Grade rarity in Pokémon 151 vs modern sets: TAG & BGS

Grading
,
1

A TAG 10 scoring ≥987 from Pokémon 151 is about 1 in 258 — less common than the BGS Black Label of all 8 modern chase cards in this sample

SUMMARY

I went through the TAG and BGS population data for Pokémon 151 and 8 modern chase cards, and the difference was much larger than I expected.

A Pokémon 151 TAG ≥987 is estimated at about 1 in 258 graded copies. In this sample, that’s less common than the BGS Black Label of every modern card, which ranges from 1 in 63 to 1 in 215.

TAG 986–989 are estimates, because most TAG 10s don’t have a published numerical score; the estimation method and its limitations are explained below.

plaatje_1_kop v2
plaatje_1_kop v21650×990 98.9 KB

Key numbers (TAG ≥986 to ≥989 are estimates; Pristine and BGS figures are counted):

  1. Pokémon 151, TAG ≥987: about 1 in 258 graded copies. Every BGS Black Label among the 8 modern chase cards is more common, ranging from 1 in 63 to 1 in 215.
  2. The 151 difference is not limited to an estimated TAG threshold. In the directly counted grades, TAG Pristine is about 13× less common in 151 than the modern median, BGS Gold Pristine about 30× less common, and BGS Black Label about 36× less common.
  3. Charizard ex 199/165 is even more extreme on its own. TAG ≥987 and ≥988 are both estimated at about 1 in 1,505, close to its BGS Black Label at 1 in 1,801. It is also the only individual 151 card with enough scored GEM MINT 10s to meet the threshold of 100 used here for a single-card estimate.

One result requires no estimation at all: among 151 IR/SIRs, TAG Pristine is 5 in 21,497 graded copies (1 in 4,299), while BGS Black Label is 4 in 14,295 (1 in 3,574).

plaatje_2_gengar v2
plaatje_2_gengar v21500×840 57.1 KB

Every card at a glance (1 in N graded copies at that grader)

Card TAG ≥986 TAG ≥987 TAG ≥988 TAG ≥989 TAG Pristine BGS Gold Pristine BGS Black Label
Pokémon 151 — all 21 IR/SIR 1 in 154 1 in 258 1 in 272 1 in 1,581 1 in 4,299 1 in 166 1 in 3,574
Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) 1 in 502 1 in 1,505 1 in 1,505 none observed none observed 1 in 86 1 in 1,801
Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) 1 in 131 1 in 349 1 in 1,046 none observed none observed 1 in 90 1 in 898
Mega Gengar ex 284/217 1 in 46 1 in 126 1 in 153 1 in 266 1 in 424 1 in 6 1 in 86
Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 1 in 37 1 in 64 1 in 75 1 in 290 1 in 682 1 in 6 1 in 123
Pikachu ex 276/217 1 in 28 1 in 43 1 in 49 1 in 102 1 in 261 1 in 6 1 in 146
Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 1 in 39 1 in 75 1 in 75 1 in 301 1 in 301 1 in 5 1 in 70
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 1 in 32 1 in 57 1 in 79 1 in 167 1 in 376 1 in 5 1 in 63
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 1 in 40 1 in 64 1 in 80 1 in 156 1 in 156 1 in 6 1 in 215
Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 1 in 30 1 in 60 1 in 60 1 in 181 none observed 1 in 5 1 in 85
Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 1 in 52 1 in 77 1 in 101 1 in 148 1 in 280 1 in 5 1 in 116

How the TAG numbers were estimated

  • Most TAG-graded copies do not have a published numerical score (151: 2,840 of 21,497 do). TAG ≥986 to ≥989 are therefore estimated. Pristine (≥990) is an exact count: the label is on every slab.
  • Cards below a TAG 10 cannot reach 986. Pristines are counted separately, because their exact number is known. The other TAG 10s (GEM MINT) are split by grading date, before and after 7 August 2025, because the older ones reach ≥986 far less often (1 of 75 scored, against 22 of 649).
  • Within each period, the share among scored GEM MINT 10s is applied to all GEM MINT 10s from that period; the Pristines are added on top.
  • Importantly, the headline result does not depend on the August split: without it, TAG ≥987 is about 1 in 254 instead of 1 in 258.
  • A single card only gets its own estimate with at least 100 scored GEM MINT 10s; in 151 only Charizard ex 199/165 qualifies.

