What is it about a finger print that makes you think it is only genuine? Lots of coins have fingerprints and lots of grade coins have fingerprints.
I consider fingerprinted coins to be "no grade" coins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "genuine/details" coins that have problems which the TPGs used to call no grade?
Yes, "genuine/details" coins that have problems, but fingerprints are not considered problems. AU coins are typically cover with fingerprints - so many that you can no longer make out the individual pint. And those poor circulated coins probably have millions of prints, but all are graded unless they have another problem. Now a fingerprint will distract from the eye appeal of a coin and lower the grade, but it is definitely not a cause to call the coin genuine.
Nice luster particularly for a RB coin. It is nearly nick free. The O in ONE may be a bit on the weak side, but over all a pretty good strike. However, there is a spot on the 19 and several tiny blotches on the coin. Without those, I think it might have gone 66. With them, NGC gave it a 65. I imagine that it technically does not deserve a 66, but it is a nice looking 65 IMO.