Which 1913-D T1 Buff nick is better?

Please take "I like the color of the first" out of the equation and grade technically.
The first is in a PCGS MS64 holder. The second is the same date and mint, raw.
Which do you select for your collection?
Coin #1:



Coin#2

The first is in a PCGS MS64 holder. The second is the same date and mint, raw.
Which do you select for your collection?
Coin #1:



Coin#2



0
Comments
I'd have to choose #2.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
That 2nd PIC is hammered!!!!
very sweet!!!!
edited for the obvious....
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
Strike, lustre and overall looks
#1 or #2.....hmmm
For my collection I would have to say.....
YES!
Plus, the first has real nice color.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
Don
If Buffalo's were readily available with that hammered
look, I would be a buffalo collector too.
I especially like that type 1 hammered look.
Type 1, is far more attractive than type 2.
At least to my tastebuds.
Regards, Steve.
Take a look at the braids "rubber band" and see the extra detail in the raw? Both are killer coins. Thanks, now to get a kleenex to sop up the drool!
bob
Hoot
Of course, I chose both.
Garrow
<< <i>I gotta go #2 also >>
That is just a little bit too much info...
As for the coins- to me the first coin has a better strike, especially on the shoulder and head of the buffalo. My vote is for the first coin!
I like the first one much better. The strike and surfaces look better.
And for the record, I love the color as well.
<< <i>I like the originality of the first. I get the feeling that the second has been, how shall I say it,.... cleaned, and not up to your usual standards.
Garrow >>
No, Garrow, no cleaning and no dipping. This isn't to say I haven't dipped coins and I hardly take umbrage, but I haven't touched this one. What do you see that suggests that--does the luster look stripped down? Is there residue in pockets that an old dipping didn't reach? Help me read the coin better...