UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Rohm Dagger Forum Full Rohm E-Pack

A full Rohm E-Pack that has never been apart, and has not been cleaned. Look at the quality and judge for yourselves. Doubts? Need a hands-on? Notice the grain, and frosting. Hope the photos do it justice. David

Photo#2

Photo#3

photo#4

photo#5

photo#5 sorry

photo#6

photo#7

photo#8

photo#9

photo#10

the experts here often refer to the distance between Rohm inscription and makers mark, as both were part of the same template in EPS and also other makers. If you check other Full Rohm EPSs in this forum, the E Pack logo appears to be closer to the xguard.

see this thread for example
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/...673027217#7673027217


Would love to see a closeup of the Pack logo

Gustav,According to the website you sent us too.This dagger is not correct because the space between makermark and inscription is not suppose to be different by the same maker.I do not know if that is an old thread or not.Again we may have the near perfect fake if it is a fake.I like it better than most I see on this site.IMO (:}X

The best close ups I can get of the logo

Next photo

HERR MANN, come out come out wherever you are. Lets here from the experts .OK from an amateur, there is alot that is not right with the trademark.Is this the perfect fake.Before the market heads south on Rohm&Himmlers I want too thank E-bay for banning us hobbiest and keeping the market strong for so long. (:}X

Let me ask a thought question here. No one here is going to say, I don't think, that this dagger is not an original third reich dagger. The only question is was the Rohm inscription added to this dagger after the fact which I understand. BUT then either the original E-PACK logo was left on and the etch applied in which case the logo should be good. OR the whole thing was redone and then you had to grind the original etch off, what ever it was, and reapply the cross grain. Is there evidence that the grain was redone? It appears very uniform in the magnified photos. One should be able to at least decide that it is an original blade. David

Okay, I'm not an expert but I play one on TV.

My concerns are these:

1) In photo number 7 the blade to crossguard fit is very sloppy. I'm not so sure it would have left the factory like that.

2) The photos of the EP&S logo show lack of detail in the etch, especially in the lettering which shows poorly formed and differently sized characters.

I claim no expertise on Rohm inscriptions. However, I have doubts that a quality manufacturer would have produced this blade. I welcome any further comments.

Looks as though we have a REDDICK blade from the 80's here.

Ed is right !
This one is an obvious fake, no doubt about it.
It ain't even a good fake.
I don't know about the dagger but the Rohm inscription is post war made.
Sorry for the bad news.

Well, I bought this dagger from Tom Wittman 5 years ago and I have two documents with it. One is the letter with his description of the dagger and the other is a life-time quarantee that this is one of the best full Rohms he has ever owned. What say you now? David

Well, whether or not it came from old Witty, I still believe that it is fake.
If he sold you this dagger 5 years ago, I sincerely believe that it could have been an honest mistake.
There are actually only a handfull of experts that I would really trust for authenticating Rohm blades, Craig being one of them but it would have to be a physical inspection.
The best person for the job though would be Gailen David but I think that he no longers does it.

Read the following thread.
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/m/6710087993

Everyone thought that the E.Pack was a complete fake.
This faked E.Pack Rohm dagger is even listed in Steven's reference book on "Reproductions" and has the same identical flaws as the one pictured.
Guess where this dagger came from ?

I stand by the concerns that I listed in my above post. There are daggers in my clunker drawer with better fit and etching. You deserve at the very least an explanation for these deficiencies. I would demand answers, regardless of the source.

Aside from the Rohm inscription, the E.Pack logo mark is NOT even authentic.
Please, read the following thread on E.Pack logo.
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/m/7560084504
The one on your left is the fake one.
Your "&" in your logo is much too big as compared to an original one.

Here's your E.Pack logo.

Here are couple of original E.Pack that I've taken the liberty to take on the web.
One comes from Bill Shea and the other one from Brian Madearer.
As we can see, both logo have a small "&".

Sorry but your E.Pack logo is an obvious fake.

It seems that in the end, quality all around (including definition and depth of the stamped logos) is still one of the key criteria for authentic daggers of any type...no? Im afraid technology will bridge this gap soon, if it hasnt already. Given the market value of these pieces, we can be sure there are folks working full time on this, and studying GDC during their breaks

Gentlemen,

I have had couple of e.mails when I got up this morning and do feel pretty uneasy about the whole thing.
I just wanted to make something really clear here, I'm not accusing M. Wittmann of purposely selling faked daggers and I'm not trying to discredit his reputation in any ways.
I would be lying to you if I didn't tell you that I'm feeling quite uneasy about the whole situation.
Mister Wittmann has done so much for the collecting community and has so much influence in the hobby that it is not an easy task to contredict such an expert.
I'm no expert but I just feel real confortable when evaluating Rohm blades as I have spend countless days just studying these specific types of inscription.
I know that most advanced collectors will now stay quiet about this thread and I can certainly understand their reasoning.............I also would've done the same if I would've known that this dagger came from the number one dealer/expert in the world.
Now, the big question which has been asked by some people in my e.mails.
"Do you still stand behind your statement ?"

