Time come to sell my Pack SA full ROHM. Bought years ago from vets son. Pictures says all. With questions please emal me or PM. 100% original. Comes from my collection and I'm the first person owning it as a collector.

Asking price $3500 (split PayPal, shipping included)

My email: germanblade@germanblade.com

the rest of the pictures

I do not think this is a genuine inscription.I would like too hear from others.

Hello, here is my partial Pack for comparsion.

Why do You think so? Just saying "I do not think .. " is just not enough.

My word against Yours. My reputation against Your "I dont think so ...". What is worth more ??

Saying so costs nothing. Do You think I would sell dagger like that HERE being not sure of it ?

I can send additional pictures to any interested.

few additional picures of the etching....

The E Pack trademark is too high on the blade for me.The inscription has no depth and lies on the top of the blade.Compare it to the partial that was listed,lots of different shapes to letters.I left my opinions open to others to tell there opinions,but since you asked those are mine. Daggers are hard to judge when not in hand.This is not even close Let's hear from the "experts".

picture of the placement of the TM on Pack Ground Rohm taken from a known dealer...

Luko please tell us the dimension from the tip of the blade where begins inscription...

Remember etching was a hand made job and it is always easy to find differences in shape..

Depth of the etching is rather hard to picture but it exists...

another Ground Rohm Pack I used to have bought here on GD.com

Have a look at the placement of the TM

They were not hand done they were acid etched.There will be minor differences but not major.These are my opinions. I don't care where daggers come from and most people would be better off if they did not care either.

and endly have a look at the page 195 & 205 of Ralph Siegert SA book :-) (German Edition)

Acid etching WAS a hand made job...

Look at the pictures in Ralph book ... (I hope this helps)

To the interest of all members, I think it would be a good idea to post this dagger in the proper section for further discussion.

This topic has been moved from the "For Sale" area to allow discussion by non-premium members.

The dagger remains for sale

Dave

Hard to judge for me,i'm not an expert on inscription.
But here is the depth visible,
the name looks ok to me.

Gerd

Would it be possible for you to post a close up pic of the maker marked ? This in my opinion would clear any doubts on the authenticity issue of this blade.

Here's mine as a reference !

Wow...I agree that he should have made more facts available to back his opinion, but your response is remarkably arrogant, in MY opinion.

I would have thought that someone with your "reputation" would have been less so.....

Here's Gottlieb's maker marked and that's the best I could do.

It is obvious to anyone that both trademarks are very different and pretty much puts an end to this discussion.
I'm sorry to say that Zorro was correct and this SA full Rohm is a complete reproduction. There are even more obvious red flags in the inscription itself but the tradmark alone is enought proof for me.

Sorry for the bad news !

Here are some of the differences from a genuine Pack logo marked in red.

Compare both !

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but why was this moved to the SA dagger forum and not posted in our Rohm dagger forum where one would expect to find it? I am very interested in all opinions on this dagger and hope that more Rohm "specialists" get a chance to have a close look at and comment on it.

Pat sorry to say that but Pack TM differs from each one almost always. Here was a discussion on it. Take 10 SA Pack blades and compare them. You will always find differences. Comparing mine only to Yours is a little missundestanding...

Look in Ralph book on page 306 where Pack logo is listed for instance ... looks like he shows fake too...

Here is another. Logo is identical to Pat's.



There are people here that don't need to look into a book when they studied something like a Rohm dedication for years.

I agree- the whole dedication is also a fake -IMHO- or that's what it looks like to me.

You got this one from a 'Vet'?
Yea - sorry about that.

-serge-

Yes from vets son and it is a true story. You do not belive it is not my problem.

Anyway here is a Pack logo on ground Rohm blade - pictures taken from well known site. Looks like fake too.

I have never been interested in such a dagger because it is such a mine field with fakes abounding. I never studied them either because there is no point if you could never afford one, but, seeing one offered by a dealer at half price even caught my eye! But then I remembered I don`t believe in Father Christmas any more

In this instance I am very interested in the opinion of those that do know. If this gets the green light I`m sure it will sell very quickly!

