SKU: 46078964343

pokemon cards 1999

pokemon cards 1999 Original 151 Complete Set (151/150) 1999| TradingCardSets.Com

Name: pokemon cards 1999 Original 151 Complete Set (151/150) 1999| TradingCardSets.Com
Brand: realestatemontenegro.me
SKU: 46078964343
Price: 25.96 USD
Availability: InStock
Rating: 4.1656 (24 reviews)

$23.36 $25.96

Save 10%

No.2 Bestseller on realestatemontenegro.me >

Pay in installments of $6.49 with , and

Shipping Estimate
USA

USA

CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 15 - Aug 20

Description

pokemon cards 1999 Original 151 Complete Set (151/150) 1999| TradingCardSets.ComThis is an authentic, Original 151 Pokmon TCG Complete Set. This set features all 151 original Pokmon cards from the first generation, including the highly sought after 1999 Base Set Charizard. Each card is guaranteed to bring back memories of your childhood. Includes all Original 150 Pokmon, all 1999 Base Set holos, and a bonus WOTC Promo Mew card. This set is made only from cards from the 1999 Wizards of the Coast (WoTC) Base, Jungle, and Fossil

This is an authentic, Original 151 Pokémon TCG Complete Set. This set features all 151 original Pokémon cards from the first generation, including the highly sought-after 1999 Base Set Charizard. Each card is guaranteed to bring back memories of your childhood. Includes all Original 150 Pokémon, all 1999 Base Set holos, and a bonus WOTC Promo Mew card. This set is made only from cards from the 1999 Wizards of the Coast (WoTC) Base, Jungle, and Fossil expansion sets. This means that all cards are vintage, legit Pokémon TCG cards, and are built from the first 3 Pokémon TCG expansion sets released in 1999. All holofoil cards from the original 1999 base set are included in this set, as well as all the additional 1999 holos listed below. This set also may include 1st edition common cards from the 1999 Jungle and Fossil sets - generally fan favorites like Pikachu, Eevee, Psyduck, Jigglypuff, or others, and the common cards vary from set to set. This set of cards is in excellent condition, with individual conditions ranging from Near Mint to Moderately Played. All versions of these sets will always include all 16 1999 Base Set holos, including the big 3, Charizard, Blastoise, and Venusaur.

List of Holofoil Cards Included (25+ Holo Version):

Alakazam - 1/102 (Base Set) 1999
Blastoise - 2/102 (Base Set) 1999
Chansey - 3/102 (Base Set) 1999
Charizard - 4/102 (Base Set) 1999
Clefairy - 5/102 (Base Set) 1999
Gyarados - 6/102 (Base Set) 1999
Hitmonchan - 7/102 (Base Set) 1999
Machamp - 8/102 (Base Set) 1999 (1st Edition)
Magneton - 9/102 (Base Set) 1999
Mewtwo - 10/102 (Base Set) 1999
Nidoking - 11/102 (Base Set) 1999
Ninetales - 12/102 (Base Set) 1999
Poliwrath - 13/102 (Base Set) 1999
Raichu - 14/102 (Base Set) 1999
Venusaur - 15/102 (Base Set) 1999
Zapdos - 16/102 (Base Set) 1999
Kangaskhan - 5/64 (Jungle Set) 1999
Lapras - 10/62 (Fossil Set) 1999
Muk 13/62 (Fossil Set) 1999
Wigglytuff 16/64 (Jungle Set) 1999
Hypno 8/62 (Fossil Set) 1999
Hitmonlee 7/62 (Fossil Set) 1999
Venomoth 13/64 (Jungle Set) 1999
Electrode 2/64 (Jungle Set) 1999
Vaporeon 12/64 (Jungle Set) 1999

Each set includes extra Fossil and Jungle holofoil cards, but the specific cards may vary depending on the set you order. There are three versions of the Original 151 set available:

• 19+ Holo Version

• 25+ Holo Version (sample holo combination listed above)

• 45 Holo Max Version (includes the maximum number of unique holofoil cards possible in a 151 set without duplicates)

Each version is priced accordingly. Regardless of the version chosen, Base Set, Fossil, and Jungle holofoil cards will be included, and all 16 Base Set holofoil cards—including Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise—are guaranteed.

