Help wanted with mintmark identification [solved]

Hello,

I bought a medieval french coin that arrived today, N#29256 :

The thing is that I am struggling to identify the mintmark, to me it's so worn that I can't relate to any of the mintmarks listed on the year lines.

So I'll need help from the experts.

Here's a closer photo:

Took only a close of the mintmark at the obverse, the one at the reverse is much more worn.

You might want to ask that on the French forum and if you get an answer post it here.
Good would be a list of how all the mintmarks look like and the catalog page be updated with that.

Idolenz

You might want to ask that on the French forum and if you get an answer post it here.
Good would be a list of how all the mintmarks look like and the catalog page be updated with that.

Good idea (despite knowing near nothing of french).

Only don't know if I should do it now or wait a little more, if someone else appears here to help.

Yeah, an updated mintmark list would help. Did a research on acsearch and on none of the specimens the mintmark was similar enough to mine. All I can do now is discard the most common ones (leopard, crown and fleur-de-lis).

Update: Just made the thread in the french forum (my first one there, by the way).

I am linking it here for registry: https://fr.numista.com/forum/topic172833.html

Got an answer there.

It's a leopard, a very worn one.

There are a few specimens with a leopard mintmark on similar state at CGB, and one more similar right at the Numista page, at the past sales section (the second one there - compare the mintmarks at reverses).

It's the Rouen year line, then. Funnily, that's where I placed it provisoriously while waiting for the ID.

Since the date for the Rouen mint ranges from 1422 to 1449, it's more likely that it was minted after the death of Joan of Arc (1431) than when she was still alive. I bought the coin because it was roughly from the same place and time period as her.

Maybe add yours as an example so other worn coins can get more easily identified.

You think so? We kind of already have one on this state at the sale records section.

Okay if that's the case then it's not necessary.