Keep in mind

  • These are frequencies within each grader’s population, not the odds for a randomly picked raw card: collectors choose which cards to submit and where.
  • Owners choose which TAG 10s get a score; the public data cannot show how much the scored cards differ from the unscored ones.
  • Population frequency is not grading quality: nothing here says which grader is more accurate or strict.
  • Decimal counts are estimates, not literal cards. “None observed” means none in the data, not that none exist.

Full tables, per-card ladders and the worked calculation follow in the full report below; an appendix at the very end ranks every card and outcome on one ladder.

FULL REPORT

Table 1 — TAG, estimated for the whole graded population

1 in N graded copies at that grader. (C) = counted directly from the population report; (E) = estimated (see Method in detail).

Card Graded Pristine ≥990 (C) ≥989 (E) ≥988 (E) ≥987 (E) ≥986 (E)
Pokémon 151 — all 21 IR/SIR 21,497 1 in 4,299 1 in 1,581 1 in 272 1 in 258 1 in 154
Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) 3,424 none observed none observed 1 in 1,505 1 in 1,505 1 in 502
Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) 1,646 none observed none observed 1 in 1,046 1 in 349 1 in 131
Mega Gengar ex 284/217 847 1 in 424 1 in 266 1 in 153 1 in 126 1 in 46
Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 3,410 1 in 682 1 in 290 1 in 75 1 in 64 1 in 37
Pikachu ex 276/217 782 1 in 261 1 in 102 1 in 49 1 in 43 1 in 28
Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 602 1 in 301 1 in 301 1 in 75 1 in 75 1 in 39
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 1,127 1 in 376 1 in 167 1 in 79 1 in 57 1 in 32
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 467 1 in 156 1 in 156 1 in 80 1 in 64 1 in 40
Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 622 none observed 1 in 181 1 in 60 1 in 60 1 in 30
Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 839 1 in 280 1 in 148 1 in 101 1 in 77 1 in 52

Table 2 — BGS, same cards (all BGS-graded copies)

1 in N graded copies at that grader. (C) = counted directly from the population report; (E) = estimated (see Method in detail).

Card BGS graded BGS 10 Pristine, gold (C) BGS 10 Black Label (C)
Pokémon 151 — all 21 IR/SIR 14,295 1 in 166 1 in 3,574
Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) 3,602 1 in 86 1 in 1,801
Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) 1,797 1 in 90 1 in 898
Mega Gengar ex 284/217 1,727 1 in 6 1 in 86
Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 5,172 1 in 6 1 in 123
Pikachu ex 276/217 1,316 1 in 6 1 in 146
Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 980 1 in 5 1 in 70
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 2,001 1 in 5 1 in 63
Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 645 1 in 6 1 in 215
Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 511 1 in 5 1 in 85
Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 813 1 in 5 1 in 116

plaatje_3_151 v2
plaatje_3_151 v21500×840 57.1 KB

Table 3 — A rarity ladder per card (TAG and BGS side by side, least to most rare)

Same outcomes for every card, so the ladders can be compared line by line. Prevalence = the percentage of that card’s graded population (at that grader) reaching the outcome. (C) = counted, (E) = estimated. All cards and outcomes on one ladder are in the Appendix at the end.

Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21)

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
TAG ≥986 0.65% 154 ~139.3 / 21,497 (E)
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 0.60% 166 86 / 14,295 (C)
TAG ≥987 0.39% 258 ~83.4 / 21,497 (E)
TAG ≥988 0.37% 272 ~79.1 / 21,497 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.06% 1,581 ~13.6 / 21,497 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.03% 3,574 4 / 14,295 (C)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.02% 4,299 5 / 21,497 (C)

Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151)

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 1.17% 86 42 / 3,602 (C)
TAG ≥986 0.20% 502 ~6.8 / 3,424 (E)
TAG ≥987 0.07% 1,505 ~2.3 / 3,424 (E)
TAG ≥988 0.07% 1,505 ~2.3 / 3,424 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.06% 1,801 2 / 3,602 (C)
TAG ≥989 0.00% none observed ~0.0 / 3,424 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.00% none observed 0 / 3,424 (C)

Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates)

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 1.11% 90 20 / 1,797 (C)
TAG ≥986 0.77% 131 ~12.6 / 1,646 (E)
TAG ≥987 0.29% 349 ~4.7 / 1,646 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.11% 898 2 / 1,797 (C)
TAG ≥988 0.10% 1,046 ~1.6 / 1,646 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.00% none observed ~0.0 / 1,646 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.00% none observed 0 / 1,646 (C)

Mega Gengar ex 284/217

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.62% 6 287 / 1,727 (C)
TAG ≥986 2.19% 46 ~18.5 / 847 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 1.16% 86 20 / 1,727 (C)
TAG ≥987 0.79% 126 ~6.7 / 847 (E)
TAG ≥988 0.65% 153 ~5.5 / 847 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.38% 266 ~3.2 / 847 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.24% 424 2 / 847 (C)

Mega Charizard X ex 125/094

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.71% 6 864 / 5,172 (C)
TAG ≥986 2.72% 37 ~92.7 / 3,410 (E)
TAG ≥987 1.57% 64 ~53.6 / 3,410 (E)
TAG ≥988 1.33% 75 ~45.5 / 3,410 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.81% 123 42 / 5,172 (C)
TAG ≥989 0.34% 290 ~11.7 / 3,410 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.15% 682 5 / 3,410 (C)

Pikachu ex 276/217

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.03% 6 211 / 1,316 (C)
TAG ≥986 3.52% 28 ~27.5 / 782 (E)
TAG ≥987 2.33% 43 ~18.2 / 782 (E)
TAG ≥988 2.03% 49 ~15.8 / 782 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.98% 102 ~7.7 / 782 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.68% 146 9 / 1,316 (C)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.38% 261 3 / 782 (C)

Mega Dragonite ex 290/217

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 18.47% 5 181 / 980 (C)
TAG ≥986 2.54% 39 ~15.3 / 602 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 1.43% 70 14 / 980 (C)
TAG ≥987 1.34% 75 ~8.0 / 602 (E)
TAG ≥988 1.34% 75 ~8.0 / 602 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.33% 301 ~2.0 / 602 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.33% 301 2 / 602 (C)

Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 20.04% 5 401 / 2,001 (C)
TAG ≥986 3.11% 32 ~35.0 / 1,127 (E)
TAG ≥987 1.77% 57 ~19.9 / 1,127 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 1.60% 63 32 / 2,001 (C)
TAG ≥988 1.27% 79 ~14.3 / 1,127 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.60% 167 ~6.8 / 1,127 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.27% 376 3 / 1,127 (C)

Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 17.67% 6 114 / 645 (C)
TAG ≥986 2.48% 40 ~11.6 / 467 (E)
TAG ≥987 1.56% 64 ~7.3 / 467 (E)
TAG ≥988 1.26% 80 ~5.9 / 467 (E)
TAG ≥989 0.64% 156 ~3.0 / 467 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.64% 156 3 / 467 (C)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.47% 215 3 / 645 (C)

Mega Venusaur ex 177/132

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 18.79% 5 96 / 511 (C)
TAG ≥986 3.31% 30 ~20.6 / 622 (E)
TAG ≥987 1.66% 60 ~10.3 / 622 (E)
TAG ≥988 1.66% 60 ~10.3 / 622 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 1.17% 85 6 / 511 (C)
TAG ≥989 0.55% 181 ~3.4 / 622 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.00% none observed 0 / 622 (C)

Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132

Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 21.53% 5 175 / 813 (C)
TAG ≥986 1.94% 52 ~16.3 / 839 (E)
TAG ≥987 1.31% 77 ~11.0 / 839 (E)
TAG ≥988 0.99% 101 ~8.3 / 839 (E)
BGS 10 Black Label 0.86% 116 7 / 813 (C)
TAG ≥989 0.67% 148 ~5.7 / 839 (E)
TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.36% 280 3 / 839 (C)

