Alakazam or Charizard Card?

Hey,

I figured this would be a better place than any to settle this question I have. Is a holographic Charizard card more rare than a holographic Alakazam? When I was a kid, my entire school was under the impression Alakazam was the best card. But people nowadays tell me Charizard was. If I remember right, when listed in the decks, Alakazam was 1, Blastoise was 2, and Charizard was 3. Anybody know a definitive answer?

Charizard is considerably more valuable than Alakazam right now (and Charizard always has been more valuable - it's Pokemon Power and its HP and its attack made it so in demand), the only reason Alakazam was listed first is because the sets would list the Pokemon by alphabetical order within the rarity applied to them. Alakazam just happened to come first alphabetically, hence why its collector's number is 1 in the Base Set, and Zapdos's collector's number is 16 in the Base Set. And that's why Beedrill, a step down in rarity from the rare holo cards like Charizard, Alakazam, and Zapdos, has a collector's number of 17.

In terms of gameplay, Charizard and Alakazam were lacking in power compared to Blastoise and even cards like Electabuzz and Hitmonchan. Blastoise had the means to pump up water pokemon to use powerful attacks, and Hitmonchan and Electabuzz would whittle your HP down turn by turn. Also Blastoise would always defeat Charizard due to weakness, and Charizard's slow-as-hell attack needs.

In terms of value, Charizard is still the most expensive solely because it's Charizard. I don't see it as much today, but the mere mention of Charizard made kids go berserk back in the day.

Blastoise is second because it has value in throwback decks. And coz it's blastoise.

Alakazam was the second most valuable card at the time, but the other 2 are worth more for the aforementioned reasons.

Alakazam was always more of a support Pokemon back in the day because of Damage Swap.