Perhaps the car example was too farfetched but i don’t see why the biggest brand should just eat the whole title, no matter what’s the theme. I just don’t see why one brand that has officially been called pokemon tcg, not plain “pokemon cards”, from the beginning of times should be entitled to a whole collectible name. It feels even difficult to make arguments towards it since it feels so absurd for me, this apple shouldn’t be called apple since this other apple is what people think of when they think of apples
Pokemon cards have always referred to the mainline TCG since the 1990s. Even when I was a child, nobody that I knew called Topps cards “Pokemon cards.” Maybe they were referred to as Pokemon cards elsewhere, especially where authentic Pokemon cards were unavailable.
Along that same line of reasoning… Are Funskool cards Pokemon cards?
Like said the definition of what is card can be a bit shady but yours are the more obscure examples, most of the examples are more obvious like the topps, bandai, topsun etc ones i mentioned, so if it’s an official pokemon product in a card form i see no reason to call it something else than pokemon card. It can be a personal opinion to treat tcg cards as the only interesting choice and the ones to state as the true pokemon cards but when pokemon releases another collectible than tcg and it’s in card form it would feel quite arbitrary to call them stuff like “licensed non-tcg pokemon cards” when you could just call them pokemon cards
But at this point this probably is something we can only agree to disagree
This is interesting, you’ve reminded me of something…people definitely called Topps “Pokemon cards” where I was from, but with some kind of clear verbiage added that differentiated it from true Pokemon cards. I can’ t remember exactly what it was. It certainly wasn’t “Topps.”
Once I visited someone who lived in the middle of nowhere. He was super casual and only had a few packs worth of Topps. He described those as just “Pokemon cards.” I looked forward to seeing them all day and was very disappointed. He was also completely unfamiliar with and uninterested in the concept of trading. So that was boring as hell.
This is the problem. Some feel more “official” than others. But where does one draw the line in the sand? When talking about history and releases, I think it’s important to distinguish official products from licensed (unofficial) products, bootlegs, reproductions, etc.
After all, it was this nonsense about “the first Charizard” that led a No Number Blue Back Topsun Charizard to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to be found later on that the date on the PSA label was incorrect. I think the desire to find the earliest printing is goofy if non-TCG items are brought in.
Anyway, I agree that we can agree to disagree. This is an interesting thought experiment, but it has real life ramifications for sports card investors who want to buy the “rookie” Charizard, Pikachu, etc.
I have anecdotally heard this from many Pokemon enthusiasts who grew up in European countries that had limited access to official TCG product! It would not surprise me if many Europeans identify with non-TCG cards and readily label them as Pokemon cards.
I agree the rookie theme and the hype around it is quite artificial and it’s mainly just easist to call 1st ed english tcg cards or no rarity cards the forst ones since they are the most popular brand and the valuable ones that interest the majority. Bandai carddass did come before them but if you are already in the non tcg world what would prevent you from going in for other flats and seek for snack stickers or bandai club stickers that were released before the carddass cards, so if you only look into card form the carddass ones were the first but what makes other flats so different from cards. And i do see more your point now that you make the separation between official and licensed, i don’t still think that quite justifies the naming differences but that’s just part of the agree to disagree
It was probably a multitude of expressions but I think I’ve just remembered the main one. “Pokemon football cards.” Those were really the only other cards we had at that time besides Pokemon, Magic was a city phenomenon for older people and Yugioh wasn’t a thing yet. Football cards like Topps Premier Gold, and they had a lot in common with the Topps Pokemon cards. Sharp corners, basic design, similar foiling, similar feel to the cards, both considered second rate compared to real Pokemon cards.
Just judging from my three years hanging around E4, there does seem to be much more appreciation for non-TCG stuff from European collectors. Also anecdotal but growing up during the 90s/2000s craze in the US nobody gave a crap about non-TCG cards. The only non-TCG cards I remember seeing as a kid were Topps cards and those always came as disappointing gifts from relatives that didn’t know what to buy
I don’t think we should be using ChatGPT to be the absolute answer to the question, but it does provide a good view of collective human thought and experience.
It’s not that Bandai cards aren’t Pokemon cards in a literal sense. But the phrase “Pokemon cards” evokes the TCG. The TCG was the core thing that makes “Pokemon cards” a serious collectible. The non-tcg cards only have relevancy today because of the success of the TCG, without it that would just be another class of generally forgotten merchandise.
It’s not that you can’t enjoy the non-tcg cards, it’s just that they fundamentally live in the shadow of the TCG. The push to recognize certain non-tcg cards as the “first Pokemon cards” does not exist outside a financial incentive to make these cards more desirable. In contrast, everyone recognizes the importance and relevance of base set as a “first”, which doesn’t require the same narrative push to be convincing.
Funskool are indeed pokemon cards, they are not tcg pokemon cards, but they are pokemon cards. They are something printed on a cardboard right? So it is a card. It ha sPokemon in it and was licensed by pokemon? Yes, so it is a pokemon card. Is it part of the tcg? No, then it is not a tcg pokemon card, but it is indeed a pokemon card. This discussion is honestly stupid
Do you really think that this conversation is about the literal meaning of “Pokemon card?” If I cut out a card from cardboard and scribble a Pokemon on it, is it a Pokemon card? Come on dude.
And of course we all know when someone says “Pokemon cards” most likely is referring to the tcg as it is 99% of the hobby itself. But that doesnt mean the others are not pokemon cards. Its like saying Panini basketball cards arent basketball cards cause the true basketball cards are topps
The evidence is somewhere if im not mistaken, as Funskool is owned by Hasbro (who would not risk producing pokemon cards without license). The issue was that funskool wasnt given clear instructions or they didnt gaf, and they did their cards very similiar to the tcg. Thats why their 2nd series, the Who am I? series is totally different. Buy they did have license to produce non-tcg like topps, bandai, topsun… But either way thats another endless debate…
I believe the debate here is simply that what you call Pokemon Cards, we call TCG pokemon cards. Its just an issue on how we call it. And as i said, i totally understand that most people just say pokemon cards when referring to the tcg
