1857 Seated Quarter Photography Comparison

Now the lighting used from this shot was based off of indirect outside sunlight shining through the window in my room. No electric light was used. The color is more natural, and the blemishes are more subdued similar to how the coin looks in hand. However, the luster is not nearly as strong in these pictures. I think I prefer this lighting in general.... What are your thoughts? And feel free to comment on the coin as well. :-)

second pic!

I'm going to go against the grain here, and say "it depends." If you're posting the coin here, wanting it graded, I want to see the first pics. Being a coin photography nut, I tend to discount hairlines from experience - I know what harsh direct light does to a coin and it's almost automatic. The majority of even Mint State coins go through some sort of rub during their lifetimes, even if it's only being dragged for two centimeters across a soft cloth while viewing them; it's a darn rare coin which won't show some sort of hairlining under direct light.

The second set of pics, although aesthetically more appealing, leaves me wondering what luster still remains with the coin. I'd have to ask you that, or qualify my answer, if you were looking for a grade.

The coin itself? AU58. Although arguable, the chatter in the fields (only visible in the first pics) tells me that the coin has run into more stuff in its' life than just the contents of a Mint bag.

Any other opinions on the grade? I think ANACS messed up on this one, in a good way.