1894 O Morgan For Thoughts

It does not look lifeless or cleaned , I just use a basic I phone and a cup with natural light , not the best set up but all I have .
It looks to have not been cleaned or over dipped , just quite bright , has contact marks for sure in the field and on the face

I'm going to have to agree with you for now.

I agree what I thought was a slam dunk 55 is what I think a 53 now . I can tell it's been dipped lightly but I have other Au coins that have been and are straight graded . I think it will keep it to a 53 where the detail of the coin in hand had me at 55 to 55+ I'll try and post pics with better light

I would only keep coins I am reasonably happy with. If I had a coin in my collection where every time I see it I think "ugh" , then clearly I am dissatisfied and I shouldn't have bought it/kept it in the first place.
One thing I learned on this forum is that there is always another coin out there that you might like better. Why settle for something you don't love?
Keep looking, and remember: Patience is a virtue.

At AU-53, I don't think it details. If it was a higher grade, maybe. The contact marks look about right for a low-to-mid-AU.

That's a completely different question from whether you should send it back. You alone know how you would feel if you pulled it out and looked at it six months or a year from now. Nobody else can make that call for you. Trust your instincts and no matter what you choose, don't look back.

does anyone think all the contact marks will detail it? I think it has been dipped but still has alot of natural luster and its all white at every angle no dull blue shadows.I have 6 other AU coins and a XF that are straight graded that look to have been dipped , I am just concerned of the bag marks . looking under a 10 loop it looks like cabinet scratches or other things that may make scratches but not hairlines from being cleaned abrasively or a rough surface.

If there is decent luster it should be fine. The seller pics showed reasonable luster, and I don't believe you can create luster in a photo. The circulation marks shouldn't be a problem in a mid-AU coin.

So much deception, intentional or otherwise, is possible through numismatic pics. Really you can only trust a pic once you've verified that the seller is publishing good ones.

PCGS TrueView has refined numismatic deception to an art form. An ethical calamity, if you ask me.

On ebay there are several high volume sellers that regularly use doctored pics to pretty up coins. Most buyers just accept them without complaint, so their feedback is hardly impacted. Then there are the legions of amateur sellers with their cell phones, who probably don't mean to mislead, but do -- sometimes to their own disadvantage. You can get lucky, or burned.

Fortunately there are a few sellers -- even on ebay -- I've learned to trust over the years. I've also had no problem at all with Heritage Auction's in-house photos -- although sometimes they will throw up a TrueView Pic in addition to the real photos, which can deceive you if you're rushed or sloppy during an auction.

I'm no great coin photographer. I give my own photos a 7 out of ten. They're best when I have natural sunlight to work with. They are less reliable with the various artificial light sources I have tried.