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

Violin- Try emailing good pictures of your dagger to Craig Gottlieb first. He knows the Packs very well. I believe he does still consult with Gailen David, but I think I heard somewhere that Gailen does not do certifications any more, maybe I am wrong though. Craig is reasonable, and a real good guy to deal with, especially if you end up having to send the dagger to him.

Zorro- I made a minor mistake in my earlier post. It was a bad $5 bill (not $20, the $20 did end up being good, just had been through the wash) I got it from a Wells Fargo branch in Eagan, MN in May of 2006. I own a large, upscale wine and liquor store in the twin cities area. Sometimes I go to the bank to purchase change, especially when I am covering for one of my managers when they are off. It was within a pack of circulated bills, sold to me for change for my store. The paper looked a little "whiter" than it should be. Otherwise it looked good. Low and behold, under UV light, it glows bright! UV light, that's how they get spotted so easily in bars/clubs. Too bad the fake daggers don't "glow" under UV light! We didn't complain to the bank, rather we saved it to show our employees. Looked to be laser-color copier made, not inkjet. After learning from it, we tossed it. No sense in contacting the secret service over a lowly $5 bill. If I ever see another, I will have to make some calls though.

OK, now I am really confused here. In the thread (My knew SA Rohm) CRAIG said on Aug 24th 2006 "Remember the fakers are NOT faking Eickhorns or Packs". Now in light of this discussion what the heck did he mean? What am I missing. Also he said that there ARE variations on the inscriptions among the cottage makers. I am always willing to admit that something I have is not good once the evidence is clear but that statment makes no sense unless my ie Tom Wittman's dagger is OK. I also see the difference in my logo and the one Pat showed. Pretty clear to me too. David

Violin- I did not read the thread you are referring to, but I think Craig must have meant that the Packs and Eicks are the MOST faked. They are very common makers. You are right, there can be some variations in the inscriptions (Rohm). Some are straight, and some sag a little low, somewhat below the blade spine, as seen on mine. Authentic examples have been found both ways, and are verified. The lettering (in the etch) and maker mark are big indicators, as Pat points out. Also, there seems to be some variation in the Pack maker mark etch, even between "good" daggers. There were many fake Pack full Rohm blades made in the 80s. On those, the whole blade is fake, not just a post-war Rohm etch like some. Many are found with the rest of the parts correct, just the blade is bad. The fake blades are easy to spot (by the experts). The post-war etches can be a challenge as some are very convincing, as I am going through on mine currently. Craig is/was in contact with one of the fake-blade makers for reference. He should be able to help you out. You should definitely email him when he returns from Germany. I know, the waiting and wondering sucks. Believe me, I have gone through the same thing. A dagger you originally had no doubts about, then..... I wish you the best of luck in getting resolution to your dagger situation. Good or bad, at least you have a lifetime return privilege

David,

You should also get the advise of some "non dealer" experts on your dagger. In my opinion, people who are not involved for the money will give you a more "neutral" opinion.
The 3R dealer world is very small you know and some people seem to be "untouchable"...

Best greetings,

Herman

Thanks Herman and Krause. Needless to say I will vet this dagger with those who can give a solid opinion on the blade and inscription. The rest is obviously original.The differences as noted by Pat are clear, ie the size of the & in the logo, the space between the logo and the inscription etc. The blade to crossguard fit is much better then it shows in the magnified photo so that doesn't bother me. Craig did say that they are NOT faking them but obviously he could have mis-spoken. He mentioned that the etch in fakes is more shollow then the real ones and you can tell when you run your fingernail down the blade. Well of course I tried that on mine and I could not do it. That is to say the etch is so deep my nail hung up too much to slide at all. That doesn't mean that I know anything about how it should feel, I would have to compare to others to know. No substitute for experience. THAT is what I would expect from the likes of Tom Wittman. We shall see when I have time to contact the necessary folks. David

I have been reading the other reference posts on these daggers and I must say that it is not easy. Pat you pointed out the differences but not the similarities to originals in my logo. For example, original logos have a solid hammer while fakes have an open one. Mine has a solid one and is square like an original.Fakes have a face that seems to look to the left not to the right like originals. Mine looks to the right like an original. There can be larger &'s in the logo as seen in Dave Hohaus's SS e-pack dagger. There can be variations in distance between logo and Rohm name. Krause, Look at your Deutschland motto and mine. Light years difference!!! But both are e-pack. Is one obviously no good or are both ligit for this maker? I will tell you that just on fineness of detail I like mine better but that doesn't mean anything in the end. Also in the logo the left arm has certain lines and mine matches the example of an original. All this to say that I am NOT certain this dagger is no good and as I said above it will take some one with much more experience then me to sort it out. David