Summary — 151 against the median of the modern cards

(modern = the 8 Mega Evolution / 2025-26 cards above; Mew ex 232 excluded as an older reference)

Pokémon 151 IR/SIR Median modern card Ratio
TAG ≥987 (E) 0.39% 1.57% 4.0×
TAG Pristine ≥990 (C) 0.02% 0.30% 12.9×
BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 0.60% 18.07% 30.0×
BGS 10 Black Label 0.03% 1.01% 36.1×

What stands out

  • 151 is not just unusual at TAG. The same direction appears independently at BGS: Gold Pristine is 0.60% for 151 against a modern median of 18.07%, Black Label 0.03% against 1.01%.
  • Mew ex 232/091 is an interesting intermediate case — but not consistently so. At BGS it sits between 151 and the 2025–26 cards (Gold Pristine 1 in 90, Black Label 1 in 898); at TAG, its ≥987 is about 1 in 349, even less common than 151’s 1 in 258.
  • A Black Label has no fixed TAG-score equivalent. Depending on the card, a Black Label lands anywhere from between TAG ≥986 and ≥987 down to below TAG Pristine. For example: Mega Gengar ex 284/217 — between TAG ≥986 and TAG ≥987; Pikachu ex 276/217 — between TAG ≥989 and TAG Pristine; Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 — between TAG ≥988 and TAG ≥989. The full per-card comparison is in Table 3 and the Appendix.
  • Within 151 itself, the extreme tail is tiny. TAG ≥989 is estimated at about 1 in 1,581, BGS Black Label is counted at 1 in 3,574, and TAG Pristine at 1 in 4,299.

Method in detail

The cards.

  • Pokémon 151: all 21 IR/SIR (#166–181 and #198–202), pooled as one group.
  • Charizard ex 199/165 also on its own: the only 151 card that meets this post’s threshold of at least 100 scored GEM MINT 10s (it has 240).
  • Eight modern chase cards: Mega Charizard X ex 125/094, Mega Gengar ex 284/217, Pikachu ex 276/217, Mega Dragonite ex 290/217, Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 and 281/217, Mega Venusaur ex 177/132, Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132.
  • Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates, early 2024) as an older reference point.

The data.

  • TAG’s population report lists, for every graded copy, the grade, the grading date and — only if the owner paid for it — the 1000-point TAG Score.
  • For 151, only 2,840 of 21,497 graded copies (13%) carry a score; among those, 24 reach ≥986 (0.85%).
  • The 151 figure pools all graded copies of the 21 IR/SIRs, so cards with larger populations count for more.
  • BGS counts come from gemtracker.co’s universal population report (a third-party site, not Beckett itself); for every card I checked that the grade counts add up to the total.

The estimate, worked out for Pokémon 151 (≥986):

  1. Of the 21,497 graded copies, 15,727 are grade 9 or lower. A 986 is impossible below a 10, so they drop out. That leaves 5,765 GEM MINT 10s and 5 Pristines.

  2. The 5 Pristines are set aside: they are an exact count.

  3. The GEM MINT 10s are split by grading date, and for each period the share reaching ≥986 among those with a score is counted:

Period GEM MINT 10s with a score of those ≥986 share
before 7 Aug 2025 2,974 75 1 1 in 75.0
from 7 Aug 2025 2,791 649 22 1 in 29.5
  1. Each period’s share is applied to all its GEM MINT 10s: 2,974 × 1/75 = 39.7, and 2,791 × 22/649 = 94.6.
  2. Add the 5 Pristines: 39.7 + 94.6 + 5 = 139.3 copies of ≥986, or 139.3 / 21,497 = 0.65%, about 1 in 154.
  • The same steps for ≥987 give 39.7 + 38.7 + 5 = 83.4 copies, about 1 in 258.
  • The same steps for ≥988 give 39.7 + 34.4 + 5 = 79.1 copies, about 1 in 272.
  • The same steps for ≥989 give 0.0 + 8.6 + 5 = 13.6 copies, about 1 in 1,581.

