Hi guys
I got this dagger today and i think is ok.
But i need to know your opinions.

Thanks

more

Inscription and trade mark don't have same density of background the inscription is darker may be pics but looks to me from pics provided they weren't done at the same time

Photographing many political daggers over the years, I noticed how just a slight angle of the blade to the camera lens will change the darkness of the burnishing.
If you look on this blade note the 'E' on E-pack and note how much darker it is, or seems to be, compared to the other letters as they curve further away from a 90 degree angle.

The staining inside the lettering etching seems to be consistent with the other stains on the blade. The Rohm dedication look to exhibit the same unique letter and style characteristics on e-pack dedicated SA/NSKK daggers.

The e-pack logo is the same as on 'textbook' verified Rohm examples.
For me it looks like a original dedication.

-Serge-

Hi Stingray,

I agree with Serge on this Rohm,

Genuine by the pix provided,


Regards Mac 66.

I like this one as an original Pack Rohm as well.

Thank you gentlemen
I made few more pictures on better light.

Stingray

Better pics allay my previous fears looks good now
tony

Today I received a email from a collector friend of mine asking me to take another look at this dedication as he did not like it.
Knowing that he is well versed in these I come here to re-examine this SA Rohm e-pack dagger.

I now do not like what I see. It's all in the minute details, but that's where the devil hides. I will not disclose here what I have found but if stingray wants to know what I had missed before, send me a email.

I have to retract my previous 'good' call on this one. I now believe this dagger to be a original regular e-pack dagger but with a false and not period dedication applied post-war.
Thanks to good friends whom may if they like post here and take the credit as they are deserving.

-serge-

Thank you my friend for the good words and we are all here to help one another in this hobby.

I sincerely hope that Ivan will find a happy ending to this.

Hard call on this one due to greying and surface spotting. Woule have to have it in hand to be sure, but it is an ePack maker.

i too would pass on this .if he like he may contact me on it.I will only answer the oringal post owner.I am not an expert but i know what i like.I have a fake rohm i put on the table and have fooled many people .never would sell it i have to much fun with it.after i tell them whats wrong it is fun to haer experts say oh yeah i knew that was just testing you.Really why you just put 4500 on table.

I would like too see an upclose detailed picture of the trademark.

I've looked at this inscription and compared it to original pictures of Pack examples. Though it is not etched in stone, I would say this is not an original example. Just my personal opinion.

Gailen David

As far as I am concerned the master has spoken !!!!

Thanks guys
Thanks to Sandy,today i got the back the internet connection.
I will make more pictures tomorrow,since I still believe.

Stingray

Looks fine to me from what I see in the new images that were supplied. It's tough, if the camera angle is not exact I can get opinion.

Gailen

Sorry to disagree but in my opinion the blade is much too different from any known original.
Here are the two sets of pictures that were also sent to me and you can clearly see the difference between both blades.
Picture 1 ( real ). picture 2 ( repro ).

picture 1 ( real ), picture 2 ( repro )

picture 1 ( real ), picture 2 ( repro ).

Pat: That's pretty good. And to think just a few years ago you couldn't tell if a bayonet was repointed. But I know your a quick learner and have become very knowledgable in all areas of dagger inscriptions templates.

It should also be noted that I'm not writing a letter of authenticity on this piece without a hands on examination (which I don't do anymore anyway). What I wrote is just an opinion based images that were supplied to me and that is all. Period.

Gailen

Thank you guys
Anybody else have opinion ?


Stingray

Pat Both of your examples look fake too me.Genuine examples are very rare and 90% of the ones I see are fake.Believe it or not near perfect Roehm daggers have and are being made to this day.

Absolute non sense, could we please see one of yours 100% original E.Pack full Rohm please ?

I've clearly shown the reasons why I thought it was fake, it would also be very important for you to tell us why you think the other Rohm is also fake. Negative comments have to be proven or else it just becomes futile.

