Wow! I am really surprised by this grade. Obviously, I have some learning on how to accurately grade certain coins.
The pictures don't do this coin justice. The last picture I posted with only the PCGS slab you can see how red the coin is against my washed out pictures. Making it look like it has no luster and a stripped appearance.
In this instance, it is not unreasonable to avoid focusing on a single aspect and instead look at the big picture. The coin does not display "significant wear", and based solely upon the photos, the likelihood the diamonds were ever complete is slim to none. Think 1898-O Barber dimes and how examples are known displaying full luster, but incomplete LIBERTY; should the former be ignored in favor of the latter, relegating such a coin to VG/F? I realize this can be a somewhat debatable area, and believe Rick Snow even touched upon this in his grading pdf (with an example of a coin completely skipping EF, going straight from AU to VF due to strike deficiencies iirc), but is a good example of why it is wise to "read the coin".
Now with the picture of it in the slab, I can see the color and luster. See how hard it is to grade from a photo???
It is hard to grade from a bad photo( mine are,those were taken awhile ago. I have improved. Need to get my lighting down a bit better. Live and learn. Coin is much better in hand with a ton of red prevalent.
I am stunned by the grade. No way would I have thought that coin a high grade AU. From the pictures, it just looked like it had heavy marking and significant wear. Oh well, shows that I really don't know Copper coins, which I do not collect.
I assumed that the luster was a photography issue, not a surface issue since I knew that the coin was already slabbed.