Look, I never said I don't believe you.

These epack full Rohm dedications have been seen here with all kinds of strange looking logos and have been discussed here several years ago. A great informative thread with lots of photos - uh...gone now to history. Although we were supposed to get those all back.
There was the 'Open Hammer', 'Solid Hammer', 'Big &' (yours) and many very slight variations of the Seigfried. From what I recall the collectors fell into two clusters; those that would only accept the epack 'textbook logo' (shown by Pat and myself), and the other who didn't want any epack SA full Rohm.

It would be sad to throw out a good dagger but from my recollection when there were more advanced members on this forum the consensus among most was that it was 'not liked'.
The Full ground example you show here doesn't prove or disprove anything since one can hardly see
anything. >> pictures taken from well known site. Looks like fake too.<<

-serge-

I agree with Pat's and Serge's assessment of the maker marks, they are the only "variants" that I have ever been comfortable with or seen on daggers I KNOW to have been period, the type with the smaller '&'. I have owned others with different maker marks including the open-hammer version which were very convincing, perhaps even period, but the anomalies always bothered me personally and are difficult to explain away.

But I think the dagger should also be viewed in its entirety. Early Packs are very distinctive, the scabbard fittings, shape & screw position, grip shape, motto style, inscription and maker mark all provide the signs, not to mention the hidden features like tang forge markings and crossguard caster marks. Besides the inscription and maker mark, the motto is not typical Pack, the scabbard fittings are also not typical, as is the grip shape.

Pack Rohms are a minefield, a ton of fakes, apparently the best of which were made by Attwood which are very difficult to identify. I think Zorro called this one...

Red

Red I would not agree with You, motto is typical for Pack, Crossguards marked with s in a horse shoe, on the tang letter A in circle and number 2.

Dea Landser You do not have to belive in Father Christmas. My price I asked considers overall condition of the dagger (honestly it is not a mint condition but pretty good) and price I have paid for it 6 years ago. I'm not intendet to earn as much as possible on this one... (just my thoughts)...

OK but this way You (collectors) decided to disagree as originals not a textbook variations that were legit.

I have seen toons of Pack TM's and have seen so many variations...

All I have is my word and honesty. I'm the first collector who owns this dagger. Purchased from vets son whose doughter wanted to buy a bicycle. I have picked it in person here in Warsaw. Vets son was totally uninformed in german daggers. I have offerd the price and his doughter agreed saying this will be enough to buy a bicycle. That is the story

The tang and crossguard markings would be correct, but the motto is not the typical Pack style. Pack has quite angular characters, look at the capital A, D, h & d to start compared to yours...

Red

I'm sorry to say that the inscription on your blade is light years away from any known originals.
I do believe that you bought it from a vet but like someone once said, " don't believe the story but just the fact ".
Send your dagger to Gailen or Paul Hogle, they will give a hand on inspection for a small fee and you will get your answer, though I already know the answer.

The maker marked that you have shown from another "expert" is very different from yours, it has nothing to do with the one you have, take a close look.

Once again, I sincerely feel sorry for you but it is what it is and it ain't going to change.

Look at your maker marked, you should have a "U" shape mark on your knee but yours doesn't.
The picture that you have posted from the expert, DOES have that "U" shape sign.

Maybe I have some eye problems but I can not see difference. All the pictures are taken on a different angle so some letters might look not quite similar but overall inscription is typical Pack. I see no difference in letter A or D and other....

Sorry guys I do not need to ask experts for the opinion because I know what I have and how get into possesion. Maybe not a textbook like Pat's or Serge's assumed to be the only green flag originals but also legit.

Pat on the picture I have posted as the exaple of different Pack TM there is no U on the right knee.

Sorry mate but the "U" shape mark is clearly there, here's a close up of the "expert" maker marked blade, ground Rohm.

Sorry Pat I can see only a stright line no U shape ?!?!?

But I can see a small G in word SOLINGEN quite different than TEXTBOOK and similar to mine. Funny isn't it ?

