I wouldn't agree necessarily.
I can't quite tell what the orientation of the coin and it makes it quite difficult to do any analysis.
During the early days of overstriking, I assume that extremely crude methods, unusual things can happen:

Notice that the eagle on the clouds design is almost invisible on the obverse, yet appearent on the reverse. I don't know about the technology back then but mostly certainly various overstriked coins have unusual features as the pressure, surface flatness, underlying image etc all play a role. Perhaps rittenhouse can comment something about it?
I cannot quite tell what exactly is wrong with the Peter III design but it does look rather "squashed" perhaps with an extremely worn out die or something stuck with the die.
Theortically speaking, all previous coins of Paul I should be overstriked but it must be obvious that the mints couldn't get hold of all coins to be overstruck else there wouldn't be any earlier examples of Petrovna kopeks to Catherine II kopeks.
But yes, one thing I agree is that I will not pay such mad prices for it. I would much rather get a genuine Peter III 10 kopek coin