If you are searching a price guide for a Seedot card from the EX Ruby & Sapphire set, you will not find one, because no such card exists. EX Ruby & Sapphire, released in June 2003, contains 109 cards, and Seedot is not among them. The card numbered #67/109 in that set, which is sometimes mislabeled in online listings, is actually Ralts, not Seedot. So any “Price Charting for EX Ruby and Sapphire Seedot” query is built on a premise that does not hold up.
The confusion is understandable. EX Ruby & Sapphire and the early Gen III sets all drew from the same Hoenn-era Pokémon pool, and Seedot was a brand-new species at the time. But Seedot’s first appearance in the Trading Card Game came one set later, in EX Sandstorm, where it is card #76/100 at Common rarity. For example, a collector hunting for an “original” Seedot from the start of the EX era should be looking at the Sandstorm checklist, not the Ruby & Sapphire one. This article walks through why the mix-up happens, what the EX Ruby & Sapphire set actually contains, where Seedot really debuted, and how to price these early Gen III commons without getting tripped up by mislabeled listings.
Table of Contents
- Is There a Price Chart for an EX Ruby and Sapphire Seedot Card?
- What the EX Ruby and Sapphire Set Actually Contains
- Where Seedot Actually Debuted in the TCG
- How to Price Early Gen III Commons Without Getting Burned
- Common Data Errors and Mislabeled Listings to Watch For
- Why Set and Number Verification Beats Trusting a Single Source
- The Genuine Cards Behind This Search
- Frequently Asked Questions
Is There a Price Chart for an EX Ruby and Sapphire Seedot Card?
There is no price chart for an EX Ruby & Sapphire Seedot for the simplest possible reason: the card was never printed. EX Ruby & Sapphire is a 109-card set, and a full run of the checklist turns up no Seedot at any number. The slot most often cited in connection with this search, #67/109, belongs to Ralts, and the adjacent #66/109 is also a Ralts variant. If a price tool shows you a figure tied to “Seedot 67/109,” it has matched the number to the wrong name.
The reason this matters for pricing is that automated guides key off card numbers and set names, and a single bad mapping can attach a real price to a card that does not exist. As a comparison, the genuine #67/109 Ralts (Common) has been listed at around $2.29, which is the kind of low-dollar figure you would expect for a base-set common from this era. If you see that same $2.29 attached to a “Seedot” entry, you are almost certainly looking at the Ralts price wearing the wrong label. The practical takeaway is to verify the species against the official set list before trusting any number. A price is only as reliable as the card identity behind it, and in this case the identity is broken at the source.
What the EX Ruby and Sapphire Set Actually Contains
EX Ruby & Sapphire holds a specific place in Pokémon TCG history. Released in June 2003, it was the first set produced by Pokémon USA (under Nintendo) after Wizards of the Coast lost the license, and it launched the “EX” series by introducing Pokémon-ex cards, the high-value, high-HP cards that gave the era its name. The set runs 109 cards and leans heavily on the newly introduced Hoenn region species. Because the set was a fresh start under new management, its checklist does not perfectly mirror what casual collectors assume.
Plenty of recognizable Hoenn Pokémon are present, but not every early-generation creature made it into this first wave. Seedot, along with its evolutions, simply was not part of the 109-card lineup. The warning here is that “it’s a Hoenn Pokémon, so it must be in the first Hoenn set” is a faulty assumption that drives a lot of bad searches and mismatched price lookups. If you are building a set or pricing a collection, treat the 109-card count as a hard boundary. Anything attributed to EX Ruby & Sapphire beyond that number, or any species not on the official checklist, should be flagged as a data error rather than a rare find.
Where Seedot Actually Debuted in the TCG
Seedot’s real first appearance in the Trading Card Game is in EX Sandstorm, the set that followed EX Ruby & Sapphire. There, Seedot is card #76/100 at Common rarity. This is the card collectors are usually thinking of when they imagine an “early EX-era Seedot,” and it is the correct starting point for any pricing research on the species. The one-set gap is exactly what creates the confusion.
EX Ruby & Sapphire and EX Sandstorm were released close together, both belong to the same EX series, and both feature Hoenn Pokémon, so a card from Sandstorm can easily get mentally filed under Ruby & Sapphire. As a specific example, a seller who lists a Sandstorm Seedot but tags it with the more famous Ruby & Sapphire set name creates exactly the kind of listing that feeds a phantom “EX Ruby & Sapphire Seedot” search. When you correct the set to EX Sandstorm and the number to #76/100, the card becomes findable and priceable. Until you do, you are chasing a record that no legitimate database will contain.