Please, be realistic, the SOLINGEN is NOT at all like yours, it is completely different.
First of all, the grip on your dagger is not even proper, it ain't an E. Pack grip.
There were different types of trademark used by E.Pack, we all know this for sure, but all of them had some sort of a mark on the knee................yours has ZERO.

For some reasons, I cannot post any picture where I've underlined in red ink all of the flaws present in the inscription.
It is an easy matter to prove that the inscription is a reproduction, if anyone can post the picture for me.

Thanks

Sorry Pat there is a U shape on the knee of my dagger TM. You have covered it with red line on the previous picture.
I do not understand why You want so hardly proove You are right ? I will find You major differences in the inscription between two so called textbook daggers. As far as I know Pack did about 7.000 SA daggers (early between 1933 - 1936). I do not belive all of them were exactly the same in motto. About 1/3 of them were ROHM daggers (I guess) so it is impossible to create about 2.000 of them with exacly the same inscription. As I said above it was a hand made acid job...
It is easy to spot it in differences on TM's.

ok time for me to chime in we are talking human doing a job in the 30s with out the benfit of a computer .These etch wax plates were hand made by people now if you look at anything that is hand made left look at cheap china pottery on a shelf the same design on any two pieces is close but not exact.I am sorry but no two human can do the same thing with out some given diffrence and if you think the same person sat there and did a couple thousand etch in the short time frame they had to get these out the door you are mistaken.Now on to the grip as sullpy runs short manfactures run out to look for other products you can't supply me enough or I can't make enough yeah i'll buy a couple hundred from who ever just to get them out the door once again the human factor plays in even on todays tools it is very hard to hold tolarnce on any given product in mass on a short time.I disagree with the whole thread This will put me in the line of fire but I think we have thumb down alot of daggers and did not take in the human factor.Today with cnc machine and high end computers there is still a factor of reject products on any given product.I guess maybe that would make them fakes. Sorry guys i don't agree. But what i know my two cents

oh yeah before you throw it in the ocean lets talk

Gottlieb:

First of all, I think that Pat is a very knowledgeable person, some would say an expert, on Rohm daggers.

That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong, but it does mean to me that I think you should check further.

What Pat recommends, asking Tom W or Paul at lakesidetrader for an opinion, is probably a good thing.

None of these people, including Pat, have anything to gain or to lose by telling you their opinion.

Ultimately make up your own mind, but, please listen to people who are trying their best to help.

John

No worry I will not throw it in the ocean - it is too far :-)

John I do not think that anyone here might disagree with me for fun.

I just want to say that sometimes legit items might be a little different than known textbook pieces.

If I buy this dagger from someone in this hobby for a big money I would not be so sure.

I have bought it from person who did not even know what is SA and how much is worth common SA dagger.

I have paid for it less than parts are worth. I do not belive it was a good deal for him :-(.

yes i understand your point but i do not think you will win this one

I have for liveing so I do not have to sell it.

thanks

I will explain my position.I know something about daggers.I said I thought it was a bad inscription and asked others for their opinion.I could have been told by just as many members it was correct,which would have been fine with me.The reason I pointed it out was many times I see Helmets,hats,flags,medals,and many more TR items that I know nothing about but am interested in buying.I always think if the items were bad other members would be sure to point it out.That is not the case.So unless I have my own knowledge of an item.I tend not to buy them.It is much too risky and these items are expen$ive.Thats it,nothing personal.

One more thing on top of all others, Pack did not issue Rohm SA’s to OST.

pat drop it ,The issue is dead once again unless you were alive back than to see where every sa was sent and sa records are the worse to figure anything out it is back to supply and demand and the human factor.

Just giving out important informations and it is nothing personal and the SA records prior to 1934 were pretty damn accurate to my knowledge, it was perhaps different when the war started.

In any case, the issue is now over with me and I do feel sorry for Gottlieb's SA dagger but it is what it is, end of the story. Nothing personal !

dang good thread i say granted all records were very good in every branch but so much was destroyed or lost to time we will never fully know many details of the third only what little scraps of history that made it to us that why it is so much fun to argue.

