If they were smart they would put half of them in with ordinary bank rolls. Of course they have been ordered to not MINT any more for circulation, which does not bar them from minting them for "collectors" like commemoratives or medals. I assume these will go into the uncirculated or proof mint sets. right? or not?
“When you don't know what you're talking about, it's hard to know when you're finished.” - Tommy Smothers
@rooksmith said:
If they were smart they would put half of them in with ordinary bank rolls. Of course they have been ordered to not MINT any more for circulation, which does not bar them from minting them for "collectors" like commemoratives or medals. I assume these will go into the uncirculated or proof mint sets. right? or not?
They are all in either Mint or Proof sets. That's the whole point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Maybe I need to look through my 10 mint sets from 2025, one cent could pay for the whole lot, although unlikely. I see that there are 110 P and only 12 D in MS68RD for 2025. I'd be more than happy with a 67RD, but that is still a stretch it seems. But looking at EBay, the wiser move is probably just to sell of 8 of them around $130 since I only paid 33.25 each and keep the two that have the nicest looking cents.
@ChrisH821 said:
190,000 is not a small number, and they will all be within MS68-70 range from mint sets.
OK fine, replace "MS68-70 range" that I said above with "very high grade". Same idea. There will be a lot of high grade examples for a very long time. The people paying high prices now are speculating, and IMO they are going to be upset when the bubble pops.
190,000, with almost a 100% survival rate is a very high mintage to support high prices. Depending on how the supply of MS-68 to 70 and PR-70 coins is controlled, those prices could be high to support the registry market, but anything that is "run of the mill" will come down in price in future years.
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 ... ?
If they're going to offer subscriptions, there shouldn't be a mintage limit.
Huh? Why not? There's also a subscription limit.
Because they can mint to demand. It's one thing to say "We're minting 100,000 of something and it goes on sale on Day X" it's another thing to say "We're minting 100,000 and if you didn't subscribe during the first few days after it was announced, six months before Day X, you missed out. So sorry."
If they're going to offer subscriptions, there shouldn't be a mintage limit.
Huh? Why not? There's also a subscription limit.
Because they can mint to demand. It's one thing to say "We're minting 100,000 of something and it goes on sale on Day X" it's another thing to say "We're minting 100,000 and if you didn't subscribe during the first few days after it was announced, six months before Day X, you missed out. So sorry."
Subscriptions go on for years. None of these products had new subscriptions for just this product.
And while I can see the point about mintage limits, I fail to see why you wouldn't be against them in all cases...other than none of them would be worth owning with unlimited mintages.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If they're going to offer subscriptions, there shouldn't be a mintage limit.
Huh? Why not? There's also a subscription limit.
Because they can mint to demand. It's one thing to say "We're minting 100,000 of something and it goes on sale on Day X" it's another thing to say "We're minting 100,000 and if you didn't subscribe during the first few days after it was announced, six months before Day X, you missed out. So sorry."
Subscriptions go on for years. None of these products had new subscriptions for just this product.
And while I can see the point about mintage limits, I fail to see why you wouldn't be against them in all cases...other than none of them would be worth owning with unlimited mintages.
While these boards aren’t representative of the general populace, there have been numerous people here commenting on grabbing many subscriptions for the 2026 annual sets in the last few months.
I did t say anything about “all cases.” Just subscriptions
@nurmaler said:
Based on current mintage numbers (though they're all from the subscription tabs and definitely may change)...
It looks like we'll have...
190,000 Uncirculated Philadelphia - no Mint Mark
190,000 Uncirculated Denver-D
571,522 Proof San Francisco - S (420,002 from the Proof Set and 151,520 from the Silver Proof Set)
If this holds, is there anyway that these aren't a home run?
What would you estimate they'll sell for - raw-ungraded/graded?
@nurmaler said:
Based on current mintage numbers (though they're all from the subscription tabs and definitely may change)...
It looks like we'll have...