I'm sorry to say..........YES

This dagger is like most discoveries on a dagger.It looks great until someone points out this and this leads to that.We have had two people post pictures of there EP&S dagger,whos next.It still looks like an original Rohm to me.If its not even a good fake,what does a good one look like? It must look just like an original one.(PERFECT)

I can hardly believe it: Pat and I agree for once!

Where the dagger came from, really does not matter to me: it just looks far from perfect...
It must have been done a long time ago, I do not believe that today's professional fakers would make these obvious mistakes:

I can hardly make out the face of the blacksmith on this one and as others have pointed out here, the distances are not good and the "&" and the letter type are not correct.

As I did not "study the Röhm inscription for years" (like some of us did), I cannot comment on that part.

Best greetings,

Herman

I am no Rohm etch expert but the makers mark looks way off to me as well.
If it was sold by Whittman I am sure it was an honest mistake and hey, you've got your guarentee.
I applaud Pat and Ed for making their (correct) observations heard. Being able to honestly speak out and voice concerns regardless of hobby politics is what GDC should be about.
I have always appreciated Mr. Whittmann, if this dagger is bad (which I also believe) then it shows nothing more than the fact that Whittman is a human being and (like the rest of us) can make mistakes.
Dagger = Bad
Whittmann = GOOD

Needless to say I sandbagged all of you to some degree, and that was my intent. I placed this dagger up here thinking that it was a good one. It is not just the logo or inscription that bothers me but the fact that Tom felt it was untouched original and never apart etc. These comments should apply to one's expertese on all daggers of all kinds. I don't feel too badely because endeed I have a lifetime quarentee. It is always he said she said. I certainly plan to send it back to him and have him look at it again. But there should be a LOT of uncomfortable people reading this thread right now I think. David

I think that dagger looked good to everybody until Gustavo found one chink in the armor and then everything is so obvious. These EP&S daggers may not be perfect but both of them so far are going to take two experts who have forgotten more about daggers than I know too discern if they are right or wrong,so what difference does it make if they are not perfect.

I am far from a Rohm expert, but I don't like the maker mark, motto, and distance of the maker mark from the crossguard. I have looked at a lot of these recently. I am inclined to think the whole blade might be bad, rest of the parts good. I hope I am wrong though. I am in a similar situation as I have a Pack Rohm SA, and it is under scrutiny currently, and is in the hands of an expert right now for authentication. My dagger is shown in this very forum, titled "what do the Pack doubters say about this one?" Still waiting on a conclusive answer on mine. We know the blade and parts are correct on mine at this point, just is it a post-war etch? I see the can of worms here, as this one came from Wittman. I would definitely get a second opinion on this one though. We know a lot more now, than we did just a few years ago, as far as ways to spot a fake. Mistakes happen, true story: I received a FAKE $20 bill FROM the BANK once! I know Craig can help, and I believe he still consults with Gailen David on these.

If the right size screwdriver or wrench is used one cannot tell if a dagger has been apart or not.Krause you must have noted the bad note(No pun intended)before you left the bank.I have heard they will not take them back if is not noticed at the time of the transaction.

You know I remember when Reddick was selling all types of new blades in the 80's and I new then we were all in for headaches down the road. Wasn't that long ago P Von and I were talking to one of the forum moderators and even he felt these EPS Roehms are compromised because of all the repros floating around. I bought one of those EPS S/A's without the Roehm dedication in the early 80's and I was impressed how good they were made. The one I bought had a real sharp and dark motto with a trademark that was crisp but I saw others that were not as nice and the quality wasn't consistent. I never did any thing with that blade and eventually I put it in the trash where it belongs! But ever since all those pieces the market is just full of great looking army, luft, S/A, S/S , etc.. with bad damascus , engraved blades ,Roehm or Himmler inscriptions fitted into some beautifull fittings. A real shame.

Just another reason why we need an authenticating committee to rule on authenticity of militaria like they have for coins which are guaranteed by NGC or PCGS.

Perhaps it would be best to send this to Gailin or some one like that first. I have dealt with Gailin before. Then go back to Tom?? I suspect that someone "of equal rank" so to speak may need to see it before I ask Tom to reevaluate. Perception is nine tenths of the law. If you can't sell something because of general opinion to the contrary then it is defacto repo regardless of anyone's opinion. New fake blades from the 80's??? Tom Wittman of all people should know the difference. At present I am not happy with this state of affairs, but will actively try to sort this out. David

Gailen, Sorry. David