With and without the period split (Pokémon 151, whole population). The split matters for ≥986, and for ≥989, where the numbers are smaller (0 scored before August, 2 after); for ≥987 and ≥988 both versions give almost the same result:

Threshold without split with split (used in this post)
≥986 ~188.1 (1 in 114) ~139.3 (1 in 154)
≥987 ~84.6 (1 in 254) ~83.4 (1 in 258)
≥988 ~76.7 (1 in 280) ~79.1 (1 in 272)
≥989 ~20.9 (1 in 1,027) ~13.6 (1 in 1,581)

Why not simply scale up the scored copies? Because the scored and unscored copies come from different periods. Most scored 151 copies were graded after August 2025; most unscored ones before. The older GEM MINTs reach ≥986 far less often (1 of 75 against 22 of 649). Scaling everything up in one go treats the old copies as if they scored like the new ones — which is why the scored copies show 0.85% for ≥986, while the estimate for the whole population is 0.65%. The table above shows both versions side by side.

Where this is thin: the before-August share rests on only 75 scored GEM MINTs with a single ≥986 among them. For a single card, an estimate is only made when at least 100 of its GEM MINT 10s carry a score; with fewer, one extra hit moves the result by several cards. One uncertainty remains: owners choose which TAG 10s get a numerical score, so the scored cards may differ from the unscored ones, and the public data cannot show how large that effect is. For ≥987 and ≥988 the estimate barely moves with or without the period split (1 in 254 vs 1 in 258, and 1 in 280 vs 1 in 272); for ≥986 and especially ≥989 it moves more.

Limitations

  • Selection. Owners choose which cards to submit, to which grader, and at TAG whether to buy a score. None of these groups is a random sample of all printed cards.
  • Smaller numbers at the extreme tail. Estimates at the highest TAG-score thresholds depend on scored TAG 10s being informative about the unscored population. “None observed” means none in the data, not that none exist.
  • Grading periods. The period split handles the change of August 2025 as far as public data allows, but it is still a model.
  • Population frequency is not grading quality.
  • Snapshot. TAG data from September 2026 (Mega Evolution base set cards: 27 September), BGS data from 9 September 2026. Populations grow every week.

Closing thought

The broader takeaway is that a grade label and population rarity are not the same thing. The same label can represent very different parts of the graded population depending on the card, set and grader — and a numerical score can reveal scarcity that a simple “10” label hides.

I’d be curious to see whether the same pattern appears in other Pokémon eras.

Appendix — Full rarity ladder across all cards and outcomes

Prevalence = percentage of that card’s graded population at that grader. (C) = counted, (E) = estimated.

