Is This 1893 Barber Half Dollar Whizzed?

A while ago I purchased an 1893 50C from an online auction in what seemed like high AU condition. This was before I learned how to evaluate internet auction photos more objectively and with a more discerning and critical eye.

When I actually had the coin in hand, I noticed it looked... off. The most apparent issues were that it appeared unnaturally bright and its surfaces were very reflective instead of diffusive as one would expect for circulation strikes. Moreover, there seemed to be very little true cartwheel luster present. My best guess is that the coin was whizzed at some point.

I had never seen a whizzed coin in person, and for the most part I knew how to detect whizzing performed on a very well-worn coin in an attempt to simulate luster. I later found out that a known problem in the past was for unscrupulous sellers to whiz AU Barber halves and attempt to sell them as mid-grade MS Barber halves, for which the whizzing would not need to be as heavy.

Under a loupe, I am not able to identify for certain the raised metal on the device peripheries diagnostic of a heavily whizzed coin. However, I did notice the presence of many fine scratches on all surfaces that to me seems inconsistent with normal damage for a circulating AU coin. When viewed at a fixed angle, most of the scratches appear parallel (like I would expect for an old cleaning), but when I change the viewing angle, the direction of the parallel scratches also changes accordingly. I thus suspect that there are many fine scratches everywhere going in all directions (so that you only see those in one direction at a time when viewed under a point light source). My guess would be that such omnidirectional scratches could be the result of the circular movement of the whizzing tool.

I've attached four pictures: the first set is the obverse and reverse viewed under "natural" ambient lighting, and the second set is the obverse and reverse viewed under a harsh point light source. The first set shows the more reflective look of the coin, and the second set shows the fine scratches I mentioned from one viewing angle.

Do you think this coin was indeed whizzed as I suspect? I'm not worried about the lost value on the coin, as I've already accepted the inevitable AU details designation. I'm more interested in knowing if I identified the whizzing correctly so that I can use it as a good example for myself and others to learn from.