2026 American Silver Eagle Redundant Page

Please delete this entire page, 2026 W Proof, for this individual coin as it is redundant and already accounted for on the following coin page. It is simply a variation of the type 2 (New Reverse) American Silver Eagle with a special 250th anniversary privy mark and anniversary date (1776-2026 - Semiquincentennial). Similar to other special one year privy marks on this variety of American Silver Eagle. 

Delete please  - N#563368

Accounted for here - N#298883

Unlike other U.S. 2026 Semiquincentennial coins, this is not a entirely new design such as the US 10 cents or US 25 cents, It simply uses an existing coin with special privy and anniversary dates and doesa not warrant an entire new page. 

Thanks in advance

So in your opinion these should not be a separate page?

N#554485

N#554482

rsirian1

So in your opinion these should not be a separate page?

 

N#554485

N#554482

 

 

Hi Rick, in my opinion they are not entirely new designs and just a one year minor alteration of an existing coin design which the U.S. mint intends to resume in 2027 and upcoming years. The U.S. 1 cent piece Lincoln/Shield that is not being minted for general circulation and of course no changes intended for the general circulation U.S. Jefferson nickel in 2027. The 2026 U.S. Dime and Quarters are another matter as they are completely new designs so they certainly are worthy of  separate and distinct pages. I was just addressing the 2026 ASE here. Lets see what the Numista gods say before we move on to other things

Edit - Sorry, then there is the half dollar where a new page is warranted as it is a entirely new design and certainly not a Kennedy half dollar. Havent thought through everything the mint is offering this year.

Would like to request referee opinion @cncote10 

I think Harry has a point… the privy mark alone doesn’t really justify a new page. I think it was done more for consistency across the set… I have no issue with his suggestion

cncote10

I think Harry has a point… the privy mark alone doesn’t really justify a new page. I think it was done more for consistency across the set… I have no issue with his suggestion

I can live with that.  Will these two also be deleted?

N#554485

N#554482

rsirian1

cncote10

I think Harry has a point… the privy mark alone doesn’t really justify a new page. I think it was done more for consistency across the set… I have no issue with his suggestion

I can live with that.  Will these two also be deleted?

N#554485

N#554482

 

I think that is exactly what needs to be done and the right thing to do. They are identical in every other way except the anniversary date, for this year only. In addition, the Mint MAY add a liberty bell privy mark to a limited number of SOME  2026 shield cents for collectors only. That decision has not yet revealed by the US mint. Do we then add yet another page for this “special" 2026 Cent with the addition of a liberty bell privy or just add a line and comment on the existing Shield Cent page? This is why I have not requested those redundant pages be deleted yet. This is also exactly how the U.S. ASE pages were such a train wreck here on Numista since 1986 which had to be cleaned up decades later. People didn't even know what they posessed and entered their coins on the wrong lines because they had no other option on the page . We should not make the same mistakes on these pages.

The privy mark was never an issue with me. I consider it the same as a mint mark, mint master mark, etc.  My concern was about the double date and particularly for the nickel the location of the dates. Does that constitute a “significant design difference?”

I dont believe so as I see it as a temporary modification to accomodate space on these examples for the Semiquincentennial. They used existing everything including compostion, design, blanks, etc. and changed nothing other than the date and placement. The U.S. Mint's  intent is to  go right back to the same Lincoln / Shield cent, Jefferson Nickel, and Roosevelt dime designs in 2027. They already eliminated the cent for circulation and will now only be produced for collectors where they can profit and I suspect the Jefferson Nickel will be phased out in the not too distant future so I cant forsee any motivation for entirely new designs for either coin and they are currently losing money on both these coins. In 2027 The Quarter and Half Dollar program will have entirely new designs which focus on youth and paralympic Sports. 

BUMP.  5 “downvotes” but nobody has a argument as to why. Sad.

https://www.usacoinbook.com/type.php?demurl=bullion-coins&typeurl=american-silver-eagle&displaytype=sell

Agree with removing ASE, disagree with removing new 1 and 5 cents. In my opinion this change is big enough (geometrically) to not be a privy mark. Privy marks should be small and have almost no influence on coin design, just like mintmarks. However here 1776-2026 is rather a legend. And also a significant enough change to warrant creation of new types for obvious reasons.

