Coin TV Shopping channel, Modern Coin Mart, etc type organizations have a deal in place to produce the sets in Q4. I don't know if a $10M check would move the needle for the mint or not but a business could easily pay $1 for this $.037 product and really help the mint's bottom line which has been struggling a bit. In 2024 the net profit on numismatic items was $79M so yeah, a $10M order could be persuasive.
@WayneCa said:
I found out today that the Uncirculated Coin Set for 2026 is going to be $124.50. Last year's set was $33.25. That's a 274.44% increase over last year. The price for the 2026 American Innovation Reverse Proof set is $60.00. Last year's set was $32.25. That's a 86.05% increase over last year.
Is it supposed to be because this is the semiquincentennial? I don't think that justifies the price increases. What do you think? Is the US Mint gouging us now?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
The reason "this couldn't happen" is because the US Mint is not Dan Carr, and does not manufacture on consignment for private parties. Moreover, doing so would totally kill the Mint's ability to sell uncirculated sets for $124.50.
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
You have lost all credibility and been completely wrong on your assertions in the past. Your reply completely ignores that fact that companies such as the Postal Commemorative Society have produced their own US mint sets for years so no, US coin sets are not and have not been sold "exclusively by the US Mint." There are (or have been) alternatives.
Personal insults aside, the "Postal Commemorative Society" repackaging product it buys from the Mint is a very different thing from the Mint running the presses on consignment for them. All they did was resell product "sold exclusively by the US Mint."
If you think there is any chance at all that the Mint is going to become a competitor to Silver Towne or the Osborne Mint, debasing US currency by running private production on consignment, you are the one who has lost all credibility. No. They will continue to find creative ways to market NCLT and to jack up prices while so doing, but they are not going to cut their own legs out from under them by doing private runs of US legal tender for select Big Boys. Dream on.
@NJCoin said:
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
Huh? While I agree the mint will not do coins on a legal consignment, they have done coins that were auctioned off as rarities by others outside of the mint. The Omega Lincoln Cents, the space Sacagawea, etc.
This is similar to consignment coins though, as they were probably advised on these. Why they did it, I don't know, but they could have gone the normal route and made more money selling in bulk themselves is my guess.
I would not say never with the mint though. Never is absolute, and with government there is no such thing.
@NJCoin said:
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
Huh? While I agree the mint will not do coins on a legal consignment, they have done coins that were auctioned off as rarities by others outside of the mint. The Omega Lincoln Cents, the space Sacagawea, etc.
This is similar to consignment coins though, as they were probably advised on these. Why they did it, I don't know, but they could have gone the normal route and made more money selling in bulk themselves is my guess.
I would not say never with the mint though. Never is absolute, and with government there is no such thing.
Disagree. The US Mint using an auction house as a sales channel is not at all like consignments.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
Disagree. The US Mint using an auction house as a sales channel is not at all like consignments.
"Consigning coins to an auction house is an effective way to sell rare, high-value, or certified (graded) coins to a wide audience of collectors, often maximizing returns."
Yall guys still carrying on about this...
We need a new topic somebody start a new thread like "Why do I care what the mint charges for modern coins I don't even collect in the first place".
I don't mind holes in my collection in fact I purposely step on cracks in the sidewalk.
@jmlanzaf said:
Disagree. The US Mint using an auction house as a sales channel is not at all like consignments.
"Consigning coins to an auction house is an effective way to sell rare, high-value, or certified (graded) coins to a wide audience of collectors, often maximizing returns."
That's the exact OPPOSITE. We were talking about the Mint taking consignment orders not consigning coins to auction.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm trying to think of a similar analogy to this set, but there is no good one. The closest? The 2017-S Enhanced Uncirculated Set. The 2017-S Lincoln Cent's availability is limited to the set's mintage of 210,419, slightly higher than the 2026 Mint Set's stated 190,000 product limit. I paid $29.95 for that set 9 years ago, and today I saw a dealer's ad that sells the set for $29 each, and 5 sets for $140.
