For me, it was the lack of coin strikes that drew my attention. The obverse is not as lustrous as the reverse nor as appealing to me. The high spots show wear on both sides but seems much worse than should be on liberty compared to the eagle. Personally I find the lack of bag marks makes up for the wear but liberty is just suspiciously smooth.
Looks like you have doubling on the stars on the obverse! Plus, that small bump in front of the eye is also a VAM. Sorry, I don't recall the number.
You aren't wrong, there is quite the disparity between the reverse and obverse. The color seems consistent, but the obverse is much more worn.
Do you feel it's been whizzed or doctored in some way? Anyways, to me, I see an AU morgan dollar, likely some sort of funny business going on, maybe it was a MS with some marks on the obverse and someone tried to clean it up, and doctored it down to VF40-AU range? looks like it might have had some work done on the fields of the reverse also. to me the most suspect place from the pictures is between the E and T of In God We Trust, the rest kind of flows from there to other areas. I dunno. I think I'd look there under magnification, then check the other fields (above the motto, then under left and right wing) for hairlines that don't belong. if it's evident on the reverse then the additional wear is likely due to the same thing on the obverse, just done on a larger scale to the obverse to take down the contact marks. Just one, non-professional opinion. also to me, it has that color of a 64 kennedy half that went through the laundry with the whites in a couple of the pictures while other pictures don't seem so bad. LOL angle, lighting, or maybe it appears that way, I don't really know.
I think it may have been a new ring light I have been using. I looked again under an incandescent. It's actually not that bad. The obverse has more toning than the reverse and maybe don't play so nice with the new light???? IDK
Lighting is almost everything honestly with pictures of coins. If the ring light is flourescent or led but has a bad CRI it's not going to "look" true to eye, the same way those old arc sodium parking lot lights make everything look like a horror movie and unnatural under it. These pictures don't look so bad, but her cheek still looks like funny business going on, way too many hairlines in my opinion for simple circulation incidentals.
My very first reaction was that coin went through some serious cleaning. Maybe a long time ago, but it just doesn't show consistency around all the devices to the field. Then @John Burgess basically opened the door and said a lot of what I was thinking and confirmed it. I think the coin has detail problems. The eye appeal isn't there for me, but I'm not buying it. You are @bruthajoe , so you have to like what you see.
