I revised my answer, after seeing the video. It is a solid 5.0. I love the colors. Nice high level toner.
I'll share a little more info regarding the coin after more people guess. It's not a ton but still an interesting tidbit.
I would be happy to own it. The lower sub-gem grade is because of muted luster. Had it been more lustrous, it could have been a near pastel monster.
I am going to post another Morgan. I found the archives of ones I owned and posted back in 2011 and 2012 on Cointalk. We can handle two at once. This is an 1898 NGC MS 64
The date makes it more interesting. I compared it to the coin from round 1, which I rated at 4. This one reminds me a bit of that one but falls slightly short of it. My score is a 3.6
Let's run both Morgans until tomorrow. These are the two currently in play: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-monster-toned-coin-game-thread.363437/page-91#post-5579868 https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-monster-toned-coin-game-thread.363437/page-92#post-5645058 @Lehigh96 @jtlee321 @kSigSteve and others still time to get your scores in ....and I still have to add the tidbit about my Morgan
For some reason, this site keeps not notifying me of posts in my watched threads. The 1884-O I would call a 4.2 The 1898 a 4.7
For my Morgan, I'm at 4.5. The tidbit is that it used to be in an NGC holder but without a star. I'm not sure why as this one looks star worthy. Someone crossed it to PCGS and I bought it in the PCGS holder. Despite not having a star, this one was bid up aggressively at auction. I was luckily able to buy it for less in the PCGS holder (not something you often see).