UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Rohm Dagger Forum Any opinion on partial Rohm?

Any red flags you see?
Thanks

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

I would expect to see the smaller Eickcorn maker mark closer to the grip. Not sure if Eickorn made the larger mark with the Rolm inscription?

Yes it did and it is rare

Oleg, I believe this is likely an authentic dagger with the "Rohm" inscription added postwar. The trademark should indeed be closer to the crossguard and the inscription, though quite good, does not match in detail known authentic inscriptions. I would not purchase this dagger as a valid "Rohm" example.

After scrutinizing the trademark a bit more, I don't think it conforms to the larger "Eickhorn double oval" and I know it doesn't conform to the smaller one. The entire blade may be bogus or the reverse has been re-etched with a trademark and inscription.

From what I know it came directly from a vet.

Grumpy I see many large oval Eickhorns just like mine. What makes you think that this is a bogus?
Please explain

I think this dagger is Ok. The earliest Eickhorn Rohms had the large trademark.

I got this blade from a dealer and if this blade is not authentic or Rohm is a fake please let me know so I get my money back
Thanks

I compared the trademark with a photo of one in TW's "SS" book. They could be identical, but it's hard to say because of reflection and focus problems in the photos of Oleg's dagger. I compared the inscription on Oleg's dagger to one on an "Eickhorn" I have. There are subtle differences, which could be attributable to the time left in the acid bath to do the etching. Such subtle differences may occur on "Rohm" daggers, but the inscription should be substantially the same on all "Rohm" daggers. Again, focusing problems don't help. Oleg, if you can scan the trademark and inscription with sharper focus and crop them where needed, it would be a great help in an evaluation. As always, there's no substitute for a "hands-on" examination.

Oleg,

Did you notice the paradox here?

This large TM is said to be rare for a R�hm... but most of the R�hms, that are offered for sale, have this big one positioned far from the guards...

If I were you, I would try to buy one with the small mark, the so called "common TM", that one is harder to find... because it is unquestionable a R�hm!

Best greetings,

Herman

Does any one know how to post a larger pic of the inscription so you can take a good look?

Oleg,larger pic's are better .This early eickhorn trademark must not be closer to the lower crossguard .Once i owned a 100% genuine vet purchased sa R�hm dagger with complete grinded inscription and the trademark was not more closed to the lower crossguard as on Olegs dagger .Here is a pic .

Posting photos for Oleg1, nats
#1

#2

#3

Thanks nats

First, the larger double oval "Eickhorn" trademark is a "legitimate" mark and is located farther from the crossguard than the smaller trademark, which is much closer to the guard. There is an SS example of a larger trademark "Rohm" dagger on p. 72 of TW's SS book. I still don't know what to make of Oleg's find, even with the excellent added photos. The inscription etch appears to be a bit thicker and deeper than on the one I have and that possibly (probably?) explains the minor detectible variances. Because the etch is deeper and wider, a slight amount of detail could have been lost. I can see no major differences in the two etches. Theoretically, the larger trademark example should be an earlier one and perhaps those blades were left in the acid bath longer than the later ones. The grey backgound is typical of early "Eickhorns," among others. This, I think is a positive sign. My "gut" feeling is the dagger is the real thing and I would probably buy it, but someone truly expert needs to look at it for an opinion.

I am not the r�hm expert , but this inscription looks good .I have a good feeling.Oleg , is a benchmark on the underside of the lower crossguard ? - i mean yes !