SA dagger with Ernst Röhm honor inscription

[Transylvania]

Dear Ger

First of all thanks for your answer and additional input.
I believe that I need to present some apologise for my little indulgence. I have carefully inspected the blade under magnifying glass. I checked the traces made by the sheath (scabbard) on the blade.
Furthermore I took a piece of soft textile and after careful light rubing ...(suprise)... the so called "machine style grain" is nothing else than heavily dried lubricant layer on the blade and is visible in both sides.
Indeed is more visible on the widmung side, but it is the same present (indeed on thinner layer) on the Alles für Deutschland side as well (especially between the letters).
This dagger (unfortunately) was not maintained (loved) since more than eight years and the approx 2007-2011 period applied conservation lubricant thin layer dried on the blade (especially where the sheath was not touching the blade). Please inspect again the blade and you will certainly observ the sheath traces.
I don't really want to rub it without professional advise. Eventually there is any possibility to remove the heavily dried lubricant layer without rubing the blade? There is any removing solution which would not affect the blade?

Furthermore Ger, now after inspecting the blade on the lightspot I can just confirm the unique style of crossgrain and blade texture. It is amazing! As you move it on the light a different (a magical) world is coming to the light :-).

Thanks and please check the blade photos again by paying special attention to sheath traces.

Kind regards, Sandor

[Transylvania]

Dear Ger and Dear All!

This is the maximum results that I could reach with glass (brille) cleaning soft textile and about (+/-) 5 hours of cleaning.
Furthermore I will try to shoot during the coming weekend also the macro photos.
On the first photo, the spots around Alles is dirt. The shiny part on the margins of the letters is light due to in-depth of the engraving.

Kind regards, Sandor

[Transylvania]

I applied only clean and soft textile used for glasses ...and probably the 5 hours is slightly exaggerated. Was probably 3 :-).

[gerrit]

Thx for the pictures, what catches my eye are de differences in the etches.
On the frontside there is a lot of pimpling inside the etch, which is a result of the type of etch acid reacting on impurities in the steel over the years.
In the Rohm etch they are not there, that is a bit disturbing to me.

btw i hope you didnt polished the blade with that cleaner in a way that the crossgrain on the frontside was erased.

Regards
Ger

[Larry C]

Thankyou for the greater photos Sandor

I think he is too careful to do that Ger and over clean it. IMO the front side of the blade was already over cleaned ..as in these better photos Im seeing a regrained blade on the inscription side and an unmatched logo etch.

I will not elaborate further on any details that might give encouragement to those scammers reading this.
Overall the dagger itself is authentic and feel this was once a ground Rohm.
I would say this would not fit what is to be expected of an Eickhorn blade.

Regards Larry

[Transylvania]

Dear Ger and Larry!
I would not say that I over-cleaned or polished nevertheless and if you can observe the rust spots also disappeared. The only thing I did (at the end of the process) in order to clean the dirt is to apply a very fine cleaning cream that I usually use for damascus blades.

Regarding blade-cleaning I would stop here. I don't really want to further touch the blade. I better leave it as it is and with scratches, etc. Any additional intervention will only hurt and cause damages.
Larry, let's assume that was a grounded Röhm dagger. I'm engineer in profession but I never seen a technology (so far) which through re-etching could perfectly match the original inscription. Physically is impossible. Under this magnifying procedure that we did together in case of re-etching for sure we would find at least one if not more irregularities.

The photos are highly magnified and we can observe every small defect - which is excellent. This magnified every scratch, previous polishing and interventions, etc.

One more think: we don't know anything about the before life of this dagger, how was cleaned, sharpened, whatever etc. When I mean before than I mean before arrived to the collection were was parked for over three decades.
In the interest of truth and "war relics science" I'm extremely open during the entire communication and provenance therefore if we look for any physical intervention than we should look for technologies before 1985.

I'm extremely happy for the controversies, arguments, expertise opinions and for everything. I can only gratefully thank to everyone. This brainstorming is a real piece of history for this outstanding Röhm dagger which went and still going through sharp and exigent opinion-flow. Thanks :-). Sandor

[Larry C]

Hi Sandor...the technology is clear and present ...its just that we are all engineers in some kind of context. Learning about anything takes time.
Counterfeiting money is not a science nor is researching the truth. Its a form of art ..science is based on theories ..which can be deceiving if the item or subject is not taken seriously.
I have seen alot of good studied people give themselves over to indulgence in this hobby and cave in to making a fast dollar on what in truth is false. These daggers like anything else have been corrupted and takes extra time to find the truth.

These forums are testing grounds to see how stupid the researcher is and 9 1/2 times out of 10 ..the faker gets shot down. Photos are only 2/3rds of the battle and sometimes are not enough where an in hand inspection is required.

The dagger you posted has brought a congenial discussion and I thankyou for not getting upset but remaining objective.
You chose the best course by searching for a 2nd opinion as curators are no more proficient in this hobby ( Being centralized or immersed in one subject study ) than they are being brain surgeons.
What this community achieves here is far over what Museums or auction houses will ever know. They do what they know best..as well as what we do here finding the truth. No one wants to spend hard earned money on a lie which seems to be these times we live in..all to make a short term gain.

Your posts have shown that you have been very detailed and well orchestrated in your information which you should further it..by reading some of the many threads on the Rohm subject.
Thankyou for posting and sharing with the community which will be added to our database for future reference.
Enjoy your stay here and give a read through some of the threads when you have time.

Regards Larry

[Transylvania]

Dear Larry and Ger!

First of all I would like to apologize for my later reply due to a business trip.
I'm amazed about the accurate in-depth expertise and "matter of fact" approach of professionals expressing voluntarily their sharp opinion.
This is how it should be and I'm absolutely fine with all remarks and professional comments.

I would still be more than interested to proceed the hands on expertise with a knowledgeable collector or with an expertise-office specialized in Third Reich daggers.
If you can suggest such a place or expert than I would be more than grateful for it.

Needless to say if by coincidence some of you are in my geographical area than I would be more than happy to invite you for a coffee and for a good discussion.

Thanks and keep you further posted. I will try to shoot the macro photos during the weekend.

Sincerely, Sandor

[Dagg]

Sorry I am late to this game as I only just joined the forum, but there are two things that strike me when I was looking at this, and neither are regarding the blade/inscription. When studying the scabbard and grip, I noticed that the grip has a large crack that is almost the entire length of the grip from guard to guard, and even appears to go from front to back in another photo. I also noticed that one screw is different, with a flat head, compared to the round head on the other three on the scabbard. Thoughts? Did anyone else notice these?