Options
2026 Uncirculated Coin Set in hand
Steve27
Posts: 13,284 ✭✭✭
For $130 I was expecting higher quality coins and much higher quality packaging:
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
4
Comments
I’ll buy it from you if you don’t like it..
That confirms what I have been saying. For circulation strike coins in base metal, they are nothing special and do not warrant such an absurd price. The Mint should have been prepared to make a few million sets at a reasonable and fair price.
But they didn't, so there are only 300,000 business strike cents available. That makes the $124.50 a reasonable price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
INYNWHWeTrust-TexasNationals,ajaan,blu62vette
coinJP, Outhaul ,illini420,MICHAELDIXON, Fade to Black,epcjimi1,19Lyds,SNMAN,JerseyJoe, bigjpst, DMWJR , lordmarcovan, Weiss,Mfriday4962,UtahCoin,Downtown1974,pitboss,RichieURich,Bullsitter,JDsCoins,toyz4geo,jshaulis, mustanggt, SNMAN, MWallace, ms71, lordmarcovan,JWP,dantheman984,olah_in_MA,USMC_6115
If you want the cent, you have to get them from the Unc mint sets and the Proof sets. I don't agree with the high price for the set, but the cents are bringing a premium price before and after they are graded (if you want to send the coins to a TPG). I will consider breaking up a clad proof set for the S cent but have not decided if I will break up a Mint set for the P & D cents. I have 3 Unc mint sets in the mail and have a subscription for 3 of the clad proof sets. I received the silver proof set las week in the mail.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
The market has determined that even at the issue price the mint sold these too cheap.
Seems so, if the Mint wanted to capture the entire potential profit. None have come back into inventory since a few Saturday. I would think the returns that pass muster would need repackaged before they hit the website again.
Why? They are EXACTLY as advertised. Right down to the packaging.
Totally agree. That said, these are 1,000,000% what they are designed to be. An overpriced money grab made possible by intentionally minting significantly below organic demand.
That's what makes them "special." Not the metallic content. Not the finish. Everyone knows this.
The are regular base metal annual sets. They should be minted to demand, and sold at a reasonable markup above the cost of production.
But they are not, and we all know this. So, the Mint made its decision, and now we get to make ours. Not complicated, and the packaging, finish and metallic content changes nothing.
Nothing will be coming back as long as they are Unavailable and are worth more than $124.50 on the secondary market. People are only picky when they can afford to be. Otherwise, they are perfectly fine living with less than perfection.
Whatever pops up in the few days after release is always due to delivery issues, or payment problems, because no one can actually receive them, return them, and have them inspected and placed back on sale so quickly. That's not how it works. Returns take weeks to be returned to inventory. Not days.
Isn't it 600,000 . . .300K from Denver, 300K from Philly ?
Mine look good , not sure what's going on with that Lincoln from the Denver mint you posted ?
P.S. I'm not saying I agree with the price .
High quality packaging has gone by boards at the mint. I used to love the wooden boxes, especially for the commemorative coins, but most people didn’t care because they got the coins certified. Now we pay high prices, and coins are packaged in cheap holders and boxes.
My one set has really, really nice coins with the very best being the Denver half - proofllke and very attractive. The two cent coins are very pleasant even though I do not like the shield reverse - and never have.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Yes, but date/mm counts. Or do you consider a 1909-S VDB to be the same as a 1909-S no VDB?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
But this is the final year of the cent, so I can understand paying that *
Haven't opened my set yet. Not sure when/if I will. I've got a nice silver proof set to look at.
I received my 2 sets and looked at each coin with a 10X loupe. They are definitely better quality than what the Mint put in sets in the 1970's - 1990's, but like the OP, I had hoped for near-perfection, considering the cost. I attempted to grade each coin, with these results.
Again, these are MY grades for the sets I received, not PCGS's.
Overall, the quality is quite good, and at first glance they're impressive, but coins were downgraded for nicks, scratches, and planchet defects. Three of the dimes had very noticeable scratches or gouges on Liberty's cheek, surprising because it's the smallest coin. The planchet defects were dimples or pits that were distracting. Only one coin was worthy of a 69 grade, IMO.
Are we positive this will be the last Lincoln cent ?