How to Price Early Gen III Commons Without Getting Burned
Pricing a Common like the Sandstorm Seedot follows the same logic as pricing the Ralts at #67/109 in Ruby & Sapphire: these are low-cost cards whose value is driven by condition, edition, and whether the copy is graded. Ungraded near-mint commons from 2003 typically trade in the low single digits, similar to the roughly $2.29 seen on the genuine Ralts common. The tradeoff to understand is that raw common cards carry thin margins, so shipping and grading fees can easily exceed the card’s own value. The comparison worth making is between a raw card and a professionally graded one.
A bulk-condition Sandstorm Seedot may be worth less than a dollar, while a PSA 10 example of the same common can command a multiple of that, because the scarcity shifts from the card itself to the grade. For a true Common, though, even high grades rarely turn a small card into a serious payout, so weigh the grading cost against the realistic ceiling before submitting. When you use any price tool, anchor on three fields together: the exact set, the exact card number, and the condition or grade. Dropping any one of these is how a $2 common gets confused with a different card, or how a mislabeled Seedot listing inherits a Ralts price.
Common Data Errors and Mislabeled Listings to Watch For
The single biggest pitfall with this card is the name-to-number mismatch. Because #67/109 in EX Ruby & Sapphire is Ralts, any listing or price entry that pairs that number with “Seedot” is wrong, and trusting it can lead you to buy or value the wrong card entirely. The warning is direct: a confident-looking price next to an impossible card identity is a red flag, not a bargain. A related limitation is that price aggregators and search results do not always expose their underlying figures cleanly.
In researching this card, the price-guide pages did not surface confirmed current market numbers for the Sandstorm Seedot in search results, and direct page fetches were not available, so a verified live price for that specific card could not be pinned down here. That is a real limitation worth stating plainly rather than papering over with a guessed number. The defensive habit is cross-referencing. Before accepting any price, confirm the species against an independent set checklist such as a dedicated TCG database, and make sure the set name and card number agree with each other. If a third-party listing and the official checklist disagree, the checklist wins.
Why Set and Number Verification Beats Trusting a Single Source
A single mislabeled eBay or aggregator listing can propagate widely, because other sellers copy popular titles and price tools sometimes scrape those titles directly. That is how a nonexistent “EX Ruby & Sapphire Seedot” can appear to have a market presence despite never being printed.
For example, one listing tied to the #67/109 slot points to a Ralts card, yet the surrounding search noise can make it look like a Seedot entry to anyone skimming quickly. The fix is to treat the official 109-card EX Ruby & Sapphire checklist and the EX Sandstorm checklist as your ground truth. When the listing says one thing and the checklist says another, the card identity from the checklist is what you price against.
The Genuine Cards Behind This Search
The two real cards at the center of this mix-up are easy to name once the confusion clears. In EX Ruby & Sapphire, the #67/109 slot is Ralts, a Common that has been listed at around $2.29.
In EX Sandstorm, the actual Seedot is #76/100, also a Common, and that is the earliest TCG card of the species you can legitimately collect or price. Anyone who started from “Price Charting for EX Ruby and Sapphire Seedot” should redirect to one of these two records depending on what they actually want: the Ralts if the #67/109 number was the anchor, or the Sandstorm Seedot at #76/100 if the species was the goal. Both are inexpensive Gen III commons from the opening years of the EX era, released within months of each other in 2003.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Seedot card in EX Ruby & Sapphire?
No. EX Ruby & Sapphire is a 109-card set and Seedot is not on the checklist. The #67/109 slot often linked to this search is actually Ralts.
Where did Seedot first appear in the Pokémon TCG?
In EX Sandstorm, the set released right after EX Ruby & Sapphire. Seedot is card #76/100 at Common rarity there.
What is card #67/109 in EX Ruby & Sapphire?
It is Ralts, a Common, which has been listed at around $2.29. Card #66/109 is also a Ralts variant.
Why do I see “EX Ruby & Sapphire Seedot” listings online?
They are mislabeled. Sellers sometimes attach the wrong set name or card number, and price tools can copy those bad titles, creating a phantom card.
How much is the EX Sandstorm Seedot worth?
It is a low-value Common, typically in the low single digits raw. A confirmed live market figure was not available at the time of writing, so check a current price guide using set EX Sandstorm and number #76/100.
What was special about EX Ruby & Sapphire?
Released June 2003, it was the first set made by Pokémon USA after Wizards of the Coast lost the license, and it introduced Pokémon-ex cards to launch the EX series.
