I think the OP coin is generic toning. It should not particularly add or subtract to the value of the coin.
What I see in the pic above is tarnish. Nasty black oxidation. Toning is a colorful oxidation that is not so flat and ugly. Tarnish deserves dipping (I just love how people insist on calling a properly dipped coin damaged) as it really does look horrible. Most toning is OK, and doesnt require a dip. Just my opinion.
On my scale of toning it would be a 7/10, with 0 being terminal and 10 being beautiful. Just my opiinion
I still like the toning, but looking at the latest pictures you posted I'm not sure its MS. It looked like it in the first post. But the surfaces appear to be worn (look at the breast feathers on the back, and the face, hair and ear on the front). These areas appear to be flat. I know some of the NO's have a weak strike, but this one is more than usual. I can't put my finger on it cause the next surface level looks good, and the fields appear to be awesome.
The color is definitely not flat. This coin is full of luster, but the photo is at the wrong angle for that. I haven't mastered my coin photography yet. I either seem to capture color or luster, never both in the same photo. Still learning.
I think you will find no matter how many coin photos you take that balancing luster and color is the single biggest challenge in coin photography of those coins that are both lustrous and colorful. I think it's kind of like a yin-yang thing.