I agree with all of you that PCGS should have given it a FS designation. I posted this because I was unsure if my own bias was influencing my opinion or not. The 1962-D is a better date and this would be a top pop (and very expensive) as a MS65 FS. PCGS called it MS65. Some of the chatter is exaggerated is because it has semi PL obverse fields.
It doesn't look like it does to me. I can see why it would not be 6 FS, but 5 FS is supposedly good enough for PCGS's FS designation.
It's hard to see in the photo provided, but after looking at the coin again the fifth step is missing under the 3rd pillar.
It's hard to see in the small pictures, but I think there is enough bridging on the steps to preclude a FS grade. It is an above average strike for a 62D, but not enough for the designation. It also has above average luster and eye appeal for the usually dull date.