...and you thought you were getting an original full rohm dagger for pennies while the seller wanted to just get a bicycle for his daughter. - OoooKayyy...
I would not be posting that.
That kind of behavior is considered 'shameful' and doesn't sit well with most collectors.

Personally...I'm glad you did mention that little fact since now I don't feel sorry
for the seller because he unknowingly sold you a fake and you unknowingling bought what you thought was an original.

-serge-

That is what I call real collector and that is why I slowly quit this hobby.

I bet You never bought a dagger for a really low price from the person not especially educated in this matter ?????

Come on a little bit honesty here....

Gentlemen,

Let us keep to the facts and not start personal attacks.

I just red the topic and I have to add the following: the Röhm SA dagger shown here is clearly lacking the unique Pack features:

- the grip wood and color
- the shape of the scabbard fittings
- the position of the screws

I can only conclude that this is an original SA (but not by Pack!) to which the blade was switched/added.

In my opinion, the blade is not an original: inscription and the makersmark are too different compared to proven originals.

Best greetings,

Herman

I agree with Gottlieb here Serge. This is not a fair comment!

One should not be ashamed of knowing his stuff and finding a good deal on the market.

However as to this blade as I said in person Gottlieb I am in ROHM purists camp so supporting PAT's view.

Honestly, I never bought a Full Rohm SA for less than the 'parts are worth'.
When I wanted a nice one they were already in the thousands.

But what you don't want to seem to admit is that what you paid 'less than the parts are worth' on this dagger....is just what you got. You got a good deal on parts .

-serge-

Gottlieb: Is it possible to see good pictures of the tang marks and the blade-tang area?

OverLord, Of course one should not be ashamed of knowing his stuff and getting a good deal but you seem to miss the 'key' point here. The fact is (it should be apparent by now) that 'Gottlieb' doesn't know his stuff and bought a fake.
Maybe it's just me who sees the Irony in it.
So ...it's FUNNY TO ME.

If nobody else sees the humor/irony/justice in it all - it's OK with me.

-serge-

I agree with the authenticity statements in this thread with zorro, (good call!), Pat,
RedBaron and Herman.
The example shown by Gottlieb is -IMO- a parts dagger with a fake blade.
Here is 'period' Obverse view of a Rohm e-Pack.

-serge-

Knowing his stuff good enough to make a good deal even if this is the parts dagger anyway..
It still has a value on the market.

This irony would indded make me laugh if only I havent been burned so many times on good deals...

BTW> That's a bloody expensive bike you got this girl GOT! In price comparison I think I am riding junk.

Some answers and thoughts:

Sorry I put it here instead of in the Rohm Dagger Forum.

Pat - OST is East Prussia and they were part of the initial distribution of Rohm daggers. You might have been thinking of Austria, which was not part of the TR when these daggers were given out.

Gottlieb - The wax templates were NOT handmade. They were thin sheets of wax on special paper with the inscription as the blank areas. They were made by decal makers. Although superficially the same, there were many makers. The Rohm signature does not vary much if at all.

Everyone - EP&S is the most difficult maker to pin down as their trademark is complex and was changed in small detail and did not appear at the same place on the blade. Additionally, because trademark is complex, time in the acid bath could change the way he looked.

This dagger?

1. The screw placement on the scabbard is not what I would expect to see on an EP&S dagger. Neither are the grip wood or the scabbard anodizing - see below.

2. The etching is not as deep in the photos as I would have expected, front or back.

3. The Sigfried figure is unlike any others I have seen.

4. The letters of the word "Solingen" are very distorted.

god you gotta love this place.

Absolutely correct, people often confuse this fact, the templates were mechanically produced and applied by hand. There should only be minor variations mostly in letter thickness due to time in the acid bath, ambient temperature, age of the acid, etc.

Red

Mostly correct. SA/SS Mottos both DO have variations. Even epack SA mottos patterns shown here by Red have them.
Most of SS Mottos variations shown in TW's book.
Besides, as far as I know, wax on paper templates is not the only one technique used in the period.
----
Anyway, the dagger shown by Gottlieb is no good.

