Anyone ever subbed 80's Tea discs to PSA?
![mcadams](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/authoricons/hugh-laurie.jpg)
Ive subbed a few over the years and am never surprised anymore at the results I see. Seems that the consistency for the disks is not what you get for cards. Some graders care about perforation, some centering, some stains. Its just all over the map. But this one takes the cake. Look at the paperloss on the right hand side where the card was separated from the next card to the right. There is clearly paperloss underneath the "flap" on the right......and the card gets a 10? Is this grader oversight, or has PSA just decided they don't care about paperloss etc. next to a perforation? If this card is a 10, then why bother having these discs graded?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1987-Our-Own-Tea-Discs-Dale-Murphy-Braves-PSA-10-pop-3-352353-/350775704591?&autorefresh=true
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1987-Our-Own-Tea-Discs-Dale-Murphy-Braves-PSA-10-pop-3-352353-/350775704591?&autorefresh=true
Successful transactions with: thedutymon, tsalems1, davidpuddy, probstein123, lodibrewfan, gododgersfan, dialj, jwgators, copperjj, larryp, hookem, boopotts, crimsontider, rogermnj, swartz1, Counselor
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
0
Comments
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
PSA 9 (ST) assuming no paper loss. Although I think there is paper loss.
At worst:
PSA 1-2 assuming paper loss.
I've never seen one of the discs folded like that. In my opinion, it should be in the 5x7 holder and labeled as a panel.
I agree it should definitely not be a PSA 10 given the guidelines. This card diminishes how truly difficult it is to find these in PSA 10 condition.
I have one for sale right now that is every bit as good as this one:
PSA 8 (ST)
Kevin
Billy Ripken
Cal Ripken, Jr. 1980-2002
Cal Ripken, Sr.
Hall of Fame Rookies