# Card Outcome Prevalence 1 in N Based on
1 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 21.53% 5 175 / 813 (C)
2 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 20.04% 5 401 / 2,001 (C)
3 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 18.79% 5 96 / 511 (C)
4 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 18.47% 5 181 / 980 (C)
5 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 17.67% 6 114 / 645 (C)
6 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.71% 6 864 / 5,172 (C)
7 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.62% 6 287 / 1,727 (C)
8 Pikachu ex 276/217 BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 16.03% 6 211 / 1,316 (C)
9 Pikachu ex 276/217 TAG ≥986 3.52% 28 ~27.5 / 782 (E)
10 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 TAG ≥986 3.31% 30 ~20.6 / 622 (E)
11 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 TAG ≥986 3.11% 32 ~35.0 / 1,127 (E)
12 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 TAG ≥986 2.72% 37 ~92.7 / 3,410 (E)
13 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 TAG ≥986 2.54% 39 ~15.3 / 602 (E)
14 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 TAG ≥986 2.48% 40 ~11.6 / 467 (E)
15 Pikachu ex 276/217 TAG ≥987 2.33% 43 ~18.2 / 782 (E)
16 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 TAG ≥986 2.19% 46 ~18.5 / 847 (E)
17 Pikachu ex 276/217 TAG ≥988 2.03% 49 ~15.8 / 782 (E)
18 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 TAG ≥986 1.94% 52 ~16.3 / 839 (E)
19 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 TAG ≥987 1.77% 57 ~19.9 / 1,127 (E)
20 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 TAG ≥987 1.66% 60 ~10.3 / 622 (E)
21 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 TAG ≥988 1.66% 60 ~10.3 / 622 (E)
22 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 BGS 10 Black Label 1.60% 63 32 / 2,001 (C)
23 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 TAG ≥987 1.57% 64 ~53.6 / 3,410 (E)
24 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 TAG ≥987 1.56% 64 ~7.3 / 467 (E)
25 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 BGS 10 Black Label 1.43% 70 14 / 980 (C)
26 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 TAG ≥987 1.34% 75 ~8.0 / 602 (E)
27 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 TAG ≥988 1.34% 75 ~8.0 / 602 (E)
28 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 TAG ≥988 1.33% 75 ~45.5 / 3,410 (E)
29 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 TAG ≥987 1.31% 77 ~11.0 / 839 (E)
30 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 TAG ≥988 1.27% 79 ~14.3 / 1,127 (E)
31 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 TAG ≥988 1.26% 80 ~5.9 / 467 (E)
32 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 BGS 10 Black Label 1.17% 85 6 / 511 (C)
33 Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 1.17% 86 42 / 3,602 (C)
34 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 BGS 10 Black Label 1.16% 86 20 / 1,727 (C)
35 Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 1.11% 90 20 / 1,797 (C)
36 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 TAG ≥988 0.99% 101 ~8.3 / 839 (E)
37 Pikachu ex 276/217 TAG ≥989 0.98% 102 ~7.7 / 782 (E)
38 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 BGS 10 Black Label 0.86% 116 7 / 813 (C)
39 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 BGS 10 Black Label 0.81% 123 42 / 5,172 (C)
40 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 TAG ≥987 0.79% 126 ~6.7 / 847 (E)
41 Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) TAG ≥986 0.77% 131 ~12.6 / 1,646 (E)
42 Pikachu ex 276/217 BGS 10 Black Label 0.68% 146 9 / 1,316 (C)
43 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 TAG ≥989 0.67% 148 ~5.7 / 839 (E)
44 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 TAG ≥988 0.65% 153 ~5.5 / 847 (E)
45 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) TAG ≥986 0.65% 154 ~139.3 / 21,497 (E)
46 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 TAG ≥989 0.64% 156 ~3.0 / 467 (E)
47 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.64% 156 3 / 467 (C)
48 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) BGS 10 Pristine (gold) 0.60% 166 86 / 14,295 (C)
49 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 TAG ≥989 0.60% 167 ~6.8 / 1,127 (E)
50 Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 TAG ≥989 0.55% 181 ~3.4 / 622 (E)
51 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 281/217 BGS 10 Black Label 0.47% 215 3 / 645 (C)
52 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) TAG ≥987 0.39% 258 ~83.4 / 21,497 (E)
53 Pikachu ex 276/217 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.38% 261 3 / 782 (C)
54 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 TAG ≥989 0.38% 266 ~3.2 / 847 (E)
55 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) TAG ≥988 0.37% 272 ~79.1 / 21,497 (E)
56 Mega Gardevoir ex 178/132 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.36% 280 3 / 839 (C)
57 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 TAG ≥989 0.34% 290 ~11.7 / 3,410 (E)
58 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 TAG ≥989 0.33% 301 ~2.0 / 602 (E)
59 Mega Dragonite ex 290/217 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.33% 301 2 / 602 (C)
60 Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) TAG ≥987 0.29% 349 ~4.7 / 1,646 (E)
61 Team Rocket’s Mewtwo ex 231/182 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.27% 376 3 / 1,127 (C)
62 Mega Gengar ex 284/217 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.24% 424 2 / 847 (C)
63 Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) TAG ≥986 0.20% 502 ~6.8 / 3,424 (E)
64 Mega Charizard X ex 125/094 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.15% 682 5 / 3,410 (C)
65 Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) BGS 10 Black Label 0.11% 898 2 / 1,797 (C)
66 Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) TAG ≥988 0.10% 1,046 ~1.6 / 1,646 (E)
67 Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) TAG ≥987 0.07% 1,505 ~2.3 / 3,424 (E)
68 Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) TAG ≥988 0.07% 1,505 ~2.3 / 3,424 (E)
69 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) TAG ≥989 0.06% 1,581 ~13.6 / 21,497 (E)
70 Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) BGS 10 Black Label 0.06% 1,801 2 / 3,602 (C)
71 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) BGS 10 Black Label 0.03% 3,574 4 / 14,295 (C)
72 Pokémon 151 IR/SIR (all 21) TAG Pristine (≥990) 0.02% 4,299 5 / 21,497 (C)
No observed examples / zero estimate
— Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) TAG ≥989 0 observed — none observed among scored copies
— Charizard ex SIR 199/165 (Pokémon 151) TAG Pristine (≥990) 0 observed — 0 / 3,424 (C)
— Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) TAG ≥989 0 observed — none observed among scored copies
— Mew ex 232/091 (Paldean Fates) TAG Pristine (≥990) 0 observed — 0 / 1,646 (C)
— Mega Venusaur ex 177/132 TAG Pristine (≥990) 0 observed — 0 / 622 (C)

