I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with your examples. It's hard to tell anything from the web, but if I didn't look at the file names, I would not be able to guess which image was shot with which film. The sample images you show look very similar to me. My interpretation is that TMY is just as sharp and fine-grained, and gives similar tonality to FP4+, while being 2 stops faster.
That is the conclusion I've come to also. I was quite shocked the first time I printed the two side by side of a similar subject at the same size. There was practically no difference visible. The main difference I see is in the reciprocity characteristics.
Nothing of value can really be illustrated with silly low resolution negative scans anyway. The excercise serves no purpose.
I love how I literally show examples and you say they are no good, then why don't you print a cropped image zoomed in to illustrate your point? How come I'm the only one willing to actually do tests and show my work...? And still everyone makes comments that it's not good enough.... This 1:1 is good enough for 20x24 easily bigger even... What does it even matter if it's a "low quality" or "high quality" scan? It illustrates that when shot similarly and developed properly you can achieve virtually the same result in grain and "LOOK" with either film. It does demonstrate what the above poster said that the Tgrain film could be shot 2 stops faster. But still can achieve the same "look" as a traditional grained film... Which was the question by the OP... Which I actually did the work, and showed my results... Unlike everyone else who just talks...
EDIT: what L said also that there is a difference in reciprocity characteristics which can be appealing especially for LF shooters with bellows compensation times etc.
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."~Dennis Miller
Whilst this is a perfectly valid thread I guess, it has already brought out what we all have... strong personal opinions and perceptions and a knowledge of certain properties of individual films.
For me its absolutely simple, In monochrome we have a fantastic range of monochrome films both of tabular ( controlled crystal growth ) design and manufacture, and also conventional emulsions from KODAK / FUJI and ILFORD. On a 'technical point' its not really possible to have a true 'hybrid' between the two ( as I have seen mentioned before ) because of the differing emulsion preparation / manufacturing processes involved in producing a CCG emulsion or a conventional emulsion.
Some people like CCG films, some prefer conventional emulsions, its down to you, what type of work you do, what you personally want and what your chosen film does for you and in some cases what format you are shooying in. It should not be forgotten that by and large CCG films are more expensive than conventional films and that can influence some peoples purchasing decisions.
So in answer to the original question, 'I do not know'.