Thank you

Pat I have always respected your opinion.I call them as I see them.The size of the magnification throws the look of the inscription off.I was not just talking about full Roehms I meant partials also. They have to be in hand to tell and sometimes that is not good enough.The reason I think full Roehm's are rare is that How many SS men would disobey a direct order and risk the death of himself and his family,I would say a few.Heres my partial Roehm .Alot of people do not like EP&S but they are one of favorites.Things I like ,Trademark close to cross guard,grinding device hit crossguard,never cleaned,this is why I do not clean daggers.Peace O great wizard.

For the above post. P.S The letters on your Roehm daggers appear to round and not linear or straight in areas.I also preferb the smal"&" These are just my opinon and specific's since you asked.I have not been on this great forum in awhile I am rusty.

My fellow collectors:
I did a seminar at the Max Show on Rohm and Himmler daggers back in the 80's or 90's. The application of these acetate templates was done by hand. This lends itself to poor and uneven positioning of the inscription. I've even seen acid bleed through on original examples. This occurred when they perforated the template when applying it by hand. There have also been discussion for 40 years as to the possible existence that more then one template was used on the Rohm daggers made by Pack. I have examined 100's of Rohm daggers over the years but that was hands on and not some image on a computer screen. I've studied Rohm Inscription for many years and all I can tell you is the mark of being and expert in this field is when you realize you don't know anything.

Gailen

Zorro,can you be more specific,i don't understand what do you mean(to round and not linear or straight in areas)?


Stingray

Stingray,My opinion was challenged so I have already supplied all the information I wish too presently.Pat asked for pictures of an 100% original E.Pack Roehm dagger and he got it.

As I have stated in the past on this forum, Pack was a large manufacturer and had multiple trademarks during the first couple of years of political dagger production. Joe Pankowski and I studied the Pack SAs and both came to the conclusion that Gailen is absolutely correct on the differing templates for the Rohm daggers, so you will never be able to be totally sure on the positioning of the TMs or the alignment of the letters on the inscription.
Pack, Eickhorn and a few others are not as easy to tell as say an F. Dick or some of the other makers who made very few of the Rohms.
So, we can beat this topic to death and not arrive with a final determination IMO.

Ron are you saying an original could be considered a fake and a fake could be considerd an original? that even the experts can't say for sure. Which would back up my claim that near perfect fakes were and are being made.I'm impressed.

Sorry for the late reply but I had a busy schedule.

Once again, I do not believe one moment that a perfect fake exist, if so, please prove it.
It is too easy to simply claim one theory after another and not simply prove it. On an hand inspection there is no doubt in my mind that a fake wouldn't pass the test.
There are certain Rohm maker marked that are even impossible to fake without raising huge red flags, like Henckel for instance, way too many unique variables to even come close to a " possible " fake. Will not go through the list of unique flaws as it is to long.
The first Rohm from Stingray is in my opinion fake for all the reasons that I've listed to him. However, the second Rohm, which isn't mine by the way, is 100% geniune and there is no doubt about it. Like Gailen said, these were made by hand and there are certain imperfections unique to every engraving.
I see absolutely no difference between yours and the Rohm number 2. In any case, if we follow your logic, why yours wouldn't be just a perfect fake ?
To me these are the type of "free" claims that surface once in a while on the market but for which there are ZERO proof of evidence. Just another hypothetical theory worth nothing without any proof of evidence.
No disrespect intended, just saying what I think is right.

