I know this might be a huge stretch and print numbers are vastly smaller in magic the gathering.
But would you compare base set 1st edition, shadowless and unlimited to magic the gathering’s alpha, beta and unlimited?
Thoughts?
1 Like
This was just discussed in the giant English thread. I think it’s fair to see the parallels in release and design between Abu and 1st/shadowless/unlimited. But Abu is lower quantity. I’ve joked in patreon how Alpha is basically a set of prize cards. It feels like an endless list of $1,000+ cards. 
With that said, the second you leave the early mtg sets there is a huge drop off. Where Pokémon maintains better demand beyond the first few sets. It’s apples and oranges, but right now pokemon is more ripe. 
7 Likes
Pokémon for life for sure.
I was just curious at the similarity between the sets considering wotc did them.
What page on the English thread was it discussed? 
I think on mobile it’s post number lol
No.
4 Likes
I agree that the print runs were vastly different but just like Scott mentioned in his response to you post in the English thread. What I was getting at was how the the first three releases are similar in Pokémon to mtg
The only similarities are:
- They are three releases of the same base set
- They have minor cosmetic differences between sets, but major differences in print size
But that’s where the comparisons should end.
Alpha and Beta in NM/Mint condition are high-end collector pieces. They are extraordinarily rare because the cards were played with and the print sizes were so small. MTG also has Revised, Collectors Edition (CE), and International Collectors Edition (ICE). Power 9 were only in A/B/U/CE/ICE, but not in Revised. CE and ICE were specifically made to collect. They were complete sets, but had different backings and unrounded corners that would not make them legal for play.
Beyond the stark difference in print size, the other main difference between vintage MTG and vintage Pokemon is that vintage MTG was never intended to be collected. By the late 1990s when Pokemon was booming, there had already been a slew of collectible card games and collectibles aimed at children (remember Beanie Babies?) that boomed. Pokemon capitalized on this craze and made a card game that mirrored the creatures in their video games in aesthetics and collectibility (“Gotta Catch 'Em All”). Pair that with the larger print size, and you can see the greater proportion of mint/gem mint copies in circulation today.
I agree with everything but also early 1999-2000 Pokémon was not seen as a collectible. From what I recall it was seen as a fad until it blew up. A lot of kids myself included played with our cards not sleeved in the playground or had our cards in a rubber band in a plastic bag. Very few people such as @KingPokemon were grading Pokémon cards or taking care of them. But I do agree on print runs being completely different and cosmetic differences being similar. 
Every kid that I knew treated them as coveted collectibles and put their cards in binders or shoeboxes. 
1 Like
Guess our schools were different 
3 Likes
I think saying magic cards were played with and thats why theyre valuable in mint condition as compared to pokemon cards is just false. Pokemon cards may have been seen as collectible but they were still treated like garbage by kids. 3% of 1st ed charizards are psa 10 out of the total population as compared to about 6% of black lotuses. It really is just a matter of different print runs but pokemon cards being seen as collectible in the 90s clearly did not help keep those cards in mint condition any better than magic cards.
5 Likes
They’re very different. As mentioned above, they’re only comparable in that you had 3 similar releases where each printing was higher to the subsequent release of each TCG. Aside from that though there’s a lot of other differing factors involved. MTG ABU cards had everything going against it in the early 90s. It was deemed evil/satanic by the public and many of the cards were tested/played at conventions across the US, most of which were probably thrown away after since almost no one would have seen them as collectible at that point in time. Even after that many MTG players didn’t want Alpha cards because they weren’t always tournament legal due to how they were shaped and couldn’t be mixed with Beta or Unlimited cards. So yeah, Alpha is unique and special among all MTG releases of the 90s which is why some of them are so valuable as the cards are some of the most powerful in the game and many were not kept in good condition either. They also have very unique artwork among all TCGs and other things that make them appealing.