@ernie11 said:
I'm trying to think of a similar analogy to this set, but there is no good one. The closest? The 2017-S Enhanced Uncirculated Set. The 2017-S Lincoln Cent's availability is limited to the set's mintage of 210,419, slightly higher than the 2026 Mint Set's stated 190,000 product limit. I paid $29.95 for that set 9 years ago, and today I saw a dealer's ad that sells the set for $29 each, and 5 sets for $140.
There are some similarities. But there are bigger differences which favor the 2026 sets:
The 2026 set is circulation strikes. People can, and do, ignore special finishes in their date/mm sets.
The ONLY place to get the cents is (barring change) the Mint sets.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The ONLY place to get the cents is (barring change) the Mint sets.
Hope you aren’t suggesting that the cents will be found in change. I’m sure a few will make it into circulation, but finding one in change will be highly improbable. They will be readily available in the secondary market, graded and slabbed or raw. I’ve resolved to ignore coins not made for circulation as part of my type set. I’m not worried about the cost of keeping up, I just hate throwing money away.
The ONLY place to get the cents is (barring change) the Mint sets.
Hope you aren’t suggesting that the cents will be found in change. I’m sure a few will make it into circulation, but finding one in change will be highly improbable. They will be readily available in the secondary market, graded and slabbed or raw. I’ve resolved to ignore coins not made for circulation as part of my type set. I’m not worried about the cost of keeping up, I just hate throwing money away.
No. Barring change in their planned offerings.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The ONLY place to get the cents is (barring change) the Mint sets.
Hope you aren’t suggesting that the cents will be found in change. I’m sure a few will make it into circulation, but finding one in change will be highly improbable. They will be readily available in the secondary market, graded and slabbed or raw. I’ve resolved to ignore coins not made for circulation as part of my type set. I’m not worried about the cost of keeping up, I just hate throwing money away.
If it’s part of the annual Proof set, I will buy it. If it isn’t, I won’t have one.
I have given up on collecting these coins certified for a registry set. They have become impossible to purchase at reasonable prices. All of the Washington crossing the Delaware quarters I see offered are some esoteric die variety with a price tag over $75. Nothing is available at the shows. I made an effort to keep my type coin registry set complete, but it can’t be done without spending way too much.
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 ONLY place to get the cents is (barring change) the Mint sets.
Hope you aren’t suggesting that the cents will be found in change. I’m sure a few will make it into circulation, but finding one in change will be highly improbable. They will be readily available in the secondary market, graded and slabbed or raw. I’ve resolved to ignore coins not made for circulation as part of my type set. I’m not worried about the cost of keeping up, I just hate throwing money away.
No. Barring change in their planned offerings.
Aha. Thanks. I wish they had simply ended the cent last year. Seems somehow an ignoble end to an iconic coin.
Comments
Correct. Except, in my experience, the sellers usually know what they have, and it's the buyers trying to pick them off who usually get burned. My bet would be that the image was an intentional effort to get people to overbid for the commemorative, rather than the seller costing himself $40+ with a sloppy description.
How does a return work when the item is exactly as described, but does not match the image? In any event, that seller does not accept returns, so what does that tell you about the "mischaracterization"?
I didn't read the whole thread and I'm late to the conversation, but... In a capitalist system price gouging doesn't really exist. If the price is too high people won't buy it or less people will buy it. If price is too low they will not have enough supply. The market decides what these are worth. In the situation of a hurricane and someone is selling generators at an inflated price, while that may be considered price gouging under capitalism the reality is that without the ability to charge the higher price might result in none being available to buy as no seller is motivated to make them available are "normal" prices. That's a long way of saying that I think they are charging what they believe the market will bear. Sales numbers will prove or disprove whether the new pricing is fair. We could also argue that the US Mint being a government entity should strive for the altruistic goal of getting these into hands of collectors at a price that's close to break-even as possible as a service to its citizens. That's not an unreasonable viewpoint but absolutely eliminates the possibility that these sets would ever be "worth something" some day.