Also merging them would mean merging of many other coins, such as these two:

N#22619

N#3915

because here the inscription on the edge should also be considered privy mark then

Ma9nWaRr10

Agree with removing ASE, disagree with removing new 1 and 5 cents. In my opinion this change is big enough (geometrically) to not be a privy mark. Privy marks should be small and have almost no influence on coin design, just like mintmarks. However here 1776-2026 is rather a legend. And also a significant enough change to warrant creation of new types for obvious reasons.

 

Also merging them would mean merging of many other coins, such as these two:

N#22619

N#3915

because here the inscription on the edge should also be considered privy mark then

Wait…so the 2026 ASE has same 1776-2026 legend (one of them at least) but you say it's not like the 1 and 5 cents with the 1776-2026 legend?

I didn't notice they also changed that. At first glance the only difference I saw was the bell privy mark. My bad.

Of course they should be separate pages in this case, because legend is different

rsirian1

The privy mark was never an issue with me. I consider it the same as a mint mark, mint master mark, etc.  My concern was about the double date and particularly for the nickel the location of the dates. Does that constitute a “significant design difference?”

 

  

 

   

I added my down vote because …

one of each pair is a commemorative!

tdziemia

rsirian1

The privy mark was never an issue with me. I consider it the same as a mint mark, mint master mark, etc.  My concern was about the double date and particularly for the nickel the location of the dates. Does that constitute a “significant design difference?”

I added my down vote because …

one of each pair is a commemorative!

 

Actually one is non-circulating.  If we split pages because of that then many, many coin pages will have to be split.

Just one example:

Remember, I originally argued the ASE should be split and I was talked out of it.

Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but to me replacing a normal date with the dual-dating of a commemorative is a design change.  

I understand that the other devices like the bust and legends have not changed (as they did for the 1976 bicentennial coins),  but to me the semiquincentennial coin only fits in the series if it is merely dated 2026. 

I can't speak for the other downvotes, but …

And the ASE coin? Keep split or merge?

rsirian1

And the ASE coin? Keep split or merge?

Thank you. I requested one change, the 2026 ASE and now it has become a discussion about everything but and getting negative votes for other coins I have not requested to change.

rsirian1

And the ASE coin? Keep split or merge?

It has 1776-2026.  It is a commemorative.

I would keep it split.

I don;t want to be at odds with the referees. Maybe the category structure isn;t adequate for issues like this. 

This much is certain. The U.S. Mint is offering it as a Type II New Reverse American Silver Eagle. Very much like all the other Type 2 American Silver Eagles with many of their own unique nuances and does not consider it as an entirely new product such as the 2026 Dime, Quarters, and Half Dollar. Something must go. The new page I requested or the 2026 year line on the existing Type II New Reverse ASE Page. One catalog I showed here previously as an example thought it should remain on the same page as all the other Type II ASE and not distinguish it as another ASE Type as does the U.S. Mint. Dimes to Dollars Redbook and other catalogs will consider it as a part of the Type II variety of the ASE. Please reconsider or we delete the year line on the existig ASE page.

The Numista guidelines leave a lot of room for deciding how to handle “varieties” around a type. 

So, for example, a change in privy mark alone or mint mark is not considered justification for a new type by Numista, whereas some catalogs (SCWC) do create subtypes for this.  Often a re-design of a bust with all the lettering, etc. remaining the same has been taken as justification for a new type in Numista (and sometimes not).  

But in this case there is a change to the design of the coin (however small it might be considered) that makes it a commemorative rather than a standard circulation coin.

As for how the mints handle their “products,” this often diverges from how Numista works.

So, certainly the semiquincentennial coins are in a sort of gray area with respect to Numista from a design viewpoint, but my opinion is that the commemorative angle pushes it toward being a type. 

I'd also vote to keep them separate due to the double date making it a commemorative.

This also isn't the only instance of this happening in the catalogue. Canada has some examples like this from 1992, for example:

N#426

Well then, seems my views are overwhelmingly the minority. I dont agree  but will accept the decision by the administrator who ultimately makes the final decision. Thanks for the healthy discussion and feedback.