With Pokemon, one thing that stands out to me with the English release of Base Set is that I’ve read WOTC didn’t expect it to sell well initially. I think because they had lost a lot of money on MTG in the past by over-printing certain sets (i.e. Fallen Empires), they didn’t want to take any chances with a brand new TCG like Pokemon being a failure. Obviously it was a massive success. So my gut feeling is that 1st Ed Base Set was printed way less than the majority of WOTC era Pokemon sets. You can find some old articles out there where WOTC said the demand for Base Set was 10x higher than they anticipated, but they didn’t print the 1st Ed to that level compared to Base Unlimited which they pumped out wayyy more of in comparison to 1st Ed or Shadowless. This is evident today where you can find tons of Base Unlimited around, but 1st Ed not near as much.
So anyway, they have a few similarities in that they were really consumed “organically” and became increasingly valuable over a longer period of time by collectors for a variety of reasons. But they are definitely apples/oranges and not really comparable in many other ways. I think it’s worth learning the history of both, it gives you a good understanding of collectible TCGs and the importance of each game.
2 Likes
The majority of Alpha rares on the open market are MP or HP. While much of their value may come from rarity (i.e., low print run), there is an enormous premium paid for mint condition cards because finding a mint copy is exceedingly difficult. This isn’t just due to the fact that the print run was small (just over 1,000 for Alpha rares), but that the cards were played.
Of course kids did not treat all of their Pokemon cards well. But it is easier to find mint condition 1st Ed Base than it is Alpha, even after considering the differences in print run.
Citing PSA 10 populations is irrelevant here. Most MTG Alpha Lotuses are graded with BGS, and many that are graded were likely opened within the past 20 years from sealed product. If you try to find raw Alpha Black Lotuses, you’d be lucky to find it in better condition than HP. By contrast, there is always an LP or NM 1st Ed Base Charizard on the open market, in much higher numbers than the multiplier expected due to differences in print runs.
Another point that I am trying to make and perhaps failing, is that I believe the graded distributions of 1st Ed Base Charizard to be representative of the raw population. But I do not believe this to be the case among Alpha Rares and specifically the Power 9. That skews some of the conversation about condition and conditional rarity in vintage MTG vs Pokemon.
If you think Evolving Skies’ and Fusion Strike’s pull rates are trashy, wait till you degen MTG booster boxes!
When it comes to sealed products, I rather keep MTG ones, especially their collector’s ones (1 wave only)!!
Youre missing the point. Obviously theres going to be more mint 1st ed charizards in total because many more were printed than alpha black lotuses. But looking at pop reports will actually show if theres any validity to your claim that mint alpha cards are rare because they were played with rather than just alpha cards being more rare by default because of print run.
Looking at BGS, about 16% of alpha lotuses graded a 9.5 or higher. Now does a BGS 9.5 = a PSA 10 is a common debate but 9.5’s often cross grade to psa 10s and even if we split the amount of 9.5s in half an assume half would end up psa 9s and half psa 10s, thats still a higher psa 10 ratio than 1st ed charizards.
Me thinks dumb little kids beat up their charizards just as much as kids did playing with alpha lotuses.
Sorry, I just disagree with your point.
I believe that pop reports do not reflect the general condition of the total Alpha rare population. Rather, they reflect the condition of the very small number of cards submitted. My suggestion is that the graded distribution of Alpha rares is skewed higher than what is found in the wild (i.e., the true population average), and this is because of actual play wear and attrition.
Yes, I agree that little kids beat their Pokemon cards up.
But the “typical” Black Lotus is going to be more beat up than the “typical” 1st Ed Charizard, even after controlling for the greater print size difference. Part of it is that the cards were played with, and part of it is that they are significantly older, which would lead to greater attrition and damage over time.
If you take a look at the historical sales of raw cards for both, you’ll see that there are significantly more LP and NM 1st Ed Base Charizards than Black Lotuses, above what would be expected from considering the print run.
Anyway, I’m not looking to die on this hill. But it’s just to say that Alpha Power 9 is nowhere near the same ballpark as Charizard 1st Ed Base, and that’s not due to print size alone. It’s due to age and attrition related to play.
Just thought I might mention that Charizard base was not a super playable card. My assumption is that Charizard was always just a chase. So a collectable. Very different than MTG. Or even other Pokemon. Like Blastoise and Chansey were playable. Thus they have a lower pop of high grades.
1 Like
Yup, you’ve got a point there.
Black Lotus (and many of the power 9) is definitely much more playable than Charizard base card. Black Lotus is a very powerful card by itself, playable in many decks, but now banned.