I was just thinking(for example:) since this will be the first set release which features lunala, would this be considered the lunala rookie card, therefore making it a more prudent investment choice(especially being with what seems to be the high popularity of a Pokémon like lunala)? In general does every pokemon have a card from a set that could be considered their “rookie card”, therefore making it more valuable simply based on principal. Do collectors look at pokemon cards this way? Is there a future wave of this type of thought process in collecting pokemon cards becoming more popular? ALSO… I know very little about lunala, would you say once lunala gets more exposure in the tv series or other areas of pokemon, that the value may(or may not?) rise of lunala rookie cards? Like I said I am just using Lunala as the example and you can insert Sogaleo or any other pokemon in this thread, but for the purpose of being more concrete I used Lunala(especially because it appears Lunala is the most popular of the new Pokémon, if I am not mistaken).
Yes and no.
First, it’s worth noting that hardly any rookie cards are of particular value. A 1977 Topps Jerry Royster isn’t even worth a dollar. In fact, the entire set of Topps 1977 rookies is barely worth $120.
Second, it’s worth noting that the scarcity of the early prints (Rookies) in conjunction with the popularity of a player is what drives up prices for his card. We already have an equivalent for this: 1st edition base set. And within first edition base set, the all star player (Charizard) is the most valuable.
In modern cards, sports and pokemon diverge more. New sports cards are, with almost no exceptions, worthless. This is a complex reality relating to performance enhancing drugs, high print runs, contrived “Ultra Rares”, and a ton of other factors that I won’t elaborate on. Modern Pokémon is different. Value is related to how playable a card is in the game most of the time. While starters, eeveelutions, and legendary pokemon get prioritized for these slots, any random pokemon could, hypothetically, be made very playable and it would hold more value even in the long run because of this. Sports has no equivalent for that.
Furthermore, very few pokemon actually see collectors hunting down JUST that type of card. Charizard and Pikachu. That’s pretty much it. And while our forum specifically draws out the random Shedinja, Caterpie, and Raichu collectors, their influence on the overall market is negligible.
So my guess: no. Lunala’s first print will not see any special value because of it’s being the first print. Any increase in value will be entirely related to scarcity (hard to come by with modern overprinting), playability, and hype related to the set itself. While people might value their nostalgic set the most in ten years, we haven’t seen that prove true in any other similar market. I regularly see people say “X set is the base set of the next generation!” But that’s not how it works. Haha. Base set will always be the base set of every generation because it’s not a replicable event. Jungle and Fossil are JUST NOW seeing increases in value and they were on the coattails of the first wave. Why wasn’t that the base set for the kids a couple years younger? Why are the original ex series growing in value so slowly despite their incredibly smaller print runs? Why are modern cards more valuable than everything in DP?
So while I see your analogy, I think it’s just that: an analogy. But it’s being an analogy does not have implications for the market. Analogies are valuable tools for describing existing trends but terrible predictors of market behavior.
Hope that all makes sense. That’s my thought on the matter. 
I’d like to add that sports over the last few decades have not fluctuated in popularity as much as Pokemon. Wizards of the coast is the height of nostalgia and popularity for the tcg.
A kobe bryant rookie card was featured 10 years after the release of basketball’s modern “1st edition base set”. And his influence over the game and legacy will be remembered by people who grew up with him playing. If basketball was as dead as Pokemon has been (comparatively) then kobe bryant’s rookie would be worth a fraction of what it is now.
Very awesome. Thank you.
That being said (Analogy of this being a terrible predictor of market behavior), would you venture out on a limb and say that the market behavior is still having its identity being formed(behavioral patterns) and that perhaps collecting pokemon “rookie cards” would be a low risk/high reward route in which to collect. Even if this never becomes a trend that ever becomes a trend and “sticks”, it does seem like a nice place to take a chance if you have the income and time to do so… There are so many pokemon now (close to 800?), thats a lot of “rookie cards” to hunt down, with holos and reverse holos being the equivalent of a refractor in sports cards. It just seems/sounds like a FUN IDEA and angle in which to pursue this hobby from.