Sources: TAG public population report (TAG Portal); gemtracker.co universal population report, BGS data of 9 September 2026.

Also posted on r/PokeGrading

2

For transparency sake can you disclose how many TAG slabs you own

13 Likes
3

Or hear me out…buy a clean copy that isnt graded, and looks better than both a perfect 1000, or black label.

4

Hear me out also. What if… out of 20 people with objectively perfect cards, 19 of them would prefer to submit to BGS to get a black label rather than submit to TAG to get a TAG >987. Or… maybe people love to submit non-perfect cards to TAG to get as much filler for their mystery slab packs as possible. Setting up assumptions is important.

(I will admit I didn’t read most of the post though. Brevity goes a long way.)

1 Like
5

All that for modern English set cards?

5 Likes
6

Ok, but what about after Tag slightly alters their ai which alters the grading metrics?

7

Very interesting research! Fun to look at the numbers broken down.

1 Like
8

Running the prompts that made this post again with new grading metrics won’t take too long

5 Likes
10

IMG_8465
IMG_84651080×1080 113 KB

1 Like
11

AI slop

1 Like
12

Fair point on selection bias, that’s absolutely possible and it would affect the rarity comparison. It can work both ways though: people may send exceptional cards to BGS chasing a Black Label, while TAG also gives you a reason to submit that same card. Instead of simply being Pristine or not, it can still come back as a high-scoring 986–989.

I ran the numbers to see how much this could actually matter. The comparison starts to shift significantly if BGS receives exceptional cards around 4x more often. But even then, high-end TAG scores in the upper 980s remain within Black Label territory in terms of rarity.

Looking at actual Black Labels, I don’t see much evidence that BGS is consistently strict enough on centering to suggest that cards with exceptional centering are being submitted there 2x or more often. See the image for how the assumptions change the comparison.

plaatje_s4_gengar_ladder v2
plaatje_s4_gengar_ladder v21950×1300 232 KB

13

Haha, Busted :sweat_smile:.

I do started collecting TAG slabs recently mostly because I liked the aesthetics, and initially preferred unscored 10s for consistency. Then I got curious about what those numerical scores actually meant, started digging into the data, and somehow ended up here. :sweat_smile:

So I do own TAG slabs, that’s why I’ve tried to stick to the data and avoid broader judgments.

14

haha, yes I’m a data nerd. But I do have limits. :joy:

15

seems to be part of the TAG purchasing process. Required to tell everyone else how rare and harsh they are

1 Like
16

I don’t care about grading so the topic itself is not interesting to me, but as with anything AI - especially text - if you couldn’t be bothered to write it, why would anyone be bothered to read it?

17

Too long for me to read… 3rd grade reading level over here :grin: