Semiquincentennial Proof Set 2026
What is everyone's thoughts on the proof set coming out later this year? The mintage limit is currently set at 480,000 and it looks like the subscriptions have been sold out a long time ago. the set includes the quarters (mayflower compact, revolutionary war, declaration of independence, U.S. constitution, and the gettysburg address), along wit hthe enduring liberty half dollar, emerging liberty dime, penny (Cent) , nickel, and Dollar coin. I have subscriptions for this set, but having second thoughts on the affordability because there's so many "surprise" releases. Fomo has hit me hard this year & i feel like i'm stretching myself too thin. Do you think I should release some of my subscriptions and save the funds for something else this year?
Comments
-
A proof cent is a proof cent...whether from the silver proof set or the clad proof set. Correct? Either way, doubt it will be considered a tough coin.
4 -
@shortnock said:
A proof cent is a proof cent...whether from the silver proof set or the clad proof set. Correct? Either way, doubt it will be considered a tough coin.This. There's going to be more proof cents this year than the last couple of years. That will not be a key coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
3 -
Nice and all but theres just to much hype on the cent is right. Will be watching
0 -
@shortnock said:
A proof cent is a proof cent...whether from the silver proof set or the clad proof set. Correct? Either way, doubt it will be considered a tough coin..
Right - although keeping it in the set may be the way to go. Who knows how many sets will be broken to try for a PF70 grade -"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
1 -
Any mintage increases on the P or D cents? Seems like the S is going to be 3x as common.
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan, USMarine6, ad4400, grote15, coinbuf, Gothat3rs, No Headlights, PROMETHIUS88, Harlequin, Coin Finder, Coins3675, CKcollectibles20 -
@DesertCoin said:
Any mintage increases on the P or D cents? Seems like the S is going to be 3x as common.No.
Yes. The proof cent is more common and no scarcer than recent proofs. It is a one year type, but that's about all it's got going for it. But I'm not sure that makes it a good buy at the release price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
1 -
Lincoln Cent collectors will have to purchase it. Either that or purchase the single coin later.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon0 -
The mint set 2026 P&D cents are the only ones I would consider purchasing.
0 -
I think the Mint has been price gouging everyone over the last couple of years. One can only hope that there is long term demand and these don't end up like the majority of other U.S. Mint and proof sets from the modern era. The only coins that I even find close to palatable are some of the "Best of Mint" coins, but with the inflated price of gold and silver in the current model, I wouldn't buy those. I'm sure there will be opportunities to buy them later. The question is whether the prices will hold if (when) gold prices fall.
3 -
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
Many happy BST transactions2 -
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
1 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
Yes. Odd.
Due to the controversial nature of the coin, it's very "odd" that they chose not to risk alienating annual set collectors who might be offended by the very notion that a coin featuring a living sitting president, any living sitting sitting president, let alone one with the popularity of the current living sitting president, in any way, shape of form actually commemorated the Semiquincentennial, when they don't need to include them in the sets in order to get them in the hands of those who want them.
Very odd indeed. No. The only odd thing here is your surprise, given your recognition that making the comment risked "stirring the pot."
0 -
Well i got the email yesterday to confirm my subscription, so i'm most likely going to keep my subscriptions.
0 -
@NJCoin said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
Yes. Odd.
Due to the controversial nature of the coin, it's very "odd" that they chose not to risk alienating annual set collectors who might be offended by the very notion that a coin featuring a living sitting president, any living sitting sitting president, let alone one with the popularity of the current living sitting president, in any way, shape of form actually commemorated the Semiquincentennial, when they don't need to include them in the sets in order to get them in the hands of those who want them.
Very odd indeed. No. The only odd thing here is your surprise, given your recognition that making the comment risked "stirring the pot."
And you just re-stirred the pot with a paint mixing paddle on an electric drill. Congratulations.
4 -
Here we go . . . . . . . . . . .
Successful BST transactions: EagleEye, Christos, Proofmorgan, Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins, justindan, doubleeagle07
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .1 -
@ms71 said:
Here we go . . . . . . . . . . .My post was meant to be factual and not political. I was just saying it was an odd omission from the set given that statutory text used by the Secretary to justify striking them. That is all. It’s not really a semiquicentennial proof set without ALL the semiquicentennial coins authorized by the enabling legislation. Traditionally if it is struck in mint state, there is usually a corresponding proof coin.