Agreed, there are a multitude of motto patterns or designs, some are distinctive to particular manufacturers, others are found on multiple makers, others still are generic as seen on many RZM daggers.

The point I was making that a given pattern or template will yield a consistent etch or motto, the letter shape will not change using the SAME template pattern. Here's an example, can't remember who to credit this to. The example shown appears to be an Eickhorn style motto pattern...

Red

Wax section

Yes, I've seen this papers offered for sale at Stuttgart's Military Show couples years ago.
SS Motto papers were also available.

But I still can not fina any partiular differences in motto on my dagger and any other PACK ??!!?!?!?

Hi Gottlieb,

This is the Pack motto, I've ringed some of the typical markers for the "textbook" Pack pattern, compare it carefully and you'll notice the differences. Compare it to the template motto as well, you'll note the differences immediately...

Red

do you rally know how this templet was made in 1930 germany .these were die rolled templet a HUMAN had to make the orignal there was more than one person that sat there and made these dies orignals.Also we do have wear in a die over time so there will be slight changes from number one to lets say 10000 . the dagger in question does need more in hand review i agree but there is no way we can think that everything is textbook in manfuraction. we can not do it today .

I just compared two of my herder daggers just take a look a the "T" in heisst sombody should be shot for that , or check out the other letters,

i can show you pictures of my hammesfahrs, or my 121/34

they are absolutely not identical,

so please dont say that the etches are identical because they are not,

Indeed they look totally diferent.

Red I'm a little bit tired ..

Give me a few hours and I will show You are not right. One of us has to change a doctor...

As I said above, "Although superficially the same, there were many makers", and this means many small variances. We have seen this time and again here. The same dagger maker can have different motto etches.

This is why I do not think that daggers can be rejected based solely on motto characteristics.

I took me some time but I have found right now two variations of Pack etching.

The same is with Hammesfahr SS motto - two different styles and both legit.

And combination of both above styles taken from trusted seller in US...

That is right - SAINT WORDS

Gottlieb,

Forget the motto. Look at:

- The Scabbard - it does not have the screw placement associated with EP&S and it does not have the color either.

- Crossguards shape and wood finish is not typical pack

- The trademark is terrible

Dave

Dave not that I am taking sides, but i just wanted to point out a fact that I have seen many Pack daggers with the screw placement high and low. although Pack made upper scabbard fittings with Mid screw positions and it was a trademark with them , is it necessary that ALL Pack scabbards were made this way?
It is true though that many Blade makers bought their parts from outside sources to complete their assembly.
On page 137 Of Ralf Siegerts SA book shows a great example of an F.A. Kirschbaum and the screw placement is identical of a Pack scabbard. So it seems that Pack wasnt the only one making these type scabbards or did Kirschbaum buy from the outside also. Army crossguard eagles are a great example.
Is this a genuine Pack dagger? No I think not, too many things happening on it. The motto is bad IMO and i can not repeat my reasons since no one else has touched on it. Fakers are watching!! There are many Pack daggers out of the woodwork and Vet returned examples with High screw placement. Anything is possible during the period and after the war.
IMO the initial production were made with Mid level screw positions and shorter looking upper scabbard fittings. Eickhorn was Packs #1 competitor and as production increased so did the need of parts. Pack and Eickhorn were major suppliers of parts to be outsourced to other makers but even the big makers needed a few favors.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die......."

Sieg,

Scabbards with the placement of screws as EP&S used are indeed found on other daggers occasionally. TW sold a very nice Klass SS dagger with one of these scabbards last year at MAX.

When I noticed this some years ago, I was told that EP&S made their own scabbards and sometimes sold them to other Solingen makers. I have also seen a couple of EP&S daggers with a more normal screw placement. All I can guess is that the Solingen makers helped each other out when one was low on parts or assemblies. This is well documented with Heer daggers so I presume it happened with others.

I can tell you that if you spot an SS or SA dagger with the EP&S screw placement and call it out as a Pack dagger without looking at the trademark, you have a 99% chance of being right.

Dave

Here's my Pack
Dedications no-erase