Is the field beige in reality or is it an artifact of photography? If the beige stuff is for real and you don't like it, have you considered an acetone bath? Just like sel_69l I don't see any luster either, but the coin is nice and sharp. So for me it is AU-58.
im assuming and artifact of photography. the overhead light in that room fluorescent and I had one led light on either side to try and light the coin. I didnt want to mess with and color correction so these are how they came off the sd card.
the 96(P) are typically sharp and bold. this one is just a little short with the hair around the ear just a little flat and the breast not as defined as it should be for the year. overhead lighting is not good as it is washing out the surfaces and hiding any luster that may be there or it could be from a cleaning that removed it. without better photos I need to put it in the AU58 bucket
I have a hunch about the surface on the coin. I played with your photos a bit by reducing lighting, sharpening contrast, and adjusting color to offset some of the effects of fluorescent lighting. I see some granular coating on the surface, particularly in the fields and flat surfaces on the devices. For example, notice the areas around the stars.
Two questions: Was this coin stored in a vinyl flip or vinyl sheet? Do you live in a warm and humid area?
This could be a reaction to PVC.
In terms of the technical grade, there is evidence of light circulation. It's in the mid- to high-AU range (AU-55 to AU-58). If an acetone bath doesn't remove the surface discoloration, the coin likely would be AU Details.