I'm not so sure ...
.
The Mint sure couldn't ask higher prices on their sets without them being in it...........
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Again , I'm not so sure !
Wait until a MS comes with a packaging error. 2 cents without the nickel. That would be quite a find.
A) they didn't show the poor quality cardboard box the set came in.
They didn't make it so that you can turn the individual coins if they're not straight (which they've done many times before).
C) These are all new types; thus, I was expecting a booklet explaining each one (again nothing new for them).
These are packaged just as they have been the last few years, there was no indication the cardboard box would be any better than it has been, although the graphic is special this year, or that there would be the ability to turn the coins, or that there would be a special booklet. The set is as it has been for a number of years, and there was no claim from the USM of anything else. It was advertised clearly and, if ordered, was received as advertised.
mint sets come in crappy cardboard. been that way
The coins look better than in the past thou .... Just my opinion ?
Just got my 10 sets. Horrible!!! The Lincolns are especially disappointing. They look like they came directly out of a ballistic bag. There are none worth grading. The whole batch of coins received no special treatment. I wouldn't submit a single coin from the entire 10 sets. They look flashy and to an untrained eye I'm sure they look excellent. I have been examining and submitting Mint set coins for over 20 years and this year may be the worst I have seen in many years. The packaging is quite flimsy as expected but here's a pic of the second set I opened:
I didn't expect Superb gems and never have from Mint sets but these sets are garbage. For $35-40 per set I would not complain. But at almost $125 this is hard to swallow. Sure the dual dated Lincolns are worth a serious premium but I certainly expected a few decent examples. I found nothing in any set that would grade over 66. End of rant. I hope everyone else gets better quality sets but I seriously doubt my small sample is a fluke. Expect flashy coins but I would not waste your money on grading unless you really know how to grade!
Oh no, sorry, that was then and this is now.
I liked the old mint sets in the cardboard with the green paper flaps over them, they toned nicely in that packaging and were easier to get out.
Now, the mint cannot even make a few hundred Omega cents without getting their grubby fingerprints on them in the modern era. And don't even think about getting a couple cents made from 95% copper for only $124.50. :'(
I went to the all knowing ChatGPT and asked it to do a detailed analysis of current information and what the chance was that there would be cents struck for 2027 in the mint and proof sets -- came back 95-98% probability that there would be. So I have just out-sourced my guessing to ChatGPT.
I would also note that the Mint has cents listed in the current 2027 set information, for what things that the Mint says are worth anything.
Straight from the description of the 2026 Silver Proof Set on the mint's web site:
"Note: In the Fall of 2025, the United States Mint officially struck the final “circulating” one-cent coins, marking the end of over 230 years of continuous production for everyday commerce. While the Mint will no longer produce circulating pennies, we will continue to produce numismatic (collectible) pennies. Going forward, our numismatic penny can be found in the following United States Mint’s annual products such as the Proof Set, Silver Proof Set and Uncirculated Set."
If in fact they do .... I wish for a new design on the reverse !!
So how much will it cost for me to buy 1 of these horrible sets?
I just received one set and opened it up. I agree with @Manorcourtman on quality. Lots of marks, dings and scrapes. A majority of the coins are probably MS64. Some may be less with the substantial scrapes. I'd be surprised if I have a 66 in the set. Overall disappointing. I can only hope there will be something better in the next couple sets when they show up.
Wow.... mine look good , good luck with your next order !
see pop reports for statement on previous years quality
I'm not sure the pop reports are very helpful for the "average" grade of sets. No one submits unscreened. The pop reports do indicate how rare 68s are, but doesn't indicate how common 64s are. It also is impossible to separate Mint sets from circulation coins.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Are the 2026 Lincoln cents zinc or bronze ?
copper-plated zinc
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Zinc
.
What the hell is wrong with them (the US Mint, I mean) ?
The 2009 mint set Lincoln Cents were solid bronze.
I realize that the US Mint may have tons (literally) of left-over zinc cent blanks.
But couldn't they spend five cents more to make the 2026 cents in sold bronze instead of the lowly copper-plated zinc ?
.
It’s up to you now.
I totally agree.
