Yes, a Pokémon on a card is a Pokémon card
I’m responsible for all of this. And the top rated answers answered the question very well in my previous post. that is absolutely a Pokemon card, but its not a tcg card which is what most people think about when they hear “pokemon card”. however, tcg does not own the term “pokemon card”. the bandai carddass cards are obviously pokemon cards, but not the popular tcg. they are non-tcg pokemon cards.
3 Likes
Couldn’t have said it better myself
I would ask instead,
“How would you describe this to someone who has no understanding of pokemon other than that it’s popular and exists?”
…Unless you want the answer from the point of view of being knowledgeable, which is STILL a specific context.
There is of course going to be a context to a thing, and that context will influence someone’s conception and thoughts about the thing. Is water wet? If a tree falls in a forest…? …Chicken or the egg? Investment vs hobby?
I don’t think that this question can be asked without a context, just like any of the above. Otherwise, any reply will include an implicit and likely unconscious context.
edit: Adding my PoV:
It doesn’t matter whether we call this a ‘pokemon card’. That classification is too purist or reductionist… not sure which. 
I started to provide my PoV, and then talked myself in a circle Nietzsche style… This is not a question worth asking, because we gain nothing from it - nit-picking - and the answer will always require nuance. The classification of “pokemon card” is only really useful to non-hobbyists who don’t care about more details. If you were to say to E4,
“I collect pokemon cards,” the response would be “Great! Welcome to the fourum! I hope you have a wonderful time here. What do you collect?”
"Cardass cards / playing deck cards / phone cards / … "
“Oh! Well is that really pokemon cards? [spawn this thread]”
It’s a good discussion to have, but being married to an answer is not really useful… I think?
2 Likes
Of course it’s a Pokemon card. It’s a card and it has a Pokemon in it. I don’t understand why only items that fit the “first thing that comes to mind when you think of a Pokemon card” category can be called Pokemon cards.
1 Like
As a literal descriptor, yes they are ‘Pokemon cards’ because they are cards that depict characters from the IP that is Pokemon.
Literal descriptors are only the foundation of language, however, and the much more important, deep, and enjoyable part of language is the ‘meta’ meanings of language. (Figurative, colloquial etc).
Figuratively and lexically these are not ‘Pokemon cards’ because ‘Pokemon cards’ as a phrase and as a descriptor is largely understood to be specifically about the ‘Pokemon Trading Card Game’.
If you pulled 1000, even 10000, random people into a group and asked them to show you what a ‘Pokemon card’ is then not a single one would pull up anything but something from the Pokemon TCG as their example and that is really the part that matters.
7 Likes
If you bought a mystery box of Pokemon cards and solely opened Topps cards, would you feel deceived?
If you ran an online store but only sold Zukan cards, would you feel comfortable calling it a Pokemon card store?
If you went to a convention to trade Pokemon cards and everyone only had non-TCG cards for trade, would you feel confused?
As others have noted eloquently, there is a difference between the literal definition of Pokemon card (i.e., a card with a Pokemon on it) and what the collective mass of Pokemon fans know as “Pokemon cards.”
I have recently found that Europeans may be more likely to align with non-TCG cards as Pokemon cards if official TCG product was not historically available to them. Clearly, there is a “culture” around what we collectors define as Pokemon cards, and this is shaped by what we were introduced to and became familiar with.
It’s useless to call non-TCG cards “Pokemon cards” because nobody refers to them this way alone. They are always qualified with their name (e.g., Topps Pokemon cards, Bandai Carddass cards, Zukan Pokemon cards, etc.) when buying, selling, or trading to prevent confusion.
I am compelled to defend the name of Pokemon cards from the literalists in this hobby.
I say all of this tongue-in-cheek. It really doesn’t matter at all and all of our opinions are correct from the specific point(s) of view that we argue from.
6 Likes
If it’s simply “pokemon on card = pokemon card” then you either have to explain
- why fake cards don’t qualify
or
- how the definition is useful if it includes fake cards
We can say that the product has to be licensed to apply, but it seems like an arbitrary distinction. I can just as arbitrarily impose that it has to be a TCG card to be a “Pokemon card”
4 Likes
Fake cards are also Pokémon cards, yes (as long as they show Pokémon on them that is, if they’re showing like Thanos or something only imitating the layout of Pokémon TCG cards that doesn’t count imo). But obviously they’re not official Pokémon cards. And while yes, that definition isn’t useful, that’s never which this was about. The context was simply if the depicted card should be called a Pokémon card and not what Mystery Boxes should be allowed to advertise as Pokémon cards or anything.
3 Likes
It starts to get a little silly when you move to “is this one?”. They all are pokemon cards. Then you add descriptions like fake, topps, wotc, vintage, etc.
If my house was burning down and i shouted to superman “save my pokemon cards!” and he only brought out the tcg versions I’d not be happy about his interpretation. I guess I should have said “save my pokemon collection”.
2 Likes
All cards with Pokémon on them are Pokémon cards but not all Pokémon cards have Pokémon on them 
1 Like
Ceci n’est pas un Tolkien
3 Likes
Yep that’s right you also need to take into account the backs
Just like how these are also MTG cards 
1 Like
While the separation between opinions isn’t directly Europe vs USA it’s likely true that Europeans can more likely see the term pokemon card with wider scale. While US was heavily tcg oriented from the beginning different European countries had multiple card products of their own competing with tcg (lamin cards were massive in Italy, topps was big in Finland, Spain had cromo cards, magic message cards in multiple countries + several big European brands with licensed pokemon products like Dunkin, Panini and Merlin, just to name few) so it’s only natural Europeans were more prone to grow with wider understanding of what pokemon card can be
6 Likes
I’ll throw my thoughts in. While yes, it is a card and it has a Pokemon on it, I would feel the need to make a distinction to anyone I was talking to about a card not traditionally part of the mainline TCG.
I would generically call this a Pokemon card:
But I would call this a Japanese Carddass Pokemon card:
And this a Topps Pokemon card:
Essentially, it’s okay for more than one thing to be true at a time. But, specificity and intentional descriptions are important whether talking to a collector or a lay person in my experience. It just lessens confusion and doesn’t assume anyone is already “in the know.”
4 Likes
And yet if you pulled 10,000 random people into a group, showed them the item in the OP and asked whether the object is a Pokemon Card or not, how many would actually answer no? The fact that most people would immediately recognize TCG cards as the prototypical example doesn’t mean they’d reject other Pokemon-depicting cards as being “Pokemon cards” too.
I disagree specifically with your claim that “Figuratively and lexically these are not ‘Pokemon cards’.” You’re overestimating how “largely understood” the Pokemon TCG is as synonymous with “Pokemon card.” For a figurative meaning to completely overtake a literal descriptor, especially one as straightforward as “Pokemon card” (a card featuring Pokemon), would require near-universal adoption within the broader culture. The Pokemon TCG is quite popular (especially recently I guess) but remains relatively niche compared to the Pokemon brand as a whole, making it unlikely that the average person would actively exclude non-TCG Pokemon cards from the category.
2 Likes
I know I’m in the complete minority here, but I’d say yes. It’s a bootleg/fake Pokémon card, but a Pokémon card nonetheless. 
I will admit I would defintely be annoyed, but technically they’re not lying though (imo of course).
Don’t get me wrong, I understand why people immediately think of Pokémon TCG cards when someone states ‘think of a Pokémon card’. I honestly do the same, and likely 99%+ of all people that know anything about Pokémon do. But that doesn’t change the fact that all those non-TCG, and even those bootleg cards, are still Pokémon cards. They’re cards, and they depicture Pokémon = Pokémon card. They may not be TCG; they may not even be officially licensed; they may be one of the last things you think about when you hear the phrase ‘Pokémon card’; but they’re Pokémon and cards (aka ‘Pokémon cards’) nonetheless. That’s just my 2c.
The ten Bandai Club Part 1 stickers, which kinda resemble cards, were released in May 1996:
But whether card-shaped stickers can actually be considered cards, is another discussion entirely, haha. 
Greetz,
Quuador
12 Likes