On that note, you say jungle and fossil are just becoming popular NOW; would you say that the “rookie cards” from those sets have the most potential for exponential growth in the near future, as more collectors (the newer pokemon players/collectors/enthusiast) may become more intrigued by the WOTC era pokemon cards and choose to allocate their money into some older cards rather than buying the newest booster boxes… ?
I’m going to break this into separate questions/answers and Statements/Responses because it’s easier for me to keep track of that way.
-
Q: would you venture out on a limb and say that the market behavior is still having its identity being formed(behavioral patterns) and that perhaps collecting pokemon “rookie cards” would be a low risk/high reward route in which to collect.
A: No, I would not say this. I believe that emerging market trends are not the same as a market’s identity and fundamental behavior. I do not believe using this analogy as your way of determining what will and will not be more valuable will yield results. There are definitively better methods. -
S: Even if this never becomes a trend that ever becomes a trend and “sticks”, it does seem like a nice place to take a chance if you have the income and time to do so…
R: If someone enjoys collecting, more power to them! It’s novel and unique. If you’re investing, though, this is not as good as other methods and you are adding unnecessary risk.
S: holos and reverse holos being the equivalent of a refractor in sports cards.
R: I do not consider this accurate. It seems more accurate that UR/HR/SR is most like refractors and we simply do not have an equivalent for patches, signatures, etc.
Q: On that note, you say jungle and fossil are just becoming popular NOW; would you say that the “rookie cards” from those sets have the most potential for exponential growth in the near future, as more collectors (the newer pokemon players/collectors/enthusiast) may become more intrigued by the WOTC era pokemon cards and choose to allocate their money into some older cards rather than buying the newest booster boxes… ?
A: I would not. Your question really has two different parts. Regarding rookie cards as most desirable: The most popular and/or playable pokemon have the most potential for growth. There are no examples of the first print of a specific card being the independent reason for its increase in value, excluding the first set which is an entirely different circumstance. Regarding interest in WOTC: It has no connection to what a rookie card is save the similarity of being a first of some sort.
Thank you churlocker. Very helpful and definitely helped clarify some of the questions I had. Any additional thoughts or advice you could possibly add in regards to a smart place to collect right now for future gains (next 6 months to 2 years or so); you mentioned that there are better areas to “invest”/collect in rather than this “rookie card” approach, analogy… but if this is TMI to share I completely understand as I wouldn’t want you to risk losing a position or any leverage you may have in mind and have worked for yourself… thank you.
I am not the right person to ask but there are lots of resources developing all over for this type of thing. I also have very strong opinions about who should and should not be considering investing that would be unpopular with most people. If you want to have a chat about it some time, my inbox is open. 
I understand, Appreciate that… you have been very helpful and insightful already… will do tho, I’m seeking strong opinions.
A card can rise in value in the short term if its a powerful card for players, but its value usually falls when its rotated out.
In the long term it needs to either be a rare card or a Pokémon popular with people.
… or a good looking card of a popular pokemon… i.e.: Charizard, Pikachu, Umbreon, Jolteon, Sylveon etc…
People who collect a certain Pokémon will collect the card regardless of how it looks. And for the rest of them, I don’t think it matters.
indeed, i completely agree. i was just eluding to hyper rares, as being good looking… but indeed it can being the plainest looking card but its awesome to that collector because it has their guy/pokemon.
I would love to see someone create a true (first appearance) rookie list.
If you include Japanese cards it would be nearly impossible because of off brand releases like N cookie, bandai etc releases due to date discrepancy. With those cards both would need to be listed.
An english language rookie list would be much easier.
On a side note, has there ever been a non Japanese released Pokemon? Or one released in a different language first?
I would be interested to know this as well, I would go as far and say that the first appearance of every Pokemon in the TCG is Japanese but would love to be proven wrong!
Just think of the Art Academy Contest @garyis2000 
Not all those cards are released in every language (in fact none are).
The ones that are out there are released only in the mother tongue of the artists.
Haha well done:)