I thought I’d chime in here since I noticed a link to one of my daggers posted in a couple of comments in this thread.
First of all, JR is absolutely correct about the posted dagger not being good - I would personally pass on it if I were reviewing it (based on the photos provided that is). I’ll take it a step further and point out a couple of details that most folks will be able to see once highlighted regardless of your experience level.
If you look at the breast of the grip eagle and compare it with a genuine Pack grip eagle, you’ll see that the one here has more of an upside down triangular shape when compared with a genuine Pack, which is more boxy (squared). Also, notice how the outsides of the eagle’s legs continue gracefully with the flow of the wreath? This is not the case with a genuine Pack eagle. Hard to describe in words, but if you compare a genuine eagle to this you should be able to see the differences.
The SS roundel is perhaps the most obvious detail between the two. Simply put, a genuine Pack’s SS runes do not touch the white border. The photos from the OP aren’t great (there is a lot of reflection) but it is clear the runes touch the border.
Now to the Rohm question… JR mentioned that Pack “never" produced Rohm SS daggers, but to my knowledge there is no period documentation (“period” being the keyword here) stating this fact. If any of you know otherwise, please feel free to post a copy of the document and I’ll certainly yield.
Regarding my dagger that was linked to here in this thread (
http://ibuyworldwar2.com/ground-rohm-ss-dagger-e), it may well not be a ground Rohm (nobody can know for certain since the inscription was ground away), but the evidence that I see with the dagger in hand says otherwise. In the photos below, note the striations across the width of the blade, which are consistent with other Ground Rohm examples I’ve personally owned. Also note the dark tone of the recessed areas of what I believe to be remnants of the inscription. The tone matches that of the makers mark on the same side of the blade.
For comparison, I’m also posting below some photos from an Eickhorn field ground Rohm SA dagger that I own. These photos show similar (albeit larger) areas where portions of the inscription still remain in tact. As you can see these could easily be mistaken as “pot marks” (or damage) to the blade, but when put into context with the other evidence (e.g. the grinding marks) it tells an obvious story.
Each collector has their own opinions, which are usually based on their own experiences. In my case, while I may be “new to the hobby” relative to some of the older dealers and collectors like Wittmann, Johnson, etc, that doesn’t necessarily speak to my experience. My website has been on page 1 of Google for key terms like “german daggers”, “ss daggers”, “sa dagger” and the like for years so I’ve been blessed with the privilege to purchase and handle quite a significant number of various types of daggers, with over 90% of them purchased directly from veterans or their families. I’ve personally owned more than 10 ground rohm SA and SS daggers (some factory ground and some field ground), as well as several partial and full Rohm SA and SS daggers, and to my eyes, and based on my experience, the SS dagger I have posted as a Ground Rohn bears the hallmarks of a ground Rohm. Having said that, I don't manufacture facts, so if proof surfaces from the period stating that Pack produced zero Rohm SS daggers then this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, in my opinion there is always room for daggers to surface that challenge theories and expectations, especially with so few of these Rohm SS daggers having been produced in the first place.
Best,
Darren
