You cut off the top portion of the stamp which contains important diagnostic information, but based on what is there plus the lathing style and lack of much visible hammering, I'd say 60s.

Given the weight, the expected price is around $180±$40.

Definitely a Hartrick 60s stamp based on the additional photos. But we can't get it down to a specific year.

That second cymbal is wearing a 60s short stamp (1 3/16"), and the quirk pattern is consistent with that. If the cymbal in your first post has a stamp which is taller (more like 1.5") then it is the 60s tall stamp. I wasn't able to be sure enough from just the quirk patterns that it was the 1.5" version. The quirks seem to work to distinguish the 1 3/16" from the 1.5" about 90% of the time (based on a sample of around 140 examined in detail) but there are some which are too hard to classify on quirks alone.

According to Bill Hartrick's original timeline the 1.5" stamp is later 60s. If this is correct there should be a strong correlation between the stamp (1 3/16" vs 1.5") and the hammering style which he also says changed in the early 60s. Bill never gave any details of the number of cymbals he examined and how accurately their year was established. I've been working to replicate his work but so far I'm not able to confirm his claim. Neither have I been able to refute it. The data is fuzzier than one would expect if the two different trademark stamps were used sequentially and with no overlap in time. It's possible that both were in use in the factory at the same time and that's why the data looks as it does.

In the case of your two cymbals the first one you posted does have the style of hammering and lathing on the top which is consistent with the 1.5" stamp, and the second one does have the style of hammering and lathing on the top which is consistent with the 1 3/16" stamp. But that can be entirely down to the lighting and quality of the photos, and the interpretation would be different in person. I've worked on getting objective methods for classifying hammering and lathing (and stamps obviously) from photos because that's what many people have to work with when they are considering a purchase and can't audition a cymbal in person. Top photos are good, but it's actually bottom photos which can prove more diagnostic of production methods during the 60s to mid 70s period. Bottom hammering became much reduced and eventually dropped out during this period, although when you start documenting sufficiently large samples (a few hundred cymbals) you start to see the occasional one which doesn't fit the simple "bottom hammering stopped in 1968" style of story. Note that I'm just using 1968 as an example. Exact years are not pinned down for these changes.

None of this affects the expected price. My pricing models don't distinguish between early and late 60s cymbals, and for most buyers neither do they.