Hello to all,
I would like to here your opinions abouth the following dagger.
SA Rohm
Hello to all,
I would like to here your opinions abouth the following dagger.
Hello Bergman,
first of all welcome to the dagger forum.
The Rohm honor dagger is an early type dagger, that means it has to have nickel guards, nickel fittings and grip eagle.
The scabberd should be anodized and finished with lacquer.
The backside of the lower crossguard should have a gau mark.
The photo's should be made without a flashlight , that would give us a better view on the materials.
Now its hard to see if its nickle or chrom plated steel.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
As far as i can see, its is not an early scabbard, they look like chrome plated fittings.
On the lower cross guards on the back is no Gau marking visible, maybe the flash?, and the grip eagle looks like the late Alu version.
If i see it right, the dedication is later added on the blade.
The dagger is no time match, early blade, late scabbard, grip late alu eagle? thats all i can make out from these pics.
You have to make better pictures without the flash, and much more detailed, before i can determen it the right way.
Cheers,
Ger
Your
Thank you for replay.
Some better picture, hopefuly....
Another SA blade ruined by a fake dedication...... Hello Bergman welcome to the forum....in additional support to what Gerrit has pointed out..the blade is authentic..but a poorly executed dedication that falls well below the center ridge line of the blade spine. Another issue is Ed Ohliger did not make SA or SS Rohm presentation daggers. ( see link below )
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/sa-di...1934-a-318070/
The grip wood appears to be late RZM type used. parts dagger as Gerrit pointed out
It is not the size of a Collection in History that matters......Its the size of your Passion for it!!- Larry C
One never knows what tree roots push to the surface of what laid buried before the tree was planted - Larry C
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill
The dedication actually looks like it is on Crooked and slants downwards toward the guard. The wood fit is lousy and, as has been said, the sheath is fitted with chrome plate fittings and I definitely do not like the look of the eagle and ho it's been mounted. Faked junk, in my opinion.
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Hey guys (Larry and Gerrit)
I looked at the dagger and not distinguish all errors as you, but I know two errors right-inscription below the center of the blade and Ed Ohliger did not make SA Rohm.
Other errors on the dagger I can investigate after your notice.
I can learn from you (Old Wolf)
Daniel
Tahnks guys. I had a lot of doubts as well, mostly concerning the producer, centering of the inscription.
Hello Bergmann,
I'm even newer to this forum than you are, but definitely not new to collecting, and I must say that the people are spot-on.
However, I must say that they are a little harsh in my opinion.
The grip has the characteristics of later RZM timeframe production, which accounts for the eagle not being nice and flush to the surface.
But keep in mind that grip was a mass production piece at the time of manufacture, and the eagle cutout in the grip is still nicely done.
Nothing wrong with the SA button.
The poor grip-to-crossguard fit is indeed idicative for a parts-dagger. Materials are of mixed production timeframes.
And that's about as far as you can go with this example.
I've never seen an Ohligs Rohm, and the inscription just doesn't look right when compared to known examples.
This decreases the value considerably since it's fake.
The seller would be doing everyone a favor by selling the dagger off in parts, and getting rid of the blade altogether....
Welcome to the Forum, Jeronimo! You're absolutely right-this is a parts dagger trying to deceive some poor lad out of a considerable chunk of hard earned money. As for the grip eagle, I'm still not liking it much. The inordinate amount of small chipping around it's edges tells me that it's been replaced at one time or another. The wood grip itself, is likely okey, but the eagle in it was not the one that came from the factory with it-in my eyes, anyway. Either the lower guard is not original to the piece or the grip was added. Either way, this thing has had more cosmetic surgery than Joan Rivers! It's only value, as you said, might be from the individual parts!
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Hi Geronimo. Welcome to the Forum,,...I would not consider it "harsh"...but to the point and not sugar coated would be more appropriate. On this forum like many others there are those who are from around the world and the use of English may seem to come across ther wrong way to others which may not be the intention..and the use of online translators..really dont translate exactly what they want to say. Most are aware of limited English skills here and we keep an open mind to that..when replying.
Your input is quite helpful also..... as you have brought up some points that have not already been said..and the forum thanks you for that. This will help the next researcher when reading these threads. Glad to have you here!Regards Larry
It is not the size of a Collection in History that matters......Its the size of your Passion for it!!
One never knows what tree roots push to the surface of what laid buried before the tree was planted - Larry C
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks