Early SA Rohm dagger?

[m4l700]

Greetings!

I have the oppertunity to obtain a SA dagger from another "collector". He's selling multiple daggers and one of them is this one.

My question thereby is, what do you think of it? Could it be an early SA(rohm) one? Is it made out of multiple parts? Could it have been re-ground(grind?)?

Thanks in advance! P.s. Sorry for my english

[Wagriff]

Not a dagger I would touch. The grip has been reworked with a replaced eagle and roundel and the wood fit is far more than can be accounted for by normal shrinkage. The blade has no trace of a makers mark that I can see from the low grade photos, but looks to be of Extremely poor quality in any case. Poor fit to the sheath and lower guard. I could go on, but suffice it to say, this one is not worth looking at.

[m4l700]

Thanks for your quick reply and for pointing these things out, much appreciated!. He got some more for sale, but they would probably be all like this one in terms of quallity i gues.

[matty01]

Overall, I don't see any major concerns.
I would say its a factory removed inscription otherwise where did the maker mark go? I would imagine if you check the rear of the blade the spine has been completely ground off, leaving a flat back rather than a ridge.
Me personally, I would prefer to see a maker mark, but I can only speak for myself.

Grips ever so slightly shrunk, very normal. Try and get a picture of the tang nut where it meets the top guard, with a patina like this you'll see some good signs if theres been some recent activity.

matty

[Wagriff]

Both the runes roundel and the eagle have been dug out of the wood and apparently replaced. The indentations around both in the wood are visible in the close up photos of each. In photos 12 and 13, there is a visible gap between the sheath lip and the lower guard that should not be there on a presentation piece. In the 4th photo showing where the makers mark should have been, the edges of the blade look to be rough and chewed in appearance where in contact with the guard. As for the fit of the grip wood, there is even a curved gap on the bottom of it where it does not sit flat against the lower guard-something that even with shrinkage should not be. This is visible in both photos 4 and especially so in #5. From the radically different appearance of the blade in the final photo as compared to the other shots of it, I am not even convinced that the blade is not an outright counterfeit. Bottom line being, make of it what you will, but again, it would not be anything that I would recommend picking up.

[matty01]

Hi ya William, im not really seeing it to be honest with you. I can see that the SA has sunk abit so OK.
The grip doesn't quite follow, I do agree, its kinda shrunk and gone out of shape?
The scabbard looks good to me too, even still has the nickel screws with matching patina.
From the pictures we can see of the tangnut, im sure you'll agree it looks very undisturbed.
I think its a case of more pictures are needed.

[m4l700]

Thank you for both of your oppinions. Even though they are contradicting.

I did ask for some better, bigger pictures including pictures of the tang nut etc. I'll post them when I recieve them.

[Wagriff]

True...the photos are definitely not the best. They should be enlargeable too. About the tang nut, though...keep in mind that occasionally, people do use actual tang nut wrenches, so there isn't always noticeable scarring to the nut.

[Larry C]

Agreed on the photos..which Im leaning that the grip does not belong at all. I see a deep shine that this grip may have been waxed..and yet the grip itself is very smooth ...void of the slightest of contour. I would like to see also clearer photos of the motto and where the logo once was. The identity of the producer can be traced through the motto ..if this were a Rohm dagger. More photos Please Regards Larry

[m4l700]

I got some new photo's. Altough they are still quite small....I did ask for bigger ones