Just Bob

Unfortunately,.this is not always the case. There are many instances of market grading  - high end AU coins given MS grades due to eye appeal and perceived value. That is exactly what  the OP is concerned about, and it is a real possibility. 

Even though you didn't say this was a "guess the grade," I'm going to toss my opinion out there. I think the nickel will come back as a 66, maybe a 67, no cameo.

Even though you didn't say this was a "guess the grade," I'm going to toss my opinion out there. I think the nickel will come back as a 66, maybe a 67, no cameo.

Even though you didn't say this was a "guess the grade," I'm going to toss my opinion out there. I think the nickel will come back as a 66, maybe a 67, no cameo.

I am harder on my own coins than I am on those that belong to others.

I am a 3 cent fan, too. Nice collector piece.

A lot of evaluation is looking for the high points. Sometimes it's strike weakness, for example, where the full detail was never present; that can look like wear, but is not. You have seen that when you compare your coin to the real deal, it has lost so much detail that it's in the lower grading tier. If it were rare, it'd be worth something, but it's not. Another important thing is to look for the cleaning, which this coin very clearly appears whizzed (abrasively cleaned). Some cleaned coins are whizzed, and some are chemically cleaned. A few are both, which is a special grade of hideous.
To help yourself away from misunderstanding, burn this into your knowledge base: shiny does not automatically equal good. While you might have figured that out by now, notice that the brightness of your coin is unnatural; that is, for its level of wear, it's not the right color. Cleaning tends to cause that. So when you see a coin that looks shiny, look for the detail. Likewise, when you see a coin that looks dull or dark, look for the detail. It might shock you to learn that a very tarnished example of your coin, with full detail, could well be mint state (as in uncirculated). Happens with copper all the time, since Cu is very reactive (including, of course, the Cu that is alloyed with Ag to make your coin).
Detail, detail, detail. For example, a nice Morgan would have details on the cotton leaves and bolls (in her hair), and you'd be able to see some breast feathers on the bird. A lightly struck Morgan could be missing some of that. We look at the detail. If you glance at Roger's example, you'll see weakness on the hair above her ear, some on the cotton, and very much on the eagle's breast. How does one know that those are not wear? The fields are part of the detail. If the coin were circulated, there'd be all sorts of microscratches in the fields. As it stands, Roger's example has attractive fields free of wear (what you are seeing on her cheek and the field by it are bag marks).
When you know what ought to be there, you can see what is not, and then assess whether that absence represents wear or weakness. That will take you very far in coin collecting.

Here is a link to one of the grading sites on the web that uses pictures to which you can compare your coin. The pictures on this site don't enlarge, but you should be able to compare yours and come up with a very close grade. Hint: it will not be MS64. 
https://coinauctionshelp.com/coincollectingapps/coin-types-identification-cart-lite/us-large-dollar-morgan-photograde-lite/

Your responses - the above statement in particular - lead me to believe that a study into how dies are made would benefit you greatly. And that was what Woods was saying, also. He did not mean that if you did not know the reason something happened that you should ignore it. He meant that if, after learning how the process actually worked, you determined that it could not have happened during the minting process, it could be (most of the time) dismissed as post-minting damage.
 
Mr Burdette responded as I was typing this post, and, as usual, he explained things well. Let me just add a link to a long but detailed article that I think will be of help to you. I suggest spending some time reading this and other articles on this subject.
Click Me 
 
Edited to add: Also, if you could post a link to the Washington quarter with the circle that resembles an earring, I would like to take a look at it.

Your responses - the above statement in particular - lead me to believe that a study into how dies are made would benefit you greatly. And that was what Woods was saying, also. He did not mean that if you did not know the reason something happened that you should ignore it. He meant that if, after learning how the process actually worked, you determined that it could not have happened during the minting process, it could be (most of the time) dismissed as post-minting damage.
 
Mr Burdette responded as I was typing this post, and, as usual, he explained things well. Let me just add a link to a long but detailed article that I think will be of help to you. I suggest spending some time reading this and other articles on this subject.
Click Me 
 
Edited to add: Also, if you could post a link to the Washington quarter with the circle that resembles an earring, I would like to take a look at it.

