I don't see any wear, but the luster profile looks strange. Based on those photos, it has a washed out dipped appearance that NGC loves to grade MS62, despite having MS64 surfaces.
AU58, looks over-dipped. Could be a mix of being dipped and poor lighting/angle that gives it the AU look.
I hate coins that look like this in photos because I don;t know if it is lighting or the coin that gives it the dull look. Hard to judge luster and wear on this one. Detail wise it could be a 64 coin like Lehigh said but I can't figure out the luster on it and if it has luster breaks it could be in a 55-58 holder. It's a key date so and they like tons of luster for the higher end grades so I could see it in a 62-63 holder, I'll assume that their is no wear with decent luster and give it a 63.
Nothing to hate. It has nice detail, and is attractive in hand. If it had screaming MS 64-65 luster, it would be an $8,000 coin. Yeah, it is a bit over dipped, but not to the point that would render it ugly.
First impression was the same as @Lehigh96, but if it is just the photo and not how the coin looks in hand, I would have to have better photos before I would attempt a guess at the grade.
Definitely has luster issues from overdipping. Lighting makes it look worse than it is, but not optimum. Strike is typical for a 1934s—below average. I don’t see any obvious wear. Question is, how did the TPG treat somewhat muted luster, but decent details, especially of the devices?
I gotta go with 58 in this case. Luster profile looks a little funny, and I do think that a slight bit of wear may be visible on the top of the eagles shoulder. (Although, Peace dollars can sometimes have weaker strikes like any other coin. Hard to say with my lack of expertise.)