Whether you're a long-time Pokémon fan or just starting your collection, this complete set is a must-have for any true collector. This set is also a great way to relive the excitement of the original Pokémon craze that swept the world in the late 90s. Each card features vibrant colors, sharp images, and the original first-generation stats. The cards are also made from high-quality materials, ensuring they will last for many years to come. This vintage complete set is rare and hard to find, making it a valuable addition to any Pokémon collection. Don't miss out on the opportunity to own a piece of Pokémon history!

All cards are 100% authentic or your money back. This is a complete 151 Original Kanto Pokédex set (the 1st generation pokedex). Includes only cards from 1999 Base Set, Fossil, and Jungle sets (no cheap substitutes). No rocket cards, no base set 2 cards, no modern cards. No fake cards or “from China” replica cards. This is a real, authentic Original Complete 151 Pokémon TCG Set or your money back. Since each card is authentic and over 20 years old, each set we build is unique. Don’t be afraid to ask for closeups of any card or front/back photos that you would like to see!

Shipping:

Cards this rare are handled and shipped with extreme care
Side load binders used to prevent damage during shipping
Professional packaging, wrapped in bubble wrap and shipped in snug packaging
US Buyers: Shipped within 24-48 hours of purchase with free USPS Priority 2-day shipping
International Buyers: combined and reduced shipping rates available if you purchase multiple items. Any applicable customs/duties fees will be charged to you once the item arrives in your country, Tradingcardsets.com does not collect customs/duties during checkout.

Complete list of all Original 151 Pokémon Included:

#1 Bulbasaur
#2 Ivysaur
#3 Venusaur
#4 Charmander
#5 Charmeleon
#6 Charizard
#7 Squirtle
#8 Wartortle
#9 Blastoise
#10 Caterpie
#11 Metapod
#12 Butterfree
#13 Weedle
#14 Kakuna
#15 Beedrill
#16 Pidgey
#17 Pidgeotto
#18 Pidgeot
#19 Rattata
#20 Raticate
#21 Spearow
#22 Fearow
#23 Ekans
#24 Arbok
#25 Pikachu
#26 Raichu
#27 Sandshrew
#28 Sandslash
#29 Nidoran F
#30 Nidorina
#31 Nidoqueen
#32 Nidoran M
#33 Nidorino
#34 Nidoking
#35 Clefairy
#36 Clefable
#37 Vulpix
#38 Ninetales
#39 Jigglypuff
#40 Wigglytuff
#41 Zubat
#42 Golbat
#43 Oddish
#44 Gloom
#45 Vileplume
#46 Paras
#47 Parasect
#48 Venonat
#49 Venomoth
#50 Diglett
#51 Dugtrio
#52 Meowth
#53 Persian
#54 Psyduck
#55 Golduck
#56 Mankey
#57 Primeape
#58 Growlithe
#59 Arcanine
#60 Poliwag
#61 Poliwhirl
#62 Poliwrath
#63 Abra
#64 Kadabra
#65 Alakazam
#66 Machop
#67 Machoke
#68 Machamp
#69 Bellsprout
#70 Weepinbell
#71 Victreebel
#72 Tentacool
#73 Tentacruel
#74 Geodude
#75 Graveler
#76 Golem
#77 Ponyta
#78 Rapidash
#79 Slowpoke
#80 Slowbro
#81 Magnemite
#82 Magneton
#83 Farfetch'd
#84 Doduo
#85 Dodrio
#86 Seel
#87 Dewgong
#88 Grimer
#89 Muk
#90 Shellder
#91 Cloyster
#92 Gastly
#93 Haunter
#94 Gengar
#95 Onix
#96 Drowzee
#97 Hypno
#98 Krabby
#99 Kingler
#100 Voltorb
#101 Electrode
#102 Exeggcute
#103 Exeggutor
#104 Cubone
#105 Marowak
#106 Hitmonlee
#107 Hitmonchan
#108 Lickitung
#109 Koffing
#110 Weezing
#111 Rhyhorn
#112 Rhydon
#113 Chansey
#114 Tangela
#115 Kangaskhan
#116 Horsea
#117 Seadra
#118 Goldeen
#119 Seaking
#120 Staryu
#121 Starmie
#122 Mr. Mime
#123 Scyther
#124 Jynx
#125 Electabuzz
#126 Magmar
#127 Pinsir
#128 Tauros
#129 Magikarp
#130 Gyarados
#131 Lapras
#132 Ditto
#133 Eevee
#134 Vaporeon
#135 Jolteon
#136 Flareon
#137 Porygon
#138 Omanyte
#139 Omatstar
#140 Kabuto
#141 Kabutops
#142 Aerodactyl
#143 Snorlax
#144 Articuno
#145 Zapdos
#146 Moltres
#147 Dratini
#148 Dragonair
#149 Dragonite
#150 Mewtwo
#151 Mew