Large date. Easiest way is to look at the 9.

I just moved from that area and pretty sure an alien invasion happened long ago……

That looks like glue. Try soaking it in acetone for a while.

The gold and silver stars on those labels are a marketing gimmick. They have nothing to do with eye appeal, condition, or actual value of the coins.

I think Mike & Coinbuf have it correct. A newly struck Lincoln cent stuck to the obverse die, creating what is known as a capped die. This means that the surface that would strike the next planchet now had a raised impression of the reverse - the memorial. The first coin struck by this capped die would have had a near perfect incuse impression on one side, and a normal memorial impression on the other side. Each subsequent strike would have caused the cap to expand and thin out, stretching the design. The edges most likely curved around the die face as the coin expanded. After repeated strikes, the cap would have thinned enough to sink slightly into the design on the obverse die - Lincoln's portrait, causing a vaguely head-shaped impression on the coins being struck, called a "ghost image." This is where your coin fits. It was struck through a capped die that had already struck several other coins before it struck yours, which, in coin jargon, is called a brockage. It would probably be a mid- or mid-to-late stage, since one that is truly late stage would actually have all signs of the memorial obliterated, and would show a blurry image of the obverse design.

You sure that isn't a "9" that took a hit and looks like a "6"? 

You sure that isn't a "9" that took a hit and looks like a "6"? 

I think Mike & Coinbuf have it correct. A newly struck Lincoln cent stuck to the obverse die, creating what is known as a capped die. This means that the surface that would strike the next planchet now had a raised impression of the reverse - the memorial. The first coin struck by this capped die would have had a near perfect incuse impression on one side, and a normal memorial impression on the other side. Each subsequent strike would have caused the cap to expand and thin out, stretching the design. The edges most likely curved around the die face as the coin expanded. After repeated strikes, the cap would have thinned enough to sink slightly into the design on the obverse die - Lincoln's portrait, causing a vaguely head-shaped impression on the coins being struck, called a "ghost image." This is where your coin fits. It was struck through a capped die that had already struck several other coins before it struck yours, which, in coin jargon, is called a brockage. It would probably be a mid- or mid-to-late stage, since one that is truly late stage would actually have all signs of the memorial obliterated, and would show a blurry image of the obverse design.

I think Mike & Coinbuf have it correct. A newly struck Lincoln cent stuck to the obverse die, creating what is known as a capped die. This means that the surface that would strike the next planchet now had a raised impression of the reverse - the memorial. The first coin struck by this capped die would have had a near perfect incuse impression on one side, and a normal memorial impression on the other side. Each subsequent strike would have caused the cap to expand and thin out, stretching the design. The edges most likely curved around the die face as the coin expanded. After repeated strikes, the cap would have thinned enough to sink slightly into the design on the obverse die - Lincoln's portrait, causing a vaguely head-shaped impression on the coins being struck, called a "ghost image." This is where your coin fits. It was struck through a capped die that had already struck several other coins before it struck yours, which, in coin jargon, is called a brockage. It would probably be a mid- or mid-to-late stage, since one that is truly late stage would actually have all signs of the memorial obliterated, and would show a blurry image of the obverse design.

Is the design raised or incuse on the distorted image? Looks incuse and mirrored. I'm leaning in-collar, late-stage brockage. Cool find! 

That is the very rare dime that was created when FDR temporarily gave up smoking for a short time and took up chewing tobacco.
 

No, not really. My post was tongue-in-cheek. There were lots of pictures of PCGS, one of ANACS, and none of NGC. I was attempting to play off RWB's joking reply, questioning if PCGS slipped the OP some cash to post all of those pictures. I joked that maybe NGC did not pay her. 
 

SInce we are posting counterfeits:
 

Apparently, NGC either forgot to send their check, or failed to show up at the show. They got left out of the report entirely.
And, what is the story with the guy with the cello case? Did he entertain the show attendees?
PS - Glad Rich was ok. He needs to keep some snacks and water on hand from now on.

I doubt that was the counterfeiters' intent when they created these coins. I feel certain they would have been happy just to fool a few thousand ignorant people.