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

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.