190,000 Uncirculated Philadelphia - no Mint Mark
190,000 Uncirculated Denver-D
571,522 Proof San Francisco - S (420,002 from the Proof Set and 151,520 from the Silver Proof Set)
If this holds, is there anyway that these aren't a home run?
What would you estimate they'll sell for - raw-ungraded/graded?
It now looks like there'll be 300k Ps and Ds
Look for the San Fran's to rise as well, since the Silver Proof Set appears to have more ATS at this time than the 151,520 former limit
@nurmaler said:
Based on current mintage numbers (though they're all from the subscription tabs and definitely may change)...
It looks like we'll have...
190,000 Uncirculated Philadelphia - no Mint Mark
190,000 Uncirculated Denver-D
571,522 Proof San Francisco - S (420,002 from the Proof Set and 151,520 from the Silver Proof Set)
If this holds, is there anyway that these aren't a home run?
What would you estimate they'll sell for - raw-ungraded/graded?
It now looks like there'll be 300k Ps and Ds
Thanks for the heads up on that increase, that decreases the value of the set IMO, so I'll cut my sub of 10 to a lower number, all I really want is the cents to send in to our host. Mint greed seems to be on the way to killing off sets for average collectors.
@nurmaler said:
Based on current mintage numbers (though they're all from the subscription tabs and definitely may change)...
It looks like we'll have...
190,000 Uncirculated Philadelphia - no Mint Mark
190,000 Uncirculated Denver-D
571,522 Proof San Francisco - S (420,002 from the Proof Set and 151,520 from the Silver Proof Set)
If this holds, is there anyway that these aren't a home run?
What would you estimate they'll sell for - raw-ungraded/graded?
It now looks like there'll be 300k Ps and Ds
Look for the San Fran's to rise as well, since the Silver Proof Set appears to have more ATS at this time than the 151,520 former limit
Yes, interesting. I had opined about this earlier in the year as a general question because they have not been indicating the item limits on the specific product page until right before they go on sale and all of the subscription "product limits" were last year's numbers. At the time, the only one we were watching closely was the Congratulations Set that was released early and they did adjust the number down to 60,000. The others are all, possibly, deceptive as they apply to the generic description and not a specific product, in most cases.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@nurmaler said:
Based on current mintage numbers (though they're all from the subscription tabs and definitely may change)...
It looks like we'll have...
190,000 Uncirculated Philadelphia - no Mint Mark
190,000 Uncirculated Denver-D
571,522 Proof San Francisco - S (420,002 from the Proof Set and 151,520 from the Silver Proof Set)
If this holds, is there anyway that these aren't a home run?
What would you estimate they'll sell for - raw-ungraded/graded?
It now looks like there'll be 300k Ps and Ds
Look for the San Fran's to rise as well, since the Silver Proof Set appears to have more ATS at this time than the 151,520 former limit
Yes, interesting. I had opined about this earlier in the year as a general question because they have not been indicating the item limits on the specific product page until right before they go on sale and all of the subscription "product limits" were last year's numbers. At the time, the only one we were watching closely was the Congratulations Set that was released early and they did adjust the number down to 60,000. The others are all, possibly, deceptive as they apply to the generic description and not a specific product, in most cases.
Your observation was something that 99% of other collectors missed, and that was that the limits were LAST YEAR"S numbers and not indicative of where 2026 would fall. Now that we know what the Mint has theoretically planned (as we know they haven't honored product limits on at least 3 items thus far in 2026) the market will adjust to the new reality that the Mint (at these prices) has taken on more of a secondary market pricing scheme.
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Heubschgold said:
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
I am not sure when this started or if has consistently been the case, but I recall the "special press" description starting many years ago.
I think it started around the time of the burnished sets.
That might be true but I think I recalled it from the 1970s Ike era. I thought the uncirculated Ikes and mint sets were struck on those slower, higher pressure (medal?) presses.
