Solid strike. It looks like the coin was dipped and then mishandled (fingerprints). That hurts eye appeal, but wouldn't affect the technical grade. I don't think the toning is original, but it is market acceptable, so the coin should straight grade. I agree with MS-64 for the technical grade.
the 84(S) are normally sharply struct. the reverse is a little weak which accounts for the flat breast. may have had a light dip in the pool and then in an album for quite a while which would account for the toning. I'm going with AU58 but think it only saw light circulation enough to touch the tips of the wings and the very highest points of the devices
if you look at the obverse you can see a delineation line running horizontal which is giving the coin a flatter duller field above the eye. this is more prevalent on the reverse where you can see these delineations in two place. at the bottom of the neck and under the talons indicating dips.
@panzaldi would a dip not take off the luster? Coin has most it's luster . The coin grades straight so unless they thought it was not enough to detail it PCGS graded it normal. When I look at the coin in hand the scratches look the same as most every other similarly graded coin .or would they just knock it down a grade? Coin doesn't look cleaned to me . I guess a light dip would be possible if it didn't take any of the luster away or detail the coin . Some of those scratches to unfortunately are on the holder it has a few