Just Bob

No chance.  That's what collecting is all about.  

Just couldn't help yourself, huh?

I'll start:
 

Happy 5000th!

If I weren't a nice guy, I could have some fun with this putting words in someone's mouth thing

Not at all, much better than what is on most of the coinage today.
 
 

First off - welcome to the forum.
I am afraid you have committed a serious numismatic faux pas, and your Morgans will almost certainly not be straight graded. Please do not clean any of the others. And, what ever you read or viewed that told you to clean them with baking soda - burn it.
Seriously, though, cleaning is definitely taboo these days, with "original surfaces" being in high demand with most collectors. Nothing stronger than distilled water, or maybe acetone, should be used, and definitely no rubbing. Even though the surfaces of coins are hard, they can be "hairlined" quite easily.

I will probably be ridiculed for this but, I love this coin.

They were sold on the Home Shopping Network, so it would not surprise me if the label was created just for that purpose. Our hosts can probably answer your question, though.

Or, maybe this one....

Thank you.

Thank you for the better pictures. The Philadelphia minted coin is a large date; the Denver minted coin is a small date. The weight is still needed to determine whether the "D" is brass or copper-coated zinc.

Apply some logic.  the date start with 19 and ends with a 6.  I am going to assume it is a Memorila cent so that means it is 1966, 76, 86 or 96.  It appears to be copper and I would expect damage like that to have exposed the zinc if it was a plated cent so we can eliminate 86 and 96.  It has a mintmark so we can eliminate 66, that leaves 76.  Pretty obvious.
Now if the weight showed it to be plated zinc, then you would check the AM on the reverse,  Wide AM it would be an 86, close AM a 96.

I thought that was Bachman Turner Overdrive

I find it hard to believe that anyone who read through all of Richie's responses, with their argumentative, shouting, (yes, on the internet, that is what ALL CAPS means) smart-aleck, and sarcastic tones, ( I can cite examples if you don't want to go back and look for yourself) could honestly believe that he only wanted opinions. He received opinions from many knowledgeable people, and refused to believe any of them, continuing to argue in hopes of convincing everyone that he was right, and they were wrong. He stated he only wanted facts, but never offered any facts to support his own theory that the coin was sandblasted at the mint, which was his explanation for its appearance.  He also refused to resolve the situation by sending the coin in for authentication, blaming his inactivity on members of another forum having discouraged him.
I personally do not blame him for wanting to be certain that his coin was or was not something special. But, with the remedy to the situation so easily accessible, one wonders if he really wants to learn the truth.

My opinion:
It is damaged - caused by another coin being placed on top of it and struck repeatedly. After the first blow, the design from the lower coin was impressed into the upper coin, turning it into a "die" with an incuse design. The second blow then transferred this design back to the lower coin. This was done more than once, which is why you see backward and forward designs in different positions on your coin. The raised lines, on the reverse, and the mostly obliterated design, are from the surface on which the lower coin was resting when struck.

If the edges are worn, they can't be MS. Mint State (MS) means Uncirculated. An uncirculated coin can't be worn. Even evidence of slight friction is enough to downgrade a coin to AU (About Uncirculated.)

No offense intended to the artist or engraver, but that is a horrible likeness of the princess.

Only if I did not already have one in my Whitman album. Otherwise, I would spend it.

I have a hard time deciphering those microscope pictures. Does it have a lower setting?