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
You would discern the difference if you sent them all in for grading. Coins coming out of sets consistently grade higher than those pulled from rolls, bags or circulation.
It has been this way forever. Aside from special presses, they also receive special handling. Coins in the blisters are not nearly as banged up as those pulled from rolls, even if they are not 70s.
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
You would discern the difference if you sent them all in for grading. Coins coming out of sets consistently grade higher than those pulled from rolls, bags or circulation.
It has been this way forever. Aside from special presses, they also receive special handling. Coins in the blisters are not nearly as banged up as those pulled from rolls, even if they are not 70s.
Yes, but the reason they grade higher is because of the handling, not because the minting process which is what we are discussing. The question is can you take a coin from each method of manufacture and see a different in the product, not which one has less bag marks.
@Heubschgold said:
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
I am not sure when this started or if has consistently been the case, but I recall the "special press" description starting many years ago.
I think it started around the time of the burnished sets.
That might be true but I think I recalled it from the 1970s Ike era. I thought the uncirculated Ikes and mint sets were struck on those slower, higher pressure (medal?) presses.
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
Yes, that sounds about right.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
Yes, that sounds about right.
About how many “better coin” submissions yielded 1-2 67’s and 4-5 65/66’s?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
It has been true since 1965 but wasn't admitted by the mint until 1996. The higher pressure was admitted even later. The coins are almost invariably struck only once but most or all years with greater pressure than the proof coins. Perhaps more importantly for those seeking true Gems the dies are swapped out after only 40,000 strikes (25c in the '90's). Even the most worn dies in mint sets are fresher than 95% of the coins made for circulation. They also tend to be struck on the older and slower presses leaving more time for the dies to fill. Dies sometimes get a little special handling and often times since about 1965 planchets are burnished by being polished in a bath of small steel spheres.
Most mint set coins look pretty mediocre until you compare them with the coins made for circulation. While Gems can be found from both sources finding them in sets is like shooting fish in a barrel. Some years I never saw a Gem made for circulation but in mint sets they tend to be around 2% with a range of .2 to 6%. There's a lot of consistency around 2%.
Mint set coins should be removed from the packaging and stabilized in acetone and this especially applies to sets made before 1981.
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
@Heubschgold said:
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
You would discern the difference if you sent them all in for grading. Coins coming out of sets consistently grade higher than those pulled from rolls, bags or circulation.
It has been this way forever. Aside from special presses, they also receive special handling. Coins in the blisters are not nearly as banged up as those pulled from rolls, even if they are not 70s.
Yes, but the reason they grade higher is because of the handling, not because the minting process which is what we are discussing. The question is can you take a coin from each method of manufacture and see a different in the product, not which one has less bag marks.
@CaptHenway has said that on his tour of the mint set facilities (The Mint's Secret Coins)(COINage Kari Stone Oct 2000) that hew saw them put the mint set coins in a device like a cement mixer with ground up corn cobs to dry them. Many years the coins in the mint sets get chewed up in this process. Some dates like the '80-D half dollar are almost always scratched on the highest points by the device that loads the sets. 1980 was apparently the first year that this was fully automated and no one noticed the half dollars were getting a wide scratch. Before 1980 you could find entire sets composed of only Gems and a very few of these could be mistaken for proof sets. I believe this was mostly just horseplay because there were also an even fewer number of sets that were all dogs.
A lot of mint set coins are unmarked. It probably runs as high as 30% in the older sets but you could also find bags that had a high percentage of clean coins. The difference is that most of the bag coins were poorly made by worn dies and lots of the mint set coins were fully struck by new dies. If you can find BU rolls they're worth the effort to collect but most of them are unavailable because they weren't saved.
There is a very high correlation between pops and the incidence of that coin in mint sets.
@ProofCollection said:
I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
Technically there is no difference because the coins were usually made by the same process. But in the real world the difference is extreme. Just get a few BU roll coins and a few mint set coins of the same date and compare them closely. Usually every mint set coin will be better struck than the roll coins and they'll have been struck by fresher dies. If you find a BU roll coin as well made you might notice slightly more detail on the mint sert coin because of the higher striking pressure.