Now some of you will say the US Mint is a monopoly which is true from the standpoint that they are the only producer of these particular coins the way that Picasso is the only producer of Picasso paintings and Apple is the only producer of iPhones so I'm not sure the term "monopoly" should be applied to single-source products vs commodities or commoditized goods. However, the coins in question are available through channels at face value so the only unique aspect is the packaging which anyone could produce and perhaps some third parties will. It certainly sounds like a profitable idea.
The coins in question include the cent, which is what is driving all this IMO, and is not available other than from the mint or later in the secondary market. However, I don’t think the word “gouge” is correct. “Gouge” today has legal connotations in many states and should be thought of as having a more sinister purpose than just overcharging. Collector coins are luxury items which are priced at whatever the seller feels they can get. As luxury items we can buy them or not without consequence. Gouge laws apply to food, shelter, transportstion -necessities.
Nothing, because you have to assume too many things to make it other than a mischaracterization. No seller would do that intentionally because it guarantees a SNAD.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The cent cannot be sourced through any other channel.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Does it? That's my question. The listing says "Seller does not accept returns," and the item is EXACTLY as described, a "2025 U.S. Marine Corps 250th Anniversary Proof 99.9 Silver Dollar COA COIN."
Would a SNAD actually be successful just because the listing contained a picture of a Marine Privy ASE box? Not coin, but box.
If I was the seller and had to deal with a SNAD, I'd fight it, and I think I'd win. So do all the bidders who only bid it up to $105, not even the value of the commemorative dollar, due to the sketchy listing and low feedback.
Yes, I get that there are exceptions to my prior point. I already knew it prior to your response.
i did the Monsters and the old movie stars for a while......lol.
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
That's a pretty definitive statement. Per the Mint's Penny FAQ: "The Mint will continue to produce numismatic (collector) versions of the penny in limited quantities." Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no? I agree it's unlikely and novel, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't happen.
Maybe, maybe not. I once sold a toned coin, described as toned in the title and description and including an image of a toned coin. The buyer wanted to return it because it was toned- he wanted an untoned one. I told him he could send it back for a refund but he didn't want to pay for postage, so he filed an SNAD claim. He told me he was doing this through eBay's message system. I contacted eBay and explained the situation. Upon reviewing the message thread, they agreed with me that the buyer violated their policies regarding SNAD claims. eBay still required me to pay for the return postage.
Yes. It would be successful. M
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Here we go. 🤭🤭🤭 Back from rehab.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The reason "this couldn't happen" is because the US Mint is not Dan Carr, and does not manufacture on consignment for private parties. Moreover, doing so would totally kill the Mint's ability to sell uncirculated sets for $124.50.
It's unlikely that anyone could possibly offer the Mint enough money for it to want to jeopardize its ability to sell 190K uncirculated sets for $124.50 each. Not to mention, if money was the primary motivator here, the Mint could likely make more money selling more uncirculated sets, even if it had to lower the price somewhat. It's unlikely that 190K at $124.50 each is the precise sweet spot to maximize profit. It's just what they settled on.
As a result, it is a huge order of magnitude beyond "unlikely." Any US coinage the Mint makes will be sold exclusively by the US Mint. You can take that to the bank.
"Does that mean that if a private party approached the US Mint with a large check to make an additional run of cents that they wouldn't say no?"
Does the US Mint decide what coins to strike? I imagine Congress and the Treasury Department might have something to say about it.
No gas on the fire for now. It’s too expensive to waste. Besides my cardiologist says to stay calm as my EF has dropped to 32% and my heart has enlarged. But not to worry as
“Only the good die young” That leaves me out . 😈
Hope your health improves. That's more important than internet forums.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm not saying it's ever happened, in fact I said it would be novel. But something tells me the mint is going to be more enterprising going forward. There's already a trend started in this direction with things like the Omega cent auctions and the lottery Silver Privy coins which are both things that haven't happened before. I'm not saying it's likely, just there's a possibility.
