Confidence: I'm as sure as I can be.
Notes: What great photos! Leaving aside the immediately recognisable A. alpina, A. conjuncta, A. tytthantha and the awful A. mollis, all the interesting Alchemillas have hairs on the top surfaces of the leaves (the common A. glabra and A. xanthochlora do not). In this rather hairy specimen, the hairs on the petioles are clearly patent, that excludes A. micans (which is in any event very rare), A. wichurae and A. glomerulans. A. minima is, as the name implies, is a tiny plant and A. acutiloba has very characteristic leaves with triangular lobes with rounded ends. So itâ€™s neither of those. We are now down to four possibles â€“ A. filicaulis, A. subcrenata, A. glaucescens and A. monticola. Now we look at the hypanthium â€“ the bit which would be the calyx tube in any other plant â€“ itâ€™s very hairy â€“ as are the pedicels â€“ not A. subcrenata nor A. monticola then which have glabrous hypanthia. If I was in the field I would now stick my finger very firmly into the middle of the rosette and see what colour the base of the stems is. Wine red and itâ€™s A. filicaulis, brown and itâ€™s A. glaucescens and we all begin to get excited. But we canâ€™t do that. Next best is leaf shape â€“ A. glaucescens has rather rounded lobes with closed sinus at the leaf base â€“ not like this at all. So A. filicaulis it is. And the subspecies â€“ thatâ€™s easy â€“ subsp. filicaulis has a glabrous hypanthium and subsp. vestita is hairy all over â€“ just like this one. Phew!