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
@ms71 said:
Here we go . . . . . . . . . . .My post was meant to be factual and not political. I was just saying it was an odd omission from the set given that statutory text used by the Secretary to justify striking them. That is all. It’s not really a semiquicentennial proof set without ALL the semiquicentennial coins authorized by the enabling legislation. Traditionally if it is struck in mint state, there is usually a corresponding proof coin.
Why are the 250 privy mark AI dollars not in that same category then?
0 -
@Survivor50 said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@ms71 said:
Here we go . . . . . . . . . . .My post was meant to be factual and not political. I was just saying it was an odd omission from the set given that statutory text used by the Secretary to justify striking them. That is all. It’s not really a semiquicentennial proof set without ALL the semiquicentennial coins authorized by the enabling legislation. Traditionally if it is struck in mint state, there is usually a corresponding proof coin.
Why are the 250 privy mark AI dollars not in that same category then?
I didn’t remember the privy mark. If so, those should be included as well.
1 -
Time to get your 480,000 max mintage 1776~2026 Baseless metal proof set as RED BUTTON is LIT
I am still subscribed 10 at $107 a pop but I am considering dropping to 3 or 2 or 1 or none. Clock is ticking...
I am hoarding my fundies for That Weird Diamond Finish Peace & Morgan set(s) which are still holding at 160,000 max mintage. For now...
Happy Shopping !
0 -
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.They didn't Mint > @cameonut2011 said:
@Survivor50 said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@ms71 said:
Here we go . . . . . . . . . . .My post was meant to be factual and not political. I was just saying it was an odd omission from the set given that statutory text used by the Secretary to justify striking them. That is all. It’s not really a semiquicentennial proof set without ALL the semiquicentennial coins authorized by the enabling legislation. Traditionally if it is struck in mint state, there is usually a corresponding proof coin.
Why are the 250 privy mark AI dollars not in that same category then?
I didn’t remember the privy mark. If so, those should be included as well.
I think in all cases it's just based on when the decisions were made. When coins were added after packaging was ordered, adding them to the sets requires scrapping the packaging and buying new ones.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
2 -
I subscribed to 4 0f each of the sets (Unc, and clad proof). I ordered just 1 Silver proof set which I may not break up
The otjer 2 sets will br broken up annd the complete 3 sets of thesr 2 and the silver proof set will be saved for a later time.USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members0 -
@Mr Lindy said:
Time to get your 480,000 max mintage 1776~2026 Baseless metal proof set as RED BUTTON is LITI am still subscribed 10 at $107 a pop but I am considering dropping to 3 or 2 or 1 or none. Clock is ticking...
I am hoarding my fundies for That Weird Diamond Finish Peace & Morgan set(s) which are still holding at 160,000 max mintage. For now...
Happy Shopping !
I paused a good many subscriptions this morning, including dropping from five to two of the proof set.
0 -
@jmlanzaf said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.I think in all cases it's just based on when the decisions were made. When coins were added after packaging was ordered, adding them to the sets requires scrapping the packaging and buying new ones.
That could be a plausible explanation. You would just think the Mint would have it better together than that. I guess they can take the route they took with the 1999-P SBA proof.
0 -
Thank you .... I ordered 3
I'm not sure if the Lincoln will be available next year ?
TIN SOLDIERS & NIXON COMING
0 -
I see they will be available next year.... cannot edit my earlier post
TIN SOLDIERS & NIXON COMING0 -
@Rc5280 said:
@NJCoin said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
Yes. Odd.
Due to the controversial nature of the coin, it's very "odd" that they chose not to risk alienating annual set collectors who might be offended by the very notion that a coin featuring a living sitting president, any living sitting sitting president, let alone one with the popularity of the current living sitting president, in any way, shape of form actually commemorated the Semiquincentennial, when they don't need to include them in the sets in order to get them in the hands of those who want them.
Very odd indeed. No. The only odd thing here is your surprise, given your recognition that making the comment risked "stirring the pot."
And you just re-stirred the pot with a paint mixing paddle on an electric drill. Congratulations.
My pleasure. He posted. I responded.
And now you responded, after no one else did for several days. I never claimed to not want to stir anything. All I did was state the obvious.
0 -
@NJCoin said:
@Rc5280 said:
@NJCoin said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
Yes. Odd.