I disagree that it would tank the mint set sales or compete. There have been lots of companies who have repackaged annual US mint products into their own sets and I doubt the US mint even noticed. First of all the mint could ensure that the cents are distributed in a non-competitive timeframe (ie., months after the mint sets are released) and second, collectors prefer the US mint packaging even if it's overpriced and especially if they don't know that the Franklin Mint, Coin TV Shopping channel, Modern Coin Mart, etc type organizations have a deal in place to produce the sets in Q4. I don't know if a $10M check would move the needle for the mint or not but a business could easily pay $1 for this $.037 product and really help the mint's bottom line which has been struggling a bit. In 2024 the net profit on numismatic items was $79M so yeah, a $10M order could be persuasive.
You have lost all credibility and been completely wrong on your assertions in the past. Your reply completely ignores that fact that companies such as the Postal Commemorative Society have produced their own US mint sets for years so no, US coin sets are not and have not been sold "exclusively by the US Mint." There are (or have been) alternatives.
@jmlanzaf said
Hope your health improves. That's more important than internet forums.
Thanks for the kind words. Appreciated.
Personal insults aside, the "Postal Commemorative Society" repackaging product it buys from the Mint is a very different thing from the Mint running the presses on consignment for them. All they did was resell product "sold exclusively by the US Mint."
If you think there is any chance at all that the Mint is going to become a competitor to Silver Towne or the Osborne Mint, debasing US currency by running private production on consignment, you are the one who has lost all credibility. No. They will continue to find creative ways to market NCLT and to jack up prices while so doing, but they are not going to cut their own legs out from under them by doing private runs of US legal tender for select Big Boys. Dream on.
Huh? While I agree the mint will not do coins on a legal consignment, they have done coins that were auctioned off as rarities by others outside of the mint. The Omega Lincoln Cents, the space Sacagawea, etc.
This is similar to consignment coins though, as they were probably advised on these. Why they did it, I don't know, but they could have gone the normal route and made more money selling in bulk themselves is my guess.
I would not say never with the mint though. Never is absolute, and with government there is no such thing.
Disagree. The US Mint using an auction house as a sales channel is not at all like consignments.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
"Consigning coins to an auction house is an effective way to sell rare, high-value, or certified (graded) coins to a wide audience of collectors, often maximizing returns."
Yall guys still carrying on about this...
We need a new topic somebody start a new thread like "Why do I care what the mint charges for modern coins I don't even collect in the first place".
I don't mind holes in my collection in fact I purposely step on cracks in the sidewalk.
That's the exact OPPOSITE. We were talking about the Mint taking consignment orders not consigning coins to auction.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm trying to think of a similar analogy to this set, but there is no good one. The closest? The 2017-S Enhanced Uncirculated Set. The 2017-S Lincoln Cent's availability is limited to the set's mintage of 210,419, slightly higher than the 2026 Mint Set's stated 190,000 product limit. I paid $29.95 for that set 9 years ago, and today I saw a dealer's ad that sells the set for $29 each, and 5 sets for $140.
There are some similarities. But there are bigger differences which favor the 2026 sets:
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Hope you aren’t suggesting that the cents will be found in change. I’m sure a few will make it into circulation, but finding one in change will be highly improbable. They will be readily available in the secondary market, graded and slabbed or raw. I’ve resolved to ignore coins not made for circulation as part of my type set. I’m not worried about the cost of keeping up, I just hate throwing money away.
No. Barring change in their planned offerings.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If it’s part of the annual Proof set, I will buy it. If it isn’t, I won’t have one.
I have given up on collecting these coins certified for a registry set. They have become impossible to purchase at reasonable prices. All of the Washington crossing the Delaware quarters I see offered are some esoteric die variety with a price tag over $75. Nothing is available at the shows. I made an effort to keep my type coin registry set complete, but it can’t be done without spending way too much.
Aha. Thanks. I wish they had simply ended the cent last year. Seems somehow an ignoble end to an iconic coin.