Innovation Dollars In Proof And US Mint Sets

because the innovation dollars are not intended for circulation, and since NIFC, not included in the mint set which are examples of coins that circulated or had circulated in the case of the coins they do include. it's the qualifier of "authorized for circulation" that is the catch, the Innovation dollars aren't authorized for circulation, only collector sales.

also why they aren't included in the annual proof sets.

The Native American dollars is a series within the authorized for circulation series of Sacagawea dollars, Presidential dollars and Kennedy halves were also authorized for circulation.

the problem comes in when the halfs and dollar coins all backed up at the fed reserve and banks because nobody wanted them, so they stopped striking them for circulation, BUT they could resume them if the need arises and send them out to the fed and banks again.
This isn't so with the innovation dollars. the authorization isn't there to strike them for circulation, only for issuance of numismatic coins. annual mint and proof sets are meant for coins that are authorized for circulation, higher quality examples for that years authorized coins.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...ill/770/text

the catch is "numismatic coins" in the wording. The United States Mint produces circulating coins for commerce, numismatic coins for collectors, and bullion coins for investors. the annual sets are for circulating coins but supposed higher quality examples.
this was legislated into the "numismatic coins" category and it was done this way because if it hadn't it would have never passed, the last thing america and the banking industry wanted or needed were more dollar coins nobody wants to use.

I'm not so sure that the legislation precludes issuing the coins for circulation.

31 USC 5112: Denominations, specifications, and design of coins indicates for Presidential dollars


and for Innovation dollars


IMHO these are pretty much identical in meaning.

Again, 31 USC 5112: Denominations, specifications, and design of coins indicates that


Sacagawea, Presidential and Innovation dollars all conform to this.

Finally, 31 USC 5112: Denominations, specifications, and design of coins says that



and



It seems to me that the US Mint decision to not include the coins in the annual mint and proof sets was solely their discretion and not due to any legislation indicating the coins were not intended for circulation. The law gives them the discretion on whether or not to include them in the annual mint and proof sets and they chose to issue a separate proof set and no mint set instead.

As far as not intended for circulation is concerned, this is just an industry/collector term. You won't find it any legislation that I'm aware of that indicates a coin is NIFC. When it comes to the innovation dollars, it's just a continuation of the Treasury decision to quit minting the Presidential dollars for circulation due to lack of demand. There's no demand for the Innovation dollars in circulation so they aren't produced for circulation. That doesn't mean they are precluded from being produced for circulation should the demand arise.




Also, I don't believe that the Federal Reserve submits orders to the US Mint for coins like it does for Federal Reserve Notes to the BEP. The Treasury via the US Mint responds to bank demand for coinage directly.

Not really

This rationale applies equally to the Native American dollars as they commemorate some aspect of Native American achievement, yet the coins are included in the annual mint and proof sets.

Not to include the Innovation dollars is strictly the discretion of the US Mint. The law gives them this discretion and they use it as they choose to.

For what it is worth...

I know at least three members who would complain (rather loudly and in multiple topics) if they included the Innovation dollars. They hated having the extra quarters and Presidential dollars. They want the old sets of yore that fit into one lens.

You know who you are, no need to put you on front street.

Yes, they are most definitely legal tender, just the same as commemorative coins and platinum/gold/silver eagles. Of course, I would find it easier to spend the Innovation dollar than those latter examples.

Yes, I already conceded that the law is not dictating this.

But is it not better for those who do not want the innovation dollars do not have to be forced to by them in annual sets? Asking for three other members.


I disagree in part, because the dollars seem to be selling and making a decent profit.

However, I will say in my opinion the true fraud and abuse is that congress does not have the courage to eliminate the one dollar bill which will get these dollar coins into circulation.