In most cases the mint set coins are better centered as well.
@Heubschgold said:
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
I am not sure when this started or if has consistently been the case, but I recall the "special press" description starting many years ago.
I think it started around the time of the burnished sets.
That might be true but I think I recalled it from the 1970s Ike era. I thought the uncirculated Ikes and mint sets were struck on those slower, higher pressure (medal?) presses.
Sorry, I was yacking with my AI about the nature of abstraction and its recursion vis a vis scientific paradigms and the Waggle Dance. Funny how things evolve.
More topically, I've always believed people should buy sets when they're three years old on the secondary market because they are far cheaper and you get your pick but someday sets aren't going to go down after issue and are going to go straight up.
@cladking said:
More topically, I've always believed people should buy sets when they're three years old on the secondary market because they are far cheaper and you get your pick but someday sets aren't going to go down after issue and are going to go straight up.
Yes, straight up from $124.50...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
(re; Engineer recollections support slower, higher‑pressure runs for certain products.)
Prompt-
Just say the word and I’ll pull together a clean, structured digest. -yes, please.
Response
See my thinking
Overview
You’re right: the really interesting details live in engineers’ recollections, not in glossy Mint summaries. What follows is a synthetic digest of what those interviews and technical recollections generally say—without pretending there’s a magic quote that solves the medal‑press question.
Press types and capabilities
Coining presses:
High‑speed, multi‑out (often four‑coin) presses used for normal production. Adjustable for:
ram speed
striking pressure
die spacing
feed rate
Medal presses:
Single‑piece, slower, higher‑pressure presses used for:
medals
some commemoratives
experimental or very low‑volume work
Engineers consistently describe medal presses as capacity‑limited and unsuitable for large‑scale coin runs like Ikes or mint sets.
How they actually improved strike quality
Engineers repeatedly mention that when they wanted “better coins” (for proofs, special issues, or sometimes mint‑set runs), they did not necessarily change press type—they changed settings:
Slowed the cycle (lower strokes per minute)
Increased striking pressure
Tightened die spacing
Improved planchet prep (cleaner, more uniform)
Ran smaller batches with closer monitoring
Those adjustments alone produce exactly what you’ve observed:
stronger rims
deeper metal flow
more complete detail
smoother, more “medal‑like” surfaces
No medal press required—just a coining press run like the operator actually cares.
Proof vs. business vs. mint‑set striking
From engineer recollections and internal practice:
Proofs:
Dedicated presses or dedicated setups
Much slower speed
Higher pressure
Multiple strikes (where applicable)
Aggressive planchet prep and die polishing
Business strikes:
Maximum throughput
Standard pressure
Minimal adjustment once “good enough”
Mint‑set coins (in some eras):
Same press type as business strikes
But:
slightly slower speed
slightly higher pressure
better planchet selection
Treated as “better business strikes,” not as proofs
This matches your “I can see they were struck slower and harder” observation, without requiring a different machine.
What they say about Ikes and the late‑60s/early‑70s period
In the Ike / SF era, engineers describe:
Four‑coin coining presses doing the bulk of the work
Ongoing experiments with pressure and speed to:
reduce die breakage
improve metal flow on the big planchets
get acceptable detail without killing dies
They do not say “we put mint‑set Ikes on medal presses,” but they do say:
some runs were done at reduced speed
some runs used higher pressure
some products expected to be saved (collector issues) got more careful setups
Again: your eyes are right about the effect; the paperwork points to tuned coining presses, not a different class of press.
How this lines up with your model
So, in compressed form:
You’re right that mint‑set coins and some Ikes look like they were struck slower and harder.
Engineer recollections support slower, higher‑pressure runs for certain products.
Capacity and documentation both point to four‑coin coining presses, not medal presses.
The “1964 proof presses to SF” story is plausible as lore, but not clearly documented.
