Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 7536500, member: 110504&quot;]Welcome, [USER=120184]@malinkyhoy[/USER], and thanks for contributing this!&nbsp; Better early than never.</p><p><br /></p><p>...Sadly, by way of spoiler alert, the news is bad.&nbsp; I&#039;m on the same level as [USER=74712]@FitzNigel[/USER] with this stuff.&nbsp; But, as [USER=106617]@Yorkshire[/USER] implied, not least with the later New Coinage issues, variations in the portraits are one key way of telling the reigns apart.</p><p>...Just took another look, and was reminded that, for the mid-later 15th century, the marks in the obverse field are really key.&nbsp; This is especially true of the ecclesiastical mints, York and Durham, along with the quatrefoil in the centre of the reverse.&nbsp; Having gotten no further than Spink (2015), one issue that jumps out at me is of Edward IV&#039;s first reign, York under Archbishop Booth (#1987).&nbsp; &quot;Quatrefoils by bust, voided quatrefoil in centre of <i>rev.; mm</i> rose.&quot;</p><p>I&#039;m working backwards from Richard III, and have only gotten this far.&nbsp; Sadly, there are no Richard IIIs with any marks in the upper part of the obverse field.&nbsp; The field marks for Edward IV and Richard III are legion, and often very helpful.&nbsp; But almost all of Edward&#039;s issues, and all of Richard&#039;s, only have marks by the neck, if any.</p><p>...I&#039;m nowhere near certain about interpreting the mark in your obverse field as a quatrefoil.&nbsp; ...And it might not hurt to look at earlier Henry VII, as well as Henry VI.&nbsp; But the mere placement of whatever that is does effectively rule some things out.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in