I have a puma SA with double trademark.
It also has an Rohm etch. Did this firm make these?

Thanks for your time,
Rob

Hi Rob, I don't believe that Puma was a Rohm maker.

Not that I know of.

Gailen David

Posting photo for Rob NL.Regards nats

#2

Ok , thanks for your reply.
Got it from a vet ( A german)
Should I return it then?
Rob.

I wont comment on whether or not Puma made R�hm daggers (at least not here in this thread). But this dagger is not an authentic Puma R�hm, Rob.

It is RZM marked for a start: Get a refund.

Sorry.

So a Puma can not have a double trademark?
Thanks for your reply.
Rob.

I didn't see the picture. After what I just read, get a refund if you can. Good luck.

Gailen

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Jackson:
I wont comment on whether or not Puma made R�hm daggers (at least not here in this thread).

Sounds intriguing Neal...

Just saw the picture. After viewing the picture for the first time, not only get a refund, but hit the guy in the head with something real hard for selling you that item as real.

Gailen

quote:

Originally posted by Rob NL:
So a Puma can not have a double trademark?
Rob.

Rob, no authentic R�hm can have a double trademark. RZM dagger coding was introduced when our Ernst R�hm was well and truly liquifying.

Well , that's THE one thing that I am good at.

And the ss daggers that have the 34 trademark ?
Was Rohm dead then? I thought he died in 35?
Or am I am wrong ?

Rohm died in 34.

RobNL,
That piece is totally bogus, Gailen put it right for the guy that sold you that.

Fritziii

O.k guys thanks!

Could this have been an early Puma transitional which has now been ruined by the addition of the Rohm etch? Looks like solid nickel fittings and a nice grip?

Regards
Russell

No, It's a fake.

Gailen