If you ever do get your hands on Burdette‑level archival material, the place to look isn’t for “medal press” as a phrase—it’s for press settings, stroke rates, and special‑run notes. That’s where your observational model will either be confirmed or sharpened.
Re; my story mentioned above about my 1981 tour of the Denver Mint's mint set packaging area. That literally was a small cement mixer being used to degrease the coins by tumbling them along with dried crushed corn cobs. The kind used on small construction sites. Don't think that it had ever actually been used to mix concrete, however.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Comments
for 2025(P) there are 109 ms68rd and none finer
https://www.ebay.com/itm/377016594103
Subscriptions.
fka renman95, Sep 2005, 7,000 posts
Yeah, they generally don't come better than 68s.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If they were smart they would put half of them in with ordinary bank rolls. Of course they have been ordered to not MINT any more for circulation, which does not bar them from minting them for "collectors" like commemoratives or medals. I assume these will go into the uncirculated or proof mint sets. right? or not?
They are all in either Mint or Proof sets. That's the whole point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Maybe I need to look through my 10 mint sets from 2025, one cent could pay for the whole lot, although unlikely. I see that there are 110 P and only 12 D in MS68RD for 2025. I'd be more than happy with a 67RD, but that is still a stretch it seems. But looking at EBay, the wiser move is probably just to sell of 8 of them around $130 since I only paid 33.25 each and keep the two that have the nicest looking cents.
And I'm still hoping against hope that the Mint uses 95% copper for the 2026 cents like back in 2009.
.
OK fine, replace "MS68-70 range" that I said above with "very high grade". Same idea. There will be a lot of high grade examples for a very long time. The people paying high prices now are speculating, and IMO they are going to be upset when the bubble pops.
Collector, occasional seller
190,000, with almost a 100% survival rate is a very high mintage to support high prices. Depending on how the supply of MS-68 to 70 and PR-70 coins is controlled, those prices could be high to support the registry market, but anything that is "run of the mill" will come down in price in future years.
If they're going to offer subscriptions, there shouldn't be a mintage limit.
Huh? Why not? There's also a subscription limit.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Because they can mint to demand. It's one thing to say "We're minting 100,000 of something and it goes on sale on Day X" it's another thing to say "We're minting 100,000 and if you didn't subscribe during the first few days after it was announced, six months before Day X, you missed out. So sorry."
Subscriptions go on for years. None of these products had new subscriptions for just this product.
And while I can see the point about mintage limits, I fail to see why you wouldn't be against them in all cases...other than none of them would be worth owning with unlimited mintages.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
While these boards aren’t representative of the general populace, there have been numerous people here commenting on grabbing many subscriptions for the 2026 annual sets in the last few months.
I did t say anything about “all cases.” Just subscriptions
It now looks like there'll be 300k Ps and Ds
Let's regroup on the expected value of the cents.
Look for the San Fran's to rise as well, since the Silver Proof Set appears to have more ATS at this time than the 151,520 former limit
Thanks for the heads up on that increase, that decreases the value of the set IMO, so I'll cut my sub of 10 to a lower number, all I really want is the cents to send in to our host. Mint greed seems to be on the way to killing off sets for average collectors.
Yes, interesting. I had opined about this earlier in the year as a general question because they have not been indicating the item limits on the specific product page until right before they go on sale and all of the subscription "product limits" were last year's numbers. At the time, the only one we were watching closely was the Congratulations Set that was released early and they did adjust the number down to 60,000. The others are all, possibly, deceptive as they apply to the generic description and not a specific product, in most cases.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Your observation was something that 99% of other collectors missed, and that was that the limits were LAST YEAR"S numbers and not indicative of where 2026 would fall. Now that we know what the Mint has theoretically planned (as we know they haven't honored product limits on at least 3 items thus far in 2026) the market will adjust to the new reality that the Mint (at these prices) has taken on more of a secondary market pricing scheme.
