The first one I would guess is not lustrous, and cleaning has stripped the luster away. XF-Details. The second one VF-30.
Agree with Michael. Cleaned on the first one, maybe au detail. VF-25 on the second one (just to be different).
Older cleanings are often deemed acceptable on these old beauties. I do not believe that first one is sporting an old cleaning. Looks pretty fresh to me. I do love the look of the second lady and am more in the VF category with her.
1. AU-50 Details, cleaned. Don't see any luster on it at all, just the "white" dipped look.... 2. VF-30 IMO, the second one is better and looks really nice for the grade with original surfaces.
I quite agree that the ‘34 looks “flat” & lusterless; don’t see quite enough meat on the obverse for AU. For me , more like XF45. However, it’s beginning to tone decently — based on the fotos — and should look nice eventually. The ‘30 seems a good bit more “original” (whatever that means these days), though in hand I might revise that opinion. I don’t think the TPG’s would see it as more than VF20, however; they seem to gradually ratchet up their standards for Busties as the years go up and by the 30’s appear more stringent than those for, say, the ‘teens. Or have I just been staring at these thing too intently?
I know the pictures taken from my pho e aren't the best, but in hand it is truly a beautiful coin. I don't think it was cleaned, there are subtle faint finger prints on the field that suggest otherwise. I honestly think its an AU 50 at best, however, i am no expert and that why i brought it to you guys for more thought. Either way, thank you again for all of the insight and comments. I will be sending it in for grading and will keep this thread updated.
There seem to be some light lines that run parallel from 9 to 3 oclock. OBV. If they are incidental rub from circulating and very faint the coin has AU details. I hope that it straight grades for you.