David,

I could not reply to any of your threads as I was gone on vacation.
The fact that your Pack trademark has some similarities with an original one, doesn't mean that it is correct. Your trademark has way too many "untextbook" flaws for anyone to feel confortable with. You have to remember that there are more than one person in the world that makes these fake inscription blades and they don't all have the same talents.
Some con artists are better than others.
My main concern when I first responded to this thread wasn't even about the Pack trademark but was merely about the Rohm inscription, which I strongly feel is not correct.
The depth of the maker marked and motto and/or inscription should always have the same depth, as they were all applied at the same time. Your Rohm inscription seems very different from your motto and trademark, which would therefore suggest that it was applied post war. Some Rohm inscriptions can also have some minute differences in their etching but should always have an identical "word pattern".
What I mean is that there cannot be differences in their letterings, which isn't the case for this blade.
You have to remember that all Rohm inscriptions came from a Master template and should therefore all have the same pattern.
I still strongly feel that your Rohm inscription is post war made.
Send it to any experts that you can really trust and please, let us know their conclusion.

"Make it so number one". The dagger is in the appropriate hands as I write this. We shall see what is concluded. I have no preconceptions as to the result. It will be what it is and that is OK. david

[QUOTE]Originally posted by violin:
The dagger is in the appropriate hands as I write this.

If so, it should only take him a few minutes.

P/S: Private e.mail sent.

It's really a shame about these E. Packs-the real ones--Who would pay the big bucks for one after all this? How cheap would it have to be?

Can't remember where or when someone on GDC theorized that the spirit of the original owner 'talks to you' in a paranormal sense. This means that when you hear the spirit's heavy breathing and things go bump in the night you know you got the ral thing. So, how can you lose?

Yep now we will have to get all our TR material exorcised. On the serious side, it seems like the Rohms are the most contentious thing in the dagger group. Even the experts disagree. I almost bought one but decided they are way too "hot" for me.

You can wait until it starts speaking to you, so make sure you move the canary to the other room.

But seriously, they are too high for just having one in a collection. And if you want to sell one you have a lot of explaining to do to convince the buyer. Seems like there are lots of pitfalls concentrated arround Roehm daggers.

OK, here is the verdict, the scabbard is DEFINITELY not an e-pack. Thus the mismatch between the scabbard and lower crossguard fit. Pack crossguards were unique and don't fit other things. The cross guards and handle probably are e-pack. The etch IF REAL is poor in quality. That is all I need to know because this dagger was sold as all original and untouched and that is definitely not the case in the opinion of two reviewers. It goes back for a refund. I will be quite open about how that turns out. Thanks everyone. David

Pack crossgurds are very flat and match up with their unique shape of the lip of the upper chape of the scabbard. The crossguards have a unique caster as well and were probably produced in house by this large firm.

That is correct JR and that is why this is so clearly not an e-pack scabbard reguardless of the validity of anything else. David

With a scabbard of just about any of the 200 some SA makers, it is a nightmare to really definitively for the most part say "this belongs with that". Truly this is a tough thing with many of the other daggers as well. Parts got switched at gun shows, collectors swapped pieces on their own daggers, etc. But with a dagger like a Full Rohm SA........... everything need to be evaluated and in your own mind to be comfortable with the piece.

