Cleaned Proof, PL, or ???

[JIM F.]

Recently picked this up.  Full PL surfaces, but plenty of hairlines with some moderate retoning.  I don't think it is a proof, but appreciate opinions from others.  Photos are unedited.  Photos with flash show PL whereas non-flash does not show the surface PL.

Thanks for looking.

[MarkFeld]

Cleaned or polished,  non-proof.

[WoodenJefferson]

I would say ~whizzed~ polished sometime during it's life time and has since re-toned.

[Conder101]

Agreed, those are not proof like or proof surfaces.

[Raisethis2]

Just cleaned a long time ago IMO. 

[physics-fan3.14]

There are a couple of easy tell-tale signs that show this was cleaned: 

The first and most obvious is the "halo" effect around all the devices (it's especially noticeable on the reverse). It was polished, and whatever was doing the polishing couldn't get into the tight crevices. Whenever you see that halo effect, your first thought should always be cleaned. 

The second is the character of the fields in your shots showing reflectivity. A proof coin should have perfectly smooth surfaces, and the reflection is going to be "watery." Think of your reflection in a pool of water on a perfectly still, calm day. A prooflike coin is going to show luster, but the surfaces won't usually be as watery as the proof coin. There may be some die polish lines from the mint - they would polish the dies, giving it that prooflike reflectivity. 

Unfortunately, the surfaces here show a rough, lusterless look. This looks like someone used some sort of jeweler's polish, or maybe baking soda, and scrubbed the coin. I don't see hairlines from a brush, and I don't see evidence of whizzing - but polishing is going to be just as bad. 

[JIM F.]

In hand the surfaces are prooflike.  I am sure it was cleaned at one time, but I don't think too harshly.  Tough to capture the PL surfaces with my camera.  Here are a couple additional photos.