|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31 |
I know on a F. Dick with a Rohm inscription the logo should be running with the inscription instead of perpendicular and no city. But has anyone found a F. Dick using their standard logo with the name and city and going perpendicular to the blade with either an inscription or a ground inscription ? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,096 Likes: 99 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337 |
Dave, I can't tell. Is that supposed to be a ground Rohm? That's what he was asking about regarding orientation of the maker mark. Bruce, have you been lookin' at what I've been lookin' at? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31 |
Yes the question is a full or ground Rohm with that logo style. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337 |
I'll post a picture of the item in question. Real or fake? Discuss.  Maybe this should be moved to the Rohm forum?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337 |
I think I should add that in all other respects this looks like a fine early F. DICK SA dagger. The point in question is the erased Rohm inscription. Apparently a "textbook" F. DICK Rohm would have the maker's mark orientated lengthwise. This example obviously has the mark perpendicular. If this is not period work, I can only guess that it was a botched attempt at augmenting a standard blade to a Rohm dedication. The forger was not satisfied that the bogus inscription would pass inspection so he ground it off to help recoup his original investment. But that's a lot of assumptions. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31 |
Yes, I didn't have a photo like that but thats what I'm talking about. Didn't realize there was a Rhom forum. Can I use your pic over there ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337 |
Sure, but the usual suspects will probably see it here- or the moderator will move the whole thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31 |
If the moderator is watching. I'll wait and let him move it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 337 |
I decided to do a little photo comparison. In the attachment, the above blade is the F. DICK. I placed below it a known good Rohm inscription image that I acquired from a previous thread. Patrice I hope you don't mind me using your dagger as an example. There's not much left on the ground blade, but I was able to locate the inscription where it originally was by lining up the tail end of the m in Rohm. If you compare with the center line on both blades, you will see that the F. DICK originally had an etching that was located too high. Also, the other two remnants don't seem to line up with anything on the known good blade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31 |
Great detective work. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Forums42
Topics31,669
Posts329,108
Members7,524
| |
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
|
|
|
|