All cards are authentic, official Pokémon TCG (Trading Card Game) Cards. All cards are in English. All cards are raw (ungraded) unless otherwise stated. Card conditions in this particular set range from Near Mint to Moderately Played. Cards are carefully stored and shipped protected in an included high-quality side load binder. Send us an e-mail at [email protected] or use the chat feature to ask for photos of the complete set for sale or any individual cards! We sell a large number of sets and the set in the photographs may be a set that we previously sold and not the exact cards for sale! For more information be sure to check our Frequently Asked Questions (F.A.Q.) section!

Disclaimer: Please note that while the images shown on our listings are not pictures of the exact cards in each set. You will receive one of each of the cards shown in the photos, but the cards received will not be the exact cards pictured. These images are from previously sold sets and serve as a reference. Every card is unique and the actual cards you receive may vary from those shown in the images. We adhere to card condition guidelines and are committed to transparency in our descriptions and titles. For additional peace of mind, we welcome requests for front and back close-ups of any specific cards prior to your purchase. By placing an order, you acknowledge and agree to these terms.

Shipping Notes

Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
Delivery to the USA:

Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days

If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell pokemon cards 1999

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

Best in 7 days

Pokemon Original 1999 Trading Card Memorabilia

US$ 24.26

Sold : Login>>

Best in 7 days

Pokemon Starter Gift Box

US$ 26.29

Sold : Login>>

Best in 7 days

1999 POKEMON SILVER POKER SET PLAYING CARD ABRA #63 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL – lowpopping

US$ 26.31

Sold : Login>>

Best in 7 days

Pokemon TCG Graded Card: 1999 Chansey Base Set (1st Edition) English # – Vancity CJ Trading Cards

US$ 25.38

Sold : Login>>

Best in 7 days

POKÉMON CARD GAME sv1a 086/073 SR

US$ 26.45

Sold : Login>>

Sort

Product Reviews

Verified Purchase

garynini

Chelsea, US

★★★★★ 5

Clear, cogent, and illuminating

Format: Kindle

Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015

Verified Purchase

Chris Morton

Lexington, US

★★★★★ 5

Excellent!!!

Format: Kindle

A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017

Verified Purchase

Matt Cockerill

West Palm Beach, US

★★★★★ 5

Five Stars

Format: Hardcover

Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014

Verified Purchase

Stephen J. Jaros

West Palm Beach, US

★★★★★ 3

Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read

Format: Hardcover

This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010

Ross L. Meyer

Omaha, US

★★★★★ 5

Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4

Format: Hardcover

I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014