Look at the head and body. Before seeing the grade revealed, I thought the coin would be maxed out at that grade level.
The contact marks have nothing to do with it. At this level, luster and wear are the major considerations.
Not true, as they aren't bag marks. They are clearly evidence of the coin having been circulated, albeit lightly. So, they do have a bearing on grade--it is not an uncirculated coin that made inadvertent contact due to storage. However, luster and wear are not the only things that influence the grade--surface preservation does. Here, some of the surface is disturbed by marks of circulation, as well as very light wear. However, as I said, the wear is extremely minimal--I would have graded the coin AU 58, and think it was graded too conservatively.
I could see your argument for differentiating between AU58 and mint state pieces. In this case, we are talking about a low end AU coin. Contact marks have nothing to do with the grading of coins at this part of the spectrum, as my original comments stated. The coin clearly has ample wear on the obverse devices that would preclude a higher grade.
The Trade Dollar looks like it was silently net-graded due to the cleaning. This is not a coin I would want in my collection. The 3-cent, however, is gorgeous. It is spot on at 64.
Just that , these were weakly struck in those areas , I put more weight on the Eagles feathers , but after looking again I'll go 55 as the folds of the skirt seem a little weak . I agree that hits and nicks have no bearing at that grade or any circulated grade . Though luster definitely comes into play in the AU grades it's hard to tell from pics .
For the sake of discussion a MS-60 can have tons of hits . I too usually use the small circulation marks to differentiate between MS and AU but the marks themselves shouldn't determine an AU grade , only wear should .
I always liked those small white ANACS holders , and they were usually right on grade , maybe a little conservative too .