I see no high point wear. However, it is impossible to judge luster from photos, in general. If it hasn't been dipped to death (DTD) then it may be 58 to lower MS. If DTD, all bets are off.
Yes, the coin seems overexposed and washed out. The date on the obverse has better contrast, but it also shows more light coming from 12 o'clock. Less direct light could help.
Better in hand. Surfaces still rather lifeless especially the obverse. And not beautiful toning my call au 53 they could knock it to 50 due to the lack of luster tho
I have to agree with Doug on this one. I thought the surfaces funky looking, but if one thinks about it, the coin probably had the chocolate toning typical of seated coinage, and someone didn't like it. It has that crusty, dull, flat, overdipped look, and I would agree on AU Details.
Luster is actually pretty strong on the obverse. Hard to show it in pictures. Maybe it'll look better when I get some real pictures of it.
Looks a little crusty. Slightly negative eye appeal, probably worth 1/2 grade deduction from whatever the technical grade is. I do wonder if it had a dip at some point in its life. I'd still give it a bath, in case some of that crustiness is actually crud. I wonder if it's just not very photogenic.
Terrific details, but the differing colors of the toning (especially on the reverse) hint at a coin recovering from a dip. The first dip removed most of the black - creating the abrupt transitions between black and "clean" fields, and the spots - and the brownish color arrived after the dip. With luck, I'm wrong. I'd be introducing the coin to acetone just to see what happens. It won't affect actual toning.
The consensus seems to be mid grade AU, but the question is whether or not it grades, due to the seemingly heavy dipping that it got. I say details, some others say it grades. It seems like an overdip to me.