An improvement I think, you've created more of a perception of depth, but perhaps just lost those hints of lustre. It'll be interesting to see the results with the new lamps.
I have used axial lighting, but it is pretty difficult to get enough light on the coin whilst blocking ambient light and reflections. It worked ok with highly reflective proofs, but normal coins appeared dull and lifeless.
Lustre is not easy to capture, as it is effectively the result of light being reflected in slightly different directions from the surface. The camera only "sees" those reflections which fit within its limited field of view.
It could be that you need to take your photos in a place that has more ambient light, or you could try moving slightly further away from the coin.
Nice. I do like coins with peripheral toning.
For coin photos, I use mode-A (aperture priority) with an F-number around 10 or so with a daylight bulb CFT light source. If your photo doesn't quite tally with what you see in hand, you may need to change the white balance to match your light source type (some DSLRs also have a procedure to match the white balance exactly to the light source).
DNW estimates are generally a bit on the low side, but they do depend on any reserve required by the vendor. I would say that DNW photographs are pretty good and that the coins are usually slightly better in hand than you would expect from the photos.
First set of pictures are much more realistic. Coin looks good and better than EF, but someone has had a go at it with something abrasive - hence the hairlines. Having said that, it's very difficult to find crowns without any hairlines.
I suspect that they all used the same background. The appearance of the background is dependent on the colour and reflectivity of the subject, so the duller the coin - the lighter the background will appear.