Pat you have answered your own question.If a fake was perfect no-one could tell and for $20k-$30k it's going to be tough to say the least.Show a picture of the trademark.I profided my 100% no-doubt Roehm IMO so lets see some more details of the one you show,makermark complete inscription ect.Pat I took a quick look at the #2 Roehm of stingray and it's not even close to mine in many ways,Trademark,Trademark location ect.What I am saying is that IMO mine has the traits I consider needed to be genuine without doubt EP&S Roehm dagger.If you like other styles of EP&S thats fine with me.P.S Come on Pat #2 is just awful if you think mine looks like that there is no use for any other discussion on Roehm daggers.Lastly if all the experts know so much on Roehm why do all of us spell his name wrong? myself included because we are subjected to opinions that are not correct(I could be wrong on this,If I am my mistske. Tim

I can't provide any pictures because the dagger does not belong to me, pictures were provided by Stingray.
As you are probably aware, there were more than 1 trademark for E.Pack being used. The trademark location is the least of my worries on E. Pack, it is another matter though on other maker marked.
I don't like others styles but yours seems genuine, just like Stingray's number 2 Roehm.
Again, we are judging from pics alone and it is easier when there are obvious red flags on a dagger, which isn't the case on this one.
Using a microscope, you can tell if a Roehm inscription is 100% original or not and it is an easy thing to do, this is why a perfect fake is impossible when you have the dagger in hands.

You are defending #1 and it is not even in your possession or in hand as we say? What a moot point this has been,futile indeed.#2 Is an obvious fake and you have a real one to compair it too(Mine).Oh well it's been fun.

I never said the dagger was mine in the first place and I don't see the relevance of your complaint.
I'm merely giving my opinion since Stingray directly contacted me to have my opinion.
We have a new Guru in town so it means, a bit of humility from your part would be greatly desired.

I do have a real one on hand but since it is futile, using your own words, there is no need for me to post it.

Ok,here are more pictures of both my Rohms trade marks

Stingray

And here is one more partial ground Rohm from my collection just to show different TM


Stingray

Humilty ! All I said when I got in this thread was that both daggers looked fake to me.Then you started your bombardment about my opinion,Lets see my Roehm,no proof,futile,nonsense,ect and the daggers are not yours and your opinions are based on pictues.So I called your hand.I am try to help people to not spend 20k -30k and prevent them from being naive like some people I know.If million dollar paintings,and U S currency can be faked so can exspensive daggers,believe what you want.I am not a new dagger guru I am an old dagger guru and you a dagger guru want to be.You do excell at one thing,double talk and insulting and condescending to people when shown to be mistaken as for your dagger I would be afraid to post it myself.Like the U.S flag I bow to no one.

What I am saying in this thread is that Pack had several variations concerning Trademark, distances and letter bending or placement among originals. Pack made too many original variations to make blanket statements like the trademark is too far from the crossguard or the inscription is too far down the blade.
Packs must be assessed in hand.
So, Recall Pat, comparing your "original" to all other Pack Roehms is not a valid method (just my opinion).

Ron again you are mistaken.You don't think I already know the items you brought up? Just like another dagger you did not care for on another site.Did I go off on you "Not Impressed" statement even though I know you are absolutely wrong about it,but you are intitled to youf opinion without being insulted..Pat wanted to see my Roehm that I had 100% confidence and did not think I could produce it again he was mistaken so off to plan B Insults as most people in the wrong do.P.S Stingray I took a quick look at the latest pictures and like what I see,other than the first dagger blade looks very polished almost buffed.I hope it has some crossgrain on it.

What is really being accomplised here?????? I'll say it one more time, You are not going to absolutely authenticate an Pack on here unless it is one of the poorly done fakes. Ron has,in so many words, said the same thing. You may post an opinion but you can't authenicate it based on images. When you attermpt do this you are not only casting doubt on a piece that may be correct but you are causing the owner undue hardship. Please consider this.

Gailen

Well said Gailen, it is unfair to pronounce an item as "incorrect" without absolute certainty and with substantive proof. This hobby need not be so devisive....it is only a hobby guys, not to mention Christmas and Thanksgiving are coming...life is too short...cheers to all, Ryan

That's the same trade mark as my fully erased

Only a hobby!As you should well know it is way beyond a hobby.Did trusting a big names not cost you alot of money? The point of being the devils advocate is so you can study certain aspects closely if you are thinking about buying an ltem before pulling the trigger.On another site a chained SS was shown asking for opinions,many different points were made about it before I got in early and pointed out that it was missing a couple skull and SS rune links alomg with other major problems.I hope I did not offend him pointing out the major problems .I am not infalible. Is that humbile enough?Geeeeeeeez.

