Between these two. Price is a factor, naturally. Which one of these gives the most "bang for the buck"? #1: $690 #2: $1,050
Personally I like them both. I would opt for the one without the hole. It has wear and tear but not serious damage, like a hole.
The hole goes *right* through the date. That's a killer for me (well, the hole itself is killer for me - but you really, really don't want it through the date).
A coin like this is historical significance, but I wouldn't spend my money on either. I can see the atraction though. Given the choices, select the one that pleases you more. For me, that would be the one that has the best detail. The trouble is the one with the hole, the hole goes right through the date.
I’d save the money and would wait until I could afford an undamaged coin. Don’t buy any coins until then. Sell some coins which don’t really fit into your collection. That’s maybe not what you want to hear, but it’s the best advice I can give.
#1 has more "meat on the bone", but it is much more heavily damaged than #2. #1 has the hole, egregious cleaning scratches, and gouges. #2 has some lighter cleaning scratches, and a couple of rim dings but is more or less about what you'd expect for an average cleaned coin in this grade. I agree with others that neither coin is really a desirable piece but if you must, then #2 is the better choice in terms of "collectability". But as for "bang for the buck", neither coin is worth what's being asked.