JR is 100% correct but I would add that we know for a fact that dagger manufacturers bought parts from other manufacturers and firms that specialized in just a particular part. So every dagger is certainly NOT the sole product of one firm-although some of them seem to be. At least-MOST of the time they are found with the same configuration. But let's not just dump all the rest or consider them to be post war altered-because many of them are not.
It seems that a lot of collectors are starting to do this tunnel vision thing-only keeping or wanting the 100% textbook piece. It's pretty easy to do this-you don't have to know much-just look at the book.( But --are the textbooks always right or do they ALMOST ALWAYS contain some bad information? )
IMO -I don't think this tunnel thing is a good for the hobby. It causes these "textbook" things to go out of sight in price and drives a lot of collectors out of the hobby for no good reason because they can't afford these things. It also causes a lot of pieces to be ignored or undervalued-perfect examples being the period upgraded versions of the 36 SS and NSKK. Gee-It's not "textbook"-I don't understand it and I don't wanna learn anything I just wanna look at Mr' X's book and compare with my gram scale and my micrometer--Here lemmie pour some acid or chemical # 9 on this part and we'll know for sure!! Ah Ha! A FAKE! I KNEW IT ALL THE TIME!--and NO! I don't wanna hear that there may be something wrong in that book-my bible!!
Something to think about-are we freaking out a bit too much these days?

Right on Houston. I have been advocating for years that the "textbook" mentality is doing more harm than good to this hobby.

Houston, Thank you for saying what I've really wanted to say all along but felt I would be flogged by this form! Thanks, again.

No one will argue against Houston's arguments but someone has to be ready to "back up" the theories about the non-textbook daggers.
Does it really hurt the hobby all that much ?
I doubt it ! Let me explain.
You have to realise that many con artists will sell "questionable" daggers and simply claim that the piece, though 100% original, is a non-textbook type.
I'm sorry but this ain't for me.
Just recently, I was offered an early maker marked SS EM with a Gau marked crossguard. Though the parts were 100% original and considered non-textbook, I decided not to buy it. How many of you would've bought that SS EM at full retail ?
It is way too easy to claim that a dagger is original but non-textbook.
Perfect "set up" for a con artist I would say.
I will let the others gamble with the non-textbook daggers.
I think that the hobby will get hurt even more if we let the new collectors beleive that non-textbook daggers are fine.
There are of course exceptions but they have to be taken separately and analysed exhaustively first before making any "new" theories.
Best example, the "upgrade" Chained NSKK which I now sincerely believe are original but non-textbook. BTW, I bought one !
Much research was done on the subject and we all came to the conclusion that they did exist, but everything was first researched with logical arguments.
It would be so much easier for anyone to sell a "part dagger" and simply claim that it is original but non-textbook.
How many times, have I seen "bad pieces" being sold on the web with the promises of being original, though not textbook.
No, I'm sorry to disagree but the vast majority of non-textbook daggers are not for me and neither do I sincerely think that you guys will take any risk.

Just my opinion ! and nothing else.

The textbook thing depends on who wrote the book and when. Textbooks change somewhat but a lot of the old mistakes continue to be printed. Show me a book on daggers and I'll show you mistakes in it--ANY BOOK!
Here is an example of how the "textbook" collector hurts the hobby. Collector "T" collects by dagger type and by TM. He is offered a very rare one at "retail" price or a little more. There are a couple of things about it that he or SOMEONE-ANYONE considers Non-textbook. Nothing major really-the crossguard does not fit the scabbard PERFECTLY-or the grip may not be exactly the same shape as usually seen. He does not buy it-he is not really experienced but he makes a big ego trip issue of it on the good 'ol internet. Result-no one will buy it-a rare item becomes a non-collectible lost to the hobby. New collectors see this and begin to question every item they have-and they will almost always find some little something that is not 100% textbook. They consider and conclude-this ain't worth the worry.-they quit the hobby. One more lost who might someday buy YOUR stuff. "I have seen the enemy and it is us" POGO.

Just a follow up note to let you know Tom Wittman has taken this dagger back and I have received back my original investment. He took it back NOT as a refund because he still feels this dagger is 100% original even though I pointed out some of the concerns pointed out here. He showed me another e-pack that he had just seen from the relative of an SA member (full rohm) to show how the one I had had was similer. I have NO doubt that from the photos he sent me with the check, the dagger from the SA man IS original. Why? Well because it has some small differences. The lower cross guard fits against the scabbard perfectly!!!! They are both e-pack! The logo etch has the smaller & in th E. P.& S. The hammer and arm look like the one everyone likes. The Rohm name has the look that Patrice likes. If I was looking for another full Rohm I would by that one in a hart beat. Well, all I can say is that this tale is done. Tom is happy to have the dagger back, and I am happy to not have it and have my funds back. I am afraid that Tom made the wrong case that he intended to make using the veteran dagger but so be it. David

David,
You did the right thing and glad that you got your money back.