Zorro, please show a little respect for other Member's opinions. You can certainly disagree, but be polite. Thanks.


EP&S SA daggers are difficult as Pack had more variation in trademarks and spacing, etc, than any other, as mentioned above. I know that TW has photographed many examples for his SA book, so maybe that will answer questions.

Yeah Zorro I got "screwed" for $7000 yet there isn't as much "passion" in those relative posts as there are in yours over Rohm daggers and what have you...Hey no one is infallible and we are all far from perfect in this hobby of ours and we make mistakes.....I just made a major one the other day on a very rare and expensive piece of headgear and I prided myself on my self prophessed knowledge and expertise in that arena...oh well....but no one got screwed over it and no one did here either...these are just differences of opinions...impassioned as they may be...at the end of it both you and Patrice have the same best interests at heart so the creation of ill feelings, in my opinion is just plain obtuse and dumb! and for the record I never asked anyone to show humility...I could car less....cheers, Ryan

Dave rest assured you will never have too deal with my unpoliteness again.BUY AMERICAN!

[/quote]Dave rest assured you will never have too deal with my unpoliteness again.BUY AMERICAN! [/quote]


You will not be missed if you can't take the pressure.

Shouldn't be any preasure. This suppose to be a pleasant experience.

Gailen

Members I can't deal with the screaming fans. No-more live shows,all studio work.Feel free to PM for any questions or concerns. Happy Thanksgiving. BUY AMERICAN! "Z"

Let me say that TW and I, over the years, have had many heated discussions about Rohm daggers. Sometimes we agree and other times we didn't. Chalk that up to how tough some of these daggers are. Even with a combined ninty years experience between us we don't agree on some of these examples. I don't think any one book is going stop this. But knowing that the written word many times becomes gospel, it may legitimize pieces I don't agree on and many that I do. That's The way the hobby is and will continue to be.

Something I think needs saying. There are few in the hobby whose given so much back to the collector than Thomas Wittmann. The books he has published on Edges weapons are superb. I don't know if many of you realize that he puts up the money on these books and in most cases it takes years for him to even break even. His writing style makes the books a pleasure to read. We've know each other for almost a half a century and have often talked of our first meeting where I beat him out of a chained SS at one of the early shows. We have had some terrible fights where we didn't talk to each other for long periods of time. But in the end we always made up.

Gailen

Got to agree with Gailen. Tom Wittman is a true gentleman. And rohn daggers are a challenge.Missed you at the Max this year Gailen. See you at the SOS.

Rick: I don't know about that "gentleman" thing.

Gailen

Stingray, can you please tell me if the tang on the Rohm in question, the 1st one posted is marked?
Paul

I’m in agreement with a lot of what was said, and would offer what I was told some time back by a well known blade maker whose company was in business long before WW I. The etching templates were of an acid resistant wax, and he sent me an example which I (may or may not) still have, and the correspondence that is probably filed away somewhere. Being made (from memory) in batches by something like a silk screen process and stored away until needed. With the wax etching mask being applied to a slightly warm blade so that it adheres well, forming a good seal to keep the acid etchant away from the areas that were to be protected.

Followed up by an artisan to correct any defects in the mask application before etching. Which is where the human element comes in. As these were not machine made, but done one at a time by people of different abilities and changing circumstances. FP

Interesting, Fred. I had always wondered exactly how it was done. Thanks for posting.

Grumpy, I'm glad that you liked it. At the time I had been wondering about it myself, and if I'm remembering it correctly there was even a description about how they eliminated or minimized the "pimples" in the etching. Best Regards, Fred