I don't know what to say about this one. It's a little tight, but I like it, and I get a hint of why you can't stop looking at it. (or them, the eyes) The tones are excellent, and the color is at least vg. As far as sharpness, it looks like it would blur out if enlarged. Let me know if I'm wrong on that.
I'd have left the chin in frame. It wouldn't devalue what you're trying to accomplish (the center piece being the eyes) but most (not all) portraits sans chins are hard to look at. Decently executed, though.
to be honest i like the first one better only because of the slight 'smirk' on her lips. i think that the full smile isn't as interesting. but the no chin thing is a bit of a throw off... just keep trying i guess.
The first is a lot less "classic" through the way it was composed, but the missing chin was the very first thing that jumped out at me, and I had to take a second look to see of not even the lowest part of her lip was cropped a little. Which it wasn't, but the edge of the picture is sooo close that I can't easily look past it and enjoy the half-smile and her eyes (which seem kind of soft, though when I look at her individual eye lashes and hairs of her brows and the reflection in her eyes and her irises etc, I can't really call that "blurred" or "soft" ... everything's there and clearly distinguishable, even the individual hairs).
I am a) old, b) probably conservative and c) a sucker for things "classic", so I must say I find the second is a beautiful portrait of hers. I like the light, I like open smiles (!), but I do agree, of course, in that the first is nicely DIFFERENT ... if it weren't for the close crop to her lower lip.