It is often very misleading to make assumptions about the technical quality of a photograph based on low resolution digital images made for web reproduction, and this may be especially true of photographs which are not originated digitally.
In this case, one's a 10x8 paper negative, while the other is a 6x7 MF negative on Acros. There won't be any grain at all on the latter properly enlarged, probably up to poster size. The former will only ever be contact printed at 10x8 and won't show grain either.
What you are probably thinking is grain in the second is a combination of sensor noise (I digitised it by photographing on a lightbox with my E-P2 + macro lens) and grain aliasing (you can google that), and in the first a result of low res scanning, combined with reflection artifacts from the paper surface and some sort of problem with the emulsion, none of which translates to the contact prints I've made so far.
One of the reasons I usually refrain from technical discussions of my photographs is that by doing so people start to remove the image from it's visual context and instead place it in a (to me) irrelevant technical context. However on this occasion it seems worth clearing up some misunderstanding.