This Can't Be MS-61 Right?

I dunno, it could be a cruddy UNC, as long as it isn't AU, and the markings aren't enough to detail it, I have no problem with it being MS61

61 is swimming at the bottom of the uncirculated pool.

Of course it's dinged to death.

A 60 barely escapes a details death sentence.

There's probably some hairlines and/or poor luster on it that's hard to see in a picture

1999 is modern, so comparing it to 1954 is the reason for the disparity.

No. Not nearly MS-61

if you click on it to blow it up you will see why. this coins surfaces are a mess but the coin is still MS thus the grade. just because its shiny doesn't matter. I agree they could have selected better example

Let me elaborate on my earlier comment. The context of the coin is the problem.

Two things in grading come into play here...

#1 You can not grade accurately with bias to the coin you have just looked at before the current coin. So if you picked up say an MS68 coin and then looked at the same year / denomination after it, you would have a natural tendency to bias your decision with a lower grade coin and reduce its grade. Imagine this, look at an MS65 grade, you will grade it unbiased at MS65. Now look at an MS68/69 grade coin, then the MS65. It will look shabby compared with the high grade coin, making it easy to under grade the coin. The same works with an MS61, the MS65 will look much nicer leading to the bias that you may over grade the coin. #2 The coins grade is also affected by the series and year.

It's kind of fascinating, like the relationship between girls beauty and beer when I was in my younger days lol. One night I was drinking with friends and we were convinced the barmaid must be a model. The following day we went back stone cold sober for lunch, it made me appreciate just how much perception can alter depending on circumstances lol.

The op picture shows three coins.

Coin 1 is a 1961 nickel, well struck, lustrous and great eye appeal, with a little wear. So AU58 is accurate.
Coin 2 is a 1999 nickel, MS with luster but that series has much lower relief and was redesigned. Looks to me like many planchet marks left over by the weaker strike rather than contact marks and not much eye appeal. So it looks low grade MS coin, so MS61 looks about right.
Coin 3 is a 1954 nickel also looks fine at MS62. Not as lustrous as the AU58, not as well struck and with less eye appeal. It does look much nicer than the 1999 MS61, but that is because the two series have different reliefs and it's a redesigned/refreshed series.

When looking at the three without taking all that into account, it looks like the 1999 is a real dawg.