Due to the controversial nature of the coin, it's very "odd" that they chose not to risk alienating annual set collectors who might be offended by the very notion that a coin featuring a living sitting president, any living sitting sitting president, let alone one with the popularity of the current living sitting president, in any way, shape of form actually commemorated the Semiquincentennial, when they don't need to include them in the sets in order to get them in the hands of those who want them.
Very odd indeed. No. The only odd thing here is your surprise, given your recognition that making the comment risked "stirring the pot."
And you just re-stirred the pot with a paint mixing paddle on an electric drill. Congratulations.
My pleasure. He posted. I responded.
And now you responded, after no one else did for several days. I never claimed to not want to stir anything. All I did was state the obvious.
"All I did was state the obvious."
You certainly did.
And so did I.
0 -
@Rc5280 said:
@NJCoin said:
@Rc5280 said:
@NJCoin said:
@cameonut2011 said:
@cheezhed said:
@cameonut2011 said:
Also, not the stir the pot, but I am surprised that the Trump dollar coins are not included in annual sets (i.e. proof and uncirculated). It is a conspicuous omission.The American Innovation dollars aren’t included either.
But I can see excluding those because the coins are commemoratives unrelated to the Semiquincentennial. The Trump dollar coins exploited a loophole in the vaguely worded legislation that authorized coins for the Semiquincentennial. It seems odd that a coin struck under the provisions of law providing for the occasion would be omitted under a product described by the Mint as the “Semiquincentennial proof set.”
Yes. Odd.
Due to the controversial nature of the coin, it's very "odd" that they chose not to risk alienating annual set collectors who might be offended by the very notion that a coin featuring a living sitting president, any living sitting sitting president, let alone one with the popularity of the current living sitting president, in any way, shape of form actually commemorated the Semiquincentennial, when they don't need to include them in the sets in order to get them in the hands of those who want them.
Very odd indeed. No. The only odd thing here is your surprise, given your recognition that making the comment risked "stirring the pot."
And you just re-stirred the pot with a paint mixing paddle on an electric drill. Congratulations.
My pleasure. He posted. I responded.
And now you responded, after no one else did for several days. I never claimed to not want to stir anything. All I did was state the obvious.
"All I did was state the obvious."
You certainly did.
And so did I.
Yup. Announcing "I'm not stirring the pot" does not absolve one from stirring the pot.
The post was every bit as necessary as my response. And now yours. The reason this coin was not included in annual sets has nothing to do with packaging.
0 -
@NJCoin said:
Yup. Announcing "I'm not stirring the pot" does not absolve one from stirring the pot.I can only assume that comment is targeted at me. I don't need to be absolved of anything. I didn't ask for permission or forgiveness nor will I. I qualified my post to try to avoid obnoxious side conversations that divert from the thread and my intended post. Sadly, certain topics are so toxic that one cannot make an honest observation without triggering an extended back and forth.
The thread asked about honest opinions about the upcoming set, and I think the composition of the set is very odd. Others mentioned that other 250 privy coins were also excluded. I too think those omissions are odd. I wonder if the Mint is skipping proof issues of those coins. If so, it is a bit unusual, but there is probably precedent from other moderns that I am not thinking of at the moment. My opinion is that $107 is a lot for a partial set of 2026 semi-quincentennial coins.
0
Leave a Comment
Categories
- All Categories
- 520.1K Coins and Currency - PCGS
- 328.5K U.S. Coin Forum
- 14.8K PCGS Set Registry Forum
- 5.2K Q & A Forum
- 41.4K World & Ancient Coins Forum
- 3K U.S. & World Currency Forum
- 96.4K Buy, Sell, & Trade - U.S. Coins
- 7.3K Buy, Sell & Trade - World & Ancient Coins
- 1.5K Buy, Sell & Trade - Currency
- 60 Random
- 246.2K Trading Cards, Autographs and Memorabilia - PSA
- 90.3K Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
- 1.7K Autographs Forum
- 16.4K PSA Set Registry Forum
- 22K Sports Talk
- 115K Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia
- 663 Buy, Sell & Trade - Autographs
- 2.2K Stamps
- 1.5K Stamps Forum
- 670 Buy, Sell & Trade - Stamps
- 83 Coin Shows
- 83 General Coin Show Information and Discussion
- 11.9K Misc
- 11.9K Testing Forum