Hi,
I am very green when it comes to WWII collecting. I just purchased an SA dagger with Rohm’s signature on the back. I know I probably should have waited until I educated myself about the forgeries out there, but I felt this looked too good to pass up. I hope I made the right decision!
Can some one tell me if this is an authentic SA Rohm dagger?

PS. How do I add more then one picture?

Thanks,
Michael

Hi Michael,Welcome to the forum.to add more photos click on the "reply " button and upload another photo,regards nats

http://members.lycos.nl/stantheman/

Looks pertty good so far- show us the rest- Another Mike (originally) from NJ-Mike

Here is another Pic

More Pics

Closeup of the Rohm Signiture.

Front Handle with Scabbard.

Front side of dagger.

Back side of handle.

Rohm Inscription.

Another view of Inscription.

Handle with SA label.

Hi Michael,looks like you have a beauty,just like they should be found,You could lightly clean the blade,but leave the nickel fittings,Regards Stan

http://members.lycos.nl/stantheman/

Thanks Stan.
What do you recommend using to clean the blade?
And should I do anything with the Handle or Scabbard?

Hi Michael, some people would leave the dagger as it is,If you can take the dagger apart you could wash the blade with warm soapy water,but that is not always possible,you can use any pure wax furniture polish,most use Renaissance Wax,and you could clean the blade lightly with Simichrome.but be very careful around the motto and the dedication regards Stan


http://members.lycos.nl/stantheman/

Here is a picture with the Dagger in the Scabbard.
The Scabbard looks kind of rusty.

Is there anything I should do to clean it up, or should I just leave it alone?

Hi Michael,If you mean the brown on the nickel fittings ,it cannot be rust,just years of nicotine and tarnish,That should wash of with warm soapy water, Stan

100% textbook original.
No doubt in my mind.
Well done !

Looks textbook. From the picture entitled "Another View the Inscription" looks like the blade was initially ground and the motto possibly re-etched?

Hi Fitzer,I see what you mean,I did not pay much attention to that photo,It does look like is has been ground ,and replaced.
Hi mike is there grnding marks the length of the blade, on the dedication side of the blade. Can you post a better photo,Regards Stan

http://members.lycos.nl/stantheman/

Can anyone see what looks to be the remnants of the top of an oval maker mark just to the very right of the Rohm signature, on pics 1, 4 and 9? Also, possible grinding - just an observation from the pics shown.

Regards
Russell

Hi and thanks for everyone who has been responding to my request.
I looked very closely at the inscription side. It is hard to tell from the pictures, but the filing or scratching starts right around where the inscription begins. If you look at my previous picture that says ‘Another view of Inscription”, the filing begins on the bottom left side of the picture and angles up towards the right. The first two letters are almost untouched except for the mid-section of the first letter and very top of the second letter which is evident by the darker section you see in the picture.
The filing doesn’t go all the way to the front of the blade. There are some light scratches going the long width of the blade, but I believe this is from the scabbard because (1) the consistency of scratches are on both sides of the blade and (2) the fit of this blade into the scabbard is very tight. I have to use a lot of force to push it all the way in.
My theory (or hope), is that who ever filed this blade might have been either a bit lazy or did the job half hearted. Most of the concentration was on the signature section. When I rotate the blade under a very bight florescent light, I swear I can still see the shadows of most of the signature accept for the very center peak area of the blade. There are a few rust spots on the blade. The biggest one is right above the marker mark. Maybe that is what Russell is seeing as part of an older marker mark. It is very hard to try to capture on digital camera what I see with the naked eye. I did take another picture which I’ll include now. It’s a bit blurry, but it captures the area where the filing begins. As you will see, it doesn’t go all the way to the top of the blade. I know that some forgers take original blades and etch the inscription on them to make it more authentic. With that in mind, I suppose someone could have gone through the trouble to first etch the full inscription, and then file out parts of it to make it appear like an original. Is there any way to tell if that is the case here?
Thanks,
Michael

Hi Stan,
Thanks for showing me that picture of the two daggers side by side. I was unaware that Carl Eickhorn used a smaller type marker mark for the Rohm Dagger. With this extra knowledge, I am quite certain that this is totally an unaltered authentic Rohm Dagger.
I say this because I can see that under the rust spot above the current marker mark, it is original blade surface. There are a few scratches around that area, but I would definitely be able to see the old marker mark had this blade been etched from a non-Rohm blade. Also, when you angle the blade under proper lighting, there are a lot of spots along the inscription where you can see that were untouched by the filing and expose the underlying smoothness of the original polished blade. For this reason, I feel it is highly unlikely that someone could have re-etched an original Rohm blade that was completely wiped off. There would be signs of the filing all the way through the inscription area.

Thank you so much for bringing this picture to my attention.

Sincerely,
Michael

PS. I am including a link to the photo of the two different Carl Eickhorn marker marks for those who may not be aware or haven’t seen yet.
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/m/3520096004