How long do you think it will be before someone makes an account here on the forum to ask if the zinc blisters on the 2026 cent they bought for $100 on eBay are some rare mint error?
I don't know what the cost of that would be, but I'm sure they COULD have found a supplier of blanks. I'm not sure it makes any real difference. They are what they are and they are the only business strike 2026 cents. I had 20 of them come in this week and they all sold in 24 hours at $185 each. No one even asked for a discount.
It will be interesting to see what the longer term price trajectory is on these. And it will be interesting to see what the 2027 sets do.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm not sure you can make the claim that "no one" submits unscreened. The pop reports for the 2026-P half dollars make it appear that someone dropped off about 10 cases of half dollars to PCGS to be graded with no minimum grade specified. That's really the only explanation for these numbers.
Note that while I took the screenshot today, the bulk of these figures was present a month ago before the UNC set release.
I was looking at prior years. Maybe someone with bulk submission privileges was running a retail promotion on the halves. If you look at prior years for regular clad coinage, you see a lot of 66 and 67 with very few 68s. You also have no idea whether these came from Mint sets (likely) or rolls (at least some, I'm sure). So, I reiterate my point (with the possible exception of 2026 half dollars): you can't tell anything about the "average" grade of Mint sets because you can't see what coins came from Mint sets. And the distributions are largely 66 and 67 with rare 68s and 65/64s because people pre-screen.
While your halves data is interesting, it is the exception BY FAR. If you just look at halves from prior years, the 2026 submission is more halves than were submitted in the previous THIRTY years COMBINED. In fact, the 52,000 SemiQ halves is more than 70% of the total number of Type 3 halves submitted between 1971 and 2025!!!! That's 54 years. That is nowhere near normal behavior, for whatever reason.
And, your halves data doesn't even refute my point that NO ONE submits Mint Sets unscreened because, in your own response, those are not Mint Sets. The reason is obvious, but I'll point it out to you: if you submit a 20 piece Mint Set unscreened to PCGS, you are going to be paying a WHOLE LOT OF GRADING FEES for coins that have no chance of being worth the price of submission.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No. It would literally not add one cent to what people would be willing to pay, which is already through the roof, so there is no need.
The new business model is to squeeze every last cent out of us. That's why the pricing is where it is, the packaging is where it is, the mintage is where it is, etc. No need to go source special blanks at additional cost when there is no financial return, and no one is demanding it. Period.
.> @NJCoin said:
.
That is false. You can't know what all other people are thinking, and claiming that you do is untrue.
I don't speak for other people, but I personally would buy one or more if they were bronze.
But in the zinc composition, I will pass.
.
Okay, fine. Be literal if you want, but they are having no problem selling as many as they want to sell at $124.50, in zinc, without you, and without everyone else staying away because they are not bronze. So there's that.
It's a fact that they are currently squeezing as much as they can out of every release, and cutting whatever corners they can cut with respect to QC and packaging. So thinking they would consider to go out of their way to add any cost at all, no matter how nominal, is just dreaming.
They don't have to, and, under current leadership, do not. No matter how many more you might buy if they only sourced bronze cent planchets.
“Be literal if you want?” You were the one that said “It literally would not add one cent..” So your usage of “literal” was not meant to be literal?? 😂😆
Yes. Be literal in "people would pay," because, literally, there is at least one person. Not necessarily that he would pay more, but that he would buy more. Which is swell, but irrelevant, given that they all sold out in zinc.
I heard he'd pay an extra nickel. Or, maybe not. Maybe he just thought the Mint should just throw the nickel in since it was selling $6 worth of pocket change for $124.50. Either way, would he pay an extra $5? $10? $50? Again, irrelevant.
The Mint priced them at $124.50 and sold all 300K. In zinc. Maybe they could have gotten $150. Maybe not.
Doesn't matter because, very obviously, it's the relative scarcity of the cent that is driving sales, not their metallic content. Because the Mint sold all it wanted to, in zinc. They clearly did not want to go to the trouble of sourcing bronze to please a cent connoisseur, because they didn't feel that would be necessary to sell what they wanted at the price they wanted. They were correct.
I wish all the coins were silver, including the cent. I too would have bought more at $124.50. Also doesn't matter.