It is a nice toner in an older holder-both of which are big pluses! I would call it a mid level toner based on what I see from the one photo.
On a 1 to 6 scale, where 1 is minimal, and 6 is an insane monster, I would give it a 4. It is very attractive mid level toning, in an OGH, which I tend to really like. I would happily own your coin.
I would say a 3 or 4 on the scale 1-6, it has a nice gradient but doesn't have those rainbow bands, this is more of a smooth toned coin. The grade isn't bad but monsters need 64, 65 or more. Monsters are pretty much everything that is appealing on a coin, so a strong strike, rainbow toning, interesting patterns (double crescent, end roll, textile), bright luster, high grade, etc. The perfect monster toned Morgan would be MS67+, proof like, bowl luster, super sharp details, CC and rarer date, double crescent textile rainbow toned. Here's a few examples that are a bit more realistic (not mine, although I wish...). Last one is probably an example of a perfect monster, it's an NGC MS68 star, with a CAC green bean, double sided toning, perfect luster. Anyway, main key to getting knowledgeable when it comes to toned Morgans is just researching a lot, observing, and most importantly, buying a lot of them and getting better at spotting key things that makes a coin desirable.
While many monsters are higher grades, they don't technically need to be a 64. There are monsters at lower grades too (the higher the grade the higher the price though). Also the three examples are all nice but I'd argue none of those are monster toners. The first one (1887) is the closest but would still be high end (5 out of 6). The other two would be lower on the scale.
There are few true monsters. I have owned many 4s and 5s, but only 1 or 2 6s. None of the coins pictured above are true monsters. They are nice, mid to high end toners in the high 3 to 5 range. Below, is the most universally recognized monster, the celebrated “Moose” it is an unquestionable 6, in terms of intensity of tone, and happens to be a MS 68. It is also probably the most expensive common date Morgan ever, with good reason.