Every framework in Pokémon investing eventually runs into the same wall: at some point, you have to make a judgment call. Print cycle logic tells you when to buy. Product tier rankings tell you what to buy. But neither one tells you which sets are worth building a position in at all — and getting that wrong is expensive regardless of how good your timing is.

Set evaluation is the most subjective part of this hobby. There's no formula that spits out a reliable answer, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you false confidence. What exists instead is a repeatable process — a set of questions you ask in a specific order, informed by enough correct and incorrect calls to know where the edge actually lives.

This is mine.

When a new set is announced, the first thing I'm looking for is the featured Pokémon — specifically, the EX or Mega EX headlining the set in the current era. Everything else flows from there.

Cultural significance is the primary filter. A Pokémon with broad, multigenerational appeal — one that casual fans, competitive players, and collectors all recognize — creates a larger buyer pool for the top chase cards. It creates demand that doesn't depend on timing, hype cycles, or collector sophistication. It just exists, persistently, because the Pokémon itself is iconic.

But the featured EX isn't always the top chase. Knowing the full population of high-rarity cards in a set helps me understand what The Pokémon Company is emphasizing and which Pokémon are likely to get the most striking special illustration rares. Sometimes the headline Pokémon is a vehicle for the set's theme while a different Pokémon gets the artwork that actually drives demand.

I've gotten this right in ways that mattered. When Stellar Crown was announced and the Squirtle and Bulbasaur artwork surfaced, I was confident those were the top chases before the secondary market confirmed it. When the forest Pikachu SIR was revealed in Ascended Heroes, the artwork alone made it an obvious contender for chase of the set.

I've also gotten it wrong. With Shrouded Fable, I knew early that none of the special illustration rares would be the top chase — the featured Pokémon didn't have the cultural gravity to carry that role. My read was that Cresselia would emerge as the alternate chase. It turned out to be the Persian and Bewear. The analytical instinct was right. The specific call wasn't. That distinction matters, and I'll come back to it.

A great featured Pokémon is necessary but not sufficient. A set built around one chase card is structurally fragile — if that card softens, the sealed product softens with it. What I'm looking for beyond the top chase is enough depth to sustain collector interest across different price points and different types of buyers.

My process starts with the SIR list to identify whether there's a chase worth pursuing. Then I move to the full illustration rare list and evaluate how many cards feature Pokémon with genuine popular appeal. My minimum threshold is roughly three IRs of popular Pokémon with artwork that doesn't undermine the featured subject. Three strong supporting pulls gives a set enough of a floor that a single card's performance doesn't determine everything.

Twilight Masquerade is the clearest example of a set with real depth. The top chase is the Greninja SIR — strong card, strong Pokémon. But the set holds up because of what surrounds it: the Eevee IR, the Hisuian Growlithe IR, the Chansey IR, and the Perrin SIR all feature popular Pokémon executed well. Collectors who can't afford or don't pull the Greninja still have reasons to engage with the set. That distribution of value across a set is what makes sealed product worth holding long-term, because it means buyer interest doesn't evaporate the moment one card gets reprinted or repriced.

This is the criterion that's hardest to explain but easiest to see once you know what you're looking for. Good Pokémon card artwork doesn't just look impressive — it keeps the Pokémon at the center of the visual experience. When artwork starts competing with the Pokémon for attention, the card's long-term appeal suffers, regardless of how technically accomplished the illustration is.

The most common version of this problem in the current era is the Terastal crown. Many collectors find it visually cluttered — it imposes an additional graphic element on top of the Pokémon that feels decorative rather than expressive. The Charizard SIR from Paldean Fates is a clear example: Charizard is one of the most culturally significant Pokémon in the hobby, and the card still underperformed expectations partly because the crown undercuts the artwork. The Greninja EX SIR from Twilight Masquerade has the same issue, which is part of why it's the set's top chase in spite of the crown rather than because of the full package.

Scale is the other failure mode. The Charizard SIR from 151 is a case where the Pokémon is simply too small on the card to deliver the visual impact that collectors are paying for. You're looking at a Charizard in the distance rather than a Charizard that fills the frame. For a card expected to be a centerpiece of the set, that's a significant execution problem.

