I see you're starting to get the hang of getting the coin positioned so that it will be in an upright position when you snap the pic. You might want to get yourself a photo program so that you can crop and resize your photos. Photoscape is a free download. I don't use it, but others here have reported good success with it. Photoscape does a lot more than just crop & resize. Chris
Seems to have a nice, full strike for a New Orleans. NGC hasn't always given credit for that, but PCGS might. Appears to have good luster with just a hint of toning. Photos aren't quite good enough to be sure, but it doesn't look to have too much going on in the way of bagmarks. MS-64 certainly isn't out of the question, and it might surprise to the upside from there.
Big diff in price between a 64 and 65. Kind of hard to tell from that pic. Would need to see it in hand. None the less a nice Morgan.
The obverse really does show very obvious hairlines and pits from a polishing. It is a cleaned coin, at least from those photos. Also, it has luster breaks--typical raw Morgan of that date and value that has been cleaned to look as if it were MS--had it not been cleaned, it might have been a 63 or 64, but not anymore, as it will come back in a details slab.
I just don't see the cleaning, but I am not an expert on knowing when a coin has been cleaned. From what little I do know I don't see signs of a "clean", but you explanation sounds very convincing.
I am not David Bowers, but I do know a lot about Morgans over the years. It looks from those pictures to have been cleaned. Lots of common date Morgans are either cleaned, or overdipped to the point of destroying luster. It was the thing to do with them years ago, and if they are bright and shiny, you can bet with almost 90% certainty that a coin that old and made of silver was at the very least, dipped. That one shows evidence to my eye of having been rubbed or polished--the hairlines are a giveaway. Dealers have thousands of common date cleaned Morgans, that unsuspecting customers buy as MS, but in actuality, had they been left toned, they would still be MS, and not mechanically altered by cleaning. BE suspicious of MOST bright, shiny raw common date Morgans that have that bright, but lusterless look--it hides the bag marks that true uncirculated Morgans normally have. Below is the picture of the same date in a gem grade coin--note the NATURAL luster, and although there are bag marks, there are no hairlines. Bet that this one is a true MS 64-65 (graded as a 65), and was dipped many years ago, and is retoning. Compare this to your coin:
