|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
Any red flags you see? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 498
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 498 |
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?
Thanks, Blademan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
Yes it did and it is rare
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
From what I know it came directly from a vet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
Grumpy I see many large oval Eickhorns just like mine. What makes you think that this is a bogus? Please explain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,071 Likes: 18
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,071 Likes: 18 |
I think this dagger is Ok. The earliest Eickhorn Rohms had the large trademark.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,771 Likes: 66
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,771 Likes: 66 |
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
You never have enough HJ-knifes!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
Does any one know how to post a larger pic  of the inscription so you can take a good look?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621 |
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 .
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
Posting photos for Oleg1, nats #1
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,970 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 536 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621 |
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 !
|
|
|
Forums42
Topics31,878
Posts331,875
Members7,780
|
Most Online5,900 Dec 19th, 2019
|
|
9 members (Documentalist, ollar, HistoryMS, The_Collector, Emily, Don Scowen, polop, benten, atis),
257
guests, and
153
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|