I don't think so. Brushed, possibly with brass bristles - yes, but true whizzing is done with a motorized wire wheel and generally leaves a curving pattern with far more individual hairlines than the auction coin has.
It looks more like what the Home Shopping Channel calls 'cart-wheeling'. But then I have very poor eye sight.
I took a pass on it, and here's why: Even allowing for the overexposed pic, it seemed dipped and polished to me. Note the area just behind the hair, where either the polishing didn't take or the dip didn't rinse. There's similar poorly-rinsed stuff in the stars in front of the nose. Also note the cheek/chin - the lower area is pretty reflective (there's color from the shirt of the person taking the pic there) while the upper area is more mottled. Remember, I collect 1921's. I've seen almost every single one offered online for the last 6 months (this one included), and frequently when I'm in doubt I pull the pic into Photoshop and correct for photographic errors. Here's what this one looks like with a quick touchup: The points I mentioned are a little clearer in that pic. What it boiled down to, though, is that it just didn't_look_right to me. I've seen a bazillion 1921's pictured, from photographers of every level of expertise, and this one was just too uncharacteristically shiny even corrected for light level. As for whizzing, I think there's enough photographic information in this pic, and the light is off-center far enough, to have shown some of the characteristic lines. Edit: For the record, I would have bought this coin if I thought it was more original. The die cracks on the reverse were plentiful enough for me to think it might have been a worthy VAM, even if I couldn't see the whole thing. It wouldn't have been the first nice VAM I got from a photograph of that quality.