"U.S. Mint uncirculated coins are struck on special presses using greater force than what is used for circulating coins, producing a sharp, intricately detailed image. The coins are sealed in blisters and displayed in folders."-- US Mint
Has the above specification always been the case for uncirculated annual sets or is this "special press" use new for this 2026 set?
Seems like this 'greater force' would produce higher grade coins MS65 and above ???
May the force be with you!
They are generally all 65 to 68.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I am not sure when this started or if has consistently been the case, but I recall the "special press" description starting many years ago.
I think it started around the time of the burnished sets.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That might be true but I think I recalled it from the 1970s Ike era. I thought the uncirculated Ikes and mint sets were struck on those slower, higher pressure (medal?) presses.
Where's @cladking when you need him? 🧐
I was going to start a thread about this. I cannot discern the difference between coins from an UNC set and coins from rolls for circulations. Can anyone else tell?
For years I have opened up mint sets and submitted the better coins. At PCGS, 68s are very rare, 1-2 coins will be 67, 4-5 will be MS65s & MS66s, and sometimes you'll get an MS64. But that's not because of strike quality. That's because of how they are handled after minting.
soft strikes don't make a coin 65, contact marks do
You would discern the difference if you sent them all in for grading. Coins coming out of sets consistently grade higher than those pulled from rolls, bags or circulation.
It has been this way forever. Aside from special presses, they also receive special handling. Coins in the blisters are not nearly as banged up as those pulled from rolls, even if they are not 70s.
Yes, but the reason they grade higher is because of the handling, not because the minting process which is what we are discussing. The question is can you take a coin from each method of manufacture and see a different in the product, not which one has less bag marks.
Beetlejuice
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Yes, that sounds about right.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
About how many “better coin” submissions yielded 1-2 67’s and 4-5 65/66’s?
It has been true since 1965 but wasn't admitted by the mint until 1996. The higher pressure was admitted even later. The coins are almost invariably struck only once but most or all years with greater pressure than the proof coins. Perhaps more importantly for those seeking true Gems the dies are swapped out after only 40,000 strikes (25c in the '90's). Even the most worn dies in mint sets are fresher than 95% of the coins made for circulation. They also tend to be struck on the older and slower presses leaving more time for the dies to fill. Dies sometimes get a little special handling and often times since about 1965 planchets are burnished by being polished in a bath of small steel spheres.
Most mint set coins look pretty mediocre until you compare them with the coins made for circulation. While Gems can be found from both sources finding them in sets is like shooting fish in a barrel. Some years I never saw a Gem made for circulation but in mint sets they tend to be around 2% with a range of .2 to 6%. There's a lot of consistency around 2%.
Mint set coins should be removed from the packaging and stabilized in acetone and this especially applies to sets made before 1981.
Sounds like West Point Mint presses
@CaptHenway has said that on his tour of the mint set facilities (The Mint's Secret Coins)(COINage Kari Stone Oct 2000) that hew saw them put the mint set coins in a device like a cement mixer with ground up corn cobs to dry them. Many years the coins in the mint sets get chewed up in this process. Some dates like the '80-D half dollar are almost always scratched on the highest points by the device that loads the sets. 1980 was apparently the first year that this was fully automated and no one noticed the half dollars were getting a wide scratch. Before 1980 you could find entire sets composed of only Gems and a very few of these could be mistaken for proof sets. I believe this was mostly just horseplay because there were also an even fewer number of sets that were all dogs.
A lot of mint set coins are unmarked. It probably runs as high as 30% in the older sets but you could also find bags that had a high percentage of clean coins. The difference is that most of the bag coins were poorly made by worn dies and lots of the mint set coins were fully struck by new dies. If you can find BU rolls they're worth the effort to collect but most of them are unavailable because they weren't saved.
There is a very high correlation between pops and the incidence of that coin in mint sets.
