The first looks a little under exposed and has a different toning. The second could use better white balance and shows light coming from the top. The third shows good balanced light source.
The first looks a little under exposed. The second could have better white balance and obviously had the light source from the top. The third has very even distribution of light and shows an attractive patina.
You're right, 4to2. The second image is from the A. Tkalec AG auction of October 24, 2003: http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=149847
In retrospect, I realize how sad it is that I can recognize a dealer by the color and style of their photo.
An even more striking example: The same type as the OP, but with a different obverse die. Photo for NAC 33, April 6, 2006, lot 95: Photo for Stack's, January 14, 2008, lot 2116:
I'm reviving this thread to show the following coin: which I was seriously considering until I found this earlier photo:
Was the coin itself re-toned or more toned, or is that all photo difference? The abrasion on the cheek is a turn off, but I doubt I would throw her out of my coin tray for eating olives and spitting the pits on the floor.
This coin has "been around the block" in the last few years. In addition to these two images, here are two other appearances. This is a useful exercise to prove the value of lotviewing!
It is a big difference and one that might affect my bidding/purchase decisions....but that would mainly depend upon the cost and the 'discount' one would assume those unfortunate surface conditions would naturally result in. Many of mine are 'flawed' to fit my budget, especially for those a bit pricey or simply rare examples that I crave. 'Lot viewing' is great advice!!! I can't help but wonder how 'different' it may look in hand.