Comments „see more“ then under all the photo examples are the explanations of obverse and reverse, your 1971D will have one of the 2 types of the reverse. Maybe some of the photo examples have images to help you decide which type you have.
Different designs (obverse): Type 1: 1950 DFGJ Type 2: 1950 DG, 1966-1970 (slight change at leaves and stalks) Type 3: 1971-1980 (thinner lettering and slight change at leaf stalks) Type 4: 1980-1990 (thinner date) 1990 F to 1996: new design of leaf stalks every year
Mainly two different designs (reverse): Type 1: 1950-1973 (short thick rye grains) Type 2: 1971-1996 (long thin rye grains)
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I have the same question. Are there 2 variants for the 1971 D? For the 1971 D coin it states “Two variants; see comments”, however, when you expand the Comments area it shows all of the variants for the various years, but nothing for the 1971 D. Same in the responses to this thread, the table submitted doesn't identify anything for the 1971 D.
Perhaps the “Two variants; see comments” statement needs to be removed for the 1971 D listing.
No I don't think that is it. All of the other coins listed that have the “Two variants” comment under the date listing actually show the 2 variant photos in the comments section. The 1971 D does not. The table of variants provided by Sjoelund also does not show it. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the 1971 D “Two variants” comment is an error and either needs to be deleted or corrected.
I am not saying you made an error. However, if you look at the table you provided for the 1 Pfennig KM 105 variants on 12 Sept. 2025 it shows that the 1971 D 1 Pf. has Rev. 2 and Obv. 3, so only 1 variant. The value listing shows “Two variants” for the 1971 D. What is the second variant?
Also, Cobra had switch the obverse and reverse which is very confusing. So his R2 and R3 are actually Obverse varieties.
For 1970D he shows only 1 variety. Where did the graphic I posted above come from? Maybe that should say 1971 instead? That jives with your chart (which does show two varieties for 1971):
There's no question about the 1971 J. It consistently shows 2 varieties in the tables and in the Comments photos. However, unless I am reading the tables wrong there is only variant of the 1971 D with an OBV2 and a Rev 1 in the last table or an A3 and a R2 from the previous table. Aside from the fact that the 2 tables have the Obv. & Rev. swapped as has already been pointed out, they still only show 1 variant for the “D”.
Am I missing something or am I correct that in the coin listing for the 1971 D, 1 Pfennig, the description should have the “Two variants …” removed?
That table matches the Cobra table (adjusting for the Obverse-Reverse switch. It shows one 1970D variety (R1 + O2) and two 1971D varieties (R2 + O2 and R2 + O3).
Cobra's table shows the same:
Both show only 1 1970 variety. That's why I suggested that this should be changed.
Thank you for clarifying. I missed that 1971 was in 2 adjacent columns. Makes me question if the 2nd column should be 1966-70 or if the Comments picture for the 1970 D should be changed to 1971 D as per your mark-up.
I think this might just be a typo. Why have 1971 on two columns?
Because they've changed somewhere in 1971 and both varieties exists in 1971? This way is easier than create an extra column for 1971 with both varieties?
As per my comment last night I think the error came into the table by having a column marked 1966-1971 and then a separate column for 1971. I believe the table heading should be 1966-1970. Then the entire table would have unique year headings rather than one year covered under 2 columns.
It will be interesting when this is sorted out and everyone is over their headaches as to which years have 2 variants and which ones do not.
I think this might just be a typo. Why have 1971 on two columns?
Because they've changed somewhere in 1971 and both varieties exists in 1971? This way is easier than create an extra column for 1971 with both varieties?
Yes, that makes sense. I'll work off of that assumption.
Germany, Federal Republic of • 1 Pfennig