Technically there is no difference because the coins were usually made by the same process. But in the real world the difference is extreme. Just get a few BU roll coins and a few mint set coins of the same date and compare them closely. Usually every mint set coin will be better struck than the roll coins and they'll have been struck by fresher dies. If you find a BU roll coin as well made you might notice slightly more detail on the mint sert coin because of the higher striking pressure.
In most cases the mint set coins are better centered as well.
Sorry, I was yacking with my AI about the nature of abstraction and its recursion vis a vis scientific paradigms and the Waggle Dance. Funny how things evolve.
More topically, I've always believed people should buy sets when they're three years old on the secondary market because they are far cheaper and you get your pick but someday sets aren't going to go down after issue and are going to go straight up.
Yes, straight up from $124.50...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The conversation led to;
(re; Engineer recollections support slower, higher‑pressure runs for certain products.)
Prompt-
Just say the word and I’ll pull together a clean, structured digest. -yes, please.
Response
See my thinking
Overview
You’re right: the really interesting details live in engineers’ recollections, not in glossy Mint summaries. What follows is a synthetic digest of what those interviews and technical recollections generally say—without pretending there’s a magic quote that solves the medal‑press question.
Coining presses:
High‑speed, multi‑out (often four‑coin) presses used for normal production. Adjustable for:
ram speed
striking pressure
die spacing
feed rate
Medal presses:
Single‑piece, slower, higher‑pressure presses used for:
medals
some commemoratives
experimental or very low‑volume work
Engineers consistently describe medal presses as capacity‑limited and unsuitable for large‑scale coin runs like Ikes or mint sets.
Engineers repeatedly mention that when they wanted “better coins” (for proofs, special issues, or sometimes mint‑set runs), they did not necessarily change press type—they changed settings:
Slowed the cycle (lower strokes per minute)
Increased striking pressure
Tightened die spacing
Improved planchet prep (cleaner, more uniform)
Ran smaller batches with closer monitoring
Those adjustments alone produce exactly what you’ve observed:
stronger rims
deeper metal flow
more complete detail
smoother, more “medal‑like” surfaces
No medal press required—just a coining press run like the operator actually cares.
From engineer recollections and internal practice:
Proofs:
Dedicated presses or dedicated setups
Much slower speed
Higher pressure
Multiple strikes (where applicable)
Aggressive planchet prep and die polishing
Business strikes:
Maximum throughput
Standard pressure
Minimal adjustment once “good enough”
Mint‑set coins (in some eras):
Same press type as business strikes
But:
slightly slower speed
slightly higher pressure
better planchet selection
Treated as “better business strikes,” not as proofs
This matches your “I can see they were struck slower and harder” observation, without requiring a different machine.
In the Ike / SF era, engineers describe:
Four‑coin coining presses doing the bulk of the work
Ongoing experiments with pressure and speed to:
reduce die breakage
improve metal flow on the big planchets
get acceptable detail without killing dies
They do not say “we put mint‑set Ikes on medal presses,” but they do say:
some runs were done at reduced speed
some runs used higher pressure
some products expected to be saved (collector issues) got more careful setups
Again: your eyes are right about the effect; the paperwork points to tuned coining presses, not a different class of press.
So, in compressed form:
You’re right that mint‑set coins and some Ikes look like they were struck slower and harder.
Engineer recollections support slower, higher‑pressure runs for certain products.
Capacity and documentation both point to four‑coin coining presses, not medal presses.
The “1964 proof presses to SF” story is plausible as lore, but not clearly documented.
If you ever do get your hands on Burdette‑level archival material, the place to look isn’t for “medal press” as a phrase—it’s for press settings, stroke rates, and special‑run notes. That’s where your observational model will either be confirmed or sharpened.
Re; my story mentioned above about my 1981 tour of the Denver Mint's mint set packaging area. That literally was a small cement mixer being used to degrease the coins by tumbling them along with dried crushed corn cobs. The kind used on small construction sites. Don't think that it had ever actually been used to mix concrete, however.
TD