The cards that get this right share a common quality: there's no ambiguity about what you're looking at. The Blastoise SIR from 151 — from the same set as the underscaled Charizard — is perfectly framed. The Bubble Mew from Paldean Fates creates a complete scene that enhances the Pokémon rather than competing with it. The Moonbreon from Evolving Skies remains one of the most visually effective cards in the modern era for exactly the same reason. Other Pokémon can appear in the illustration. The scene can be complex. But the featured Pokémon should never feel like a supporting character in its own card art.

Once I've assessed a set on all three qualitative criteria — featured Pokémon, depth, artwork — the market timing question becomes simpler, not more complicated. I buy sets I believe in at MSRP on day one and skip sets I don't believe in even at under MSRP. That's a deliberate choice, not a budget constraint dressed up as strategy.

Saving money on a set I don't believe in isn't actually saving money. It's deploying capital into something I've already evaluated negatively, at a slight discount, and hoping the market disagrees with me. That's a poor trade. I'd rather pay full price for a set I've conviction on than capture a 15% discount on one I don't.

The same framework extends beyond sets to individual products. When I'm evaluating something like an Ultra Premium Collection that isn't tied to a specific set's performance, I'm buying primarily on the promo card and the artwork of the product itself. The Mega Charizard EX UPC is a clear buy for me on that basis. The Moltres EX UPC isn't, not because Moltres is a bad Pokémon, but because the artwork and the promo don't clear the same threshold. The evaluation criteria are consistent even when the product type changes.

After running through the full process, there's always a final question that doesn't have a clean analytical answer: does it look good in a PSA case?

It's a deliberately simple question, but it captures something the checklist can't fully quantify. A graded card in a PSA case is the end state of long-term Pokémon investing — it's what serious collectors are buying and what serious investors are holding. If I can't picture a card looking impressive in that context, something is off, regardless of what the analysis says.

I've learned to take this gut check seriously because it's caught me both overcorrecting and undercorrecting.

151 is my clearest example of a set where I should have trusted the instinct more than the checklist. The supply felt limitless. The top chase — the Charizard SIR — was divisive. Pull rates were generous to the point where perceived scarcity was almost nonexistent at launch. On paper, the evaluation was mixed at best. My gut said buy more. I didn't listen as much as I should have. 151 went on to become one of the strongest modern sets in recent memory. If I'd been more aggressive when product was widely available at MSRP, the return would have been significantly better.

Prismatic Evolutions is the other side of that lesson — a set that failed the checklist in several important ways but that my instinct flagged as a strong hold anyway. The set is genuinely thin: almost no meaningful hits outside the SIRs, and the SIRs are extremely difficult to pull. By depth criteria alone, it shouldn't be compelling. But I preordered as many Pokémon Center ETBs as I could find and have been adding SPCs whenever possible, because something about the Eevee-lution appeal — the breadth of fan attachment across different generations — suggested the demand would hold regardless of pull rate frustration. It has. People are still ravenous for this set in ways that the fundamentals alone don't explain.

Phantasmal Flames is my most recent miss in the other direction. My instinct said it wouldn't be popular, and it's proving correct — the depth outside the Mega Charizard X EX simply isn't there, and collectors are consistently choosing other sets. I'd still pick it over some pre-Scarlet and Violet era sets as a long-term hold because illustration rares have aged better than alternate arts in my view. But I thought it would be more popular than it's been, and that overestimation came from the Charizard anchor rather than a clear-eyed read of the full card list.

What I've learned from those three calls is that instinct in this hobby is really a compressed version of pattern recognition — the featured Pokémon's cultural breadth, the artwork's long-term visual appeal, and a honest assessment of whether I'm evaluating the set or just reacting to the most prominent card in it. I'm not a Charizard collector, which I think actually helps me evaluate Charizard sets more objectively than someone with skin in the game. Separating personal preference from market reality is the discipline that makes set evaluation useful rather than just self-reinforcing.

When a new set is announced, I'm working through these questions in order:

No framework eliminates uncertainty in a market this driven by culture, nostalgia, and collector emotion. What a repeatable process does is give you a consistent basis for making calls — and a clear record of where your instincts are sharp and where they need calibration.

Set evaluation gets easier with reps — and harder to do alone. TCG Pocket Money is a free weekly newsletter covering new Pokémon TCG set analysis, sealed product value, and market trends for budget collectors who want to make smarter buying decisions without chasing every release. Every issue breaks down what's worth buying, what's worth skipping, and what the market is getting wrong.

Subscribe free →