First of all, not all 869 is actually 869. When buying NWA material in bulk, there is often material that differs from the rest. Sometimes there are even plain old rocks in the box.
Now this mixing of material usually occurs at the main dealer level where material is purchased in the 10s to hundreds of kilos. The bulk material is usually high-graded or cherry picked for unusually crusty specimens, or ones that don't stick to a magnet. (early on in the NWA or Saharan meteorite trade, nomads were taught to use a magnet to identify meteorites from rocks. However, the rare achondrites including lunars and martians did not show any attractiveness to a magnet. So now the high grading of NWA material is often meteorite-looking material that is not attracted to a magnet--but I digress).
So in essence, just because something is listed as 869 does not mean with certainty that it is 869. In fact, the name NWA 869 has been kind of a general catch-all number for NWA material that looks much the same with the original 869 character.
I noticed the crust on your two pieces was different so my natural reaction is to consider the artifacts (brightness, contrast, etc.) of a digital image. If all hold up and the crust really is different, the the next logical step to to look for other differences.
I noticed that you photographed the specimen on a Hupe' Collection specimen label. I've known Greg and Adam for many years, and in fact, I was the very first person on the planet to give them ebay feedback. But I digress yet again. They get in big boxes of unclassified NWA material, irons, stones, etc. I know because I've been to their house when they lived in Renton, WA. I even did some high-grading myself. They study the pieces pulling out the odd ones for further inspection, selling the common ones (like 869), and donating other pieces. Sometimes they hit the jackpot with ultra-rare classes and planetary specimens. Sometimes they strike gold like with their olivine-diogenite. Sometimes ordinary chondrites hold amazing interiors full of chondrules, brecciation, metal, etc. But in the end, often those that look alike are often sold under the most likely classified NWA number.
Anyway, regardless of the given name of the material, there is a chance that it is something else. Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, it is worth exploring.
Digital imaging almost always presents a different view of the reality of a specimen so it is something to consider when viewing an image. Below is an example of this. Pictured is the slice of Weston that was in Bob Haag's 1994 collection catalog. As you can see, the actual specimen is different from the picture. And if I set the actual-actual specimen on the picture of the specimen sitting on the picture of the specimen (if you follow me), you will see that all three look somewhat different.
I hope this made sense, and thanks for your patience with me and my ramblings.