Article about: So something I saw over the last few days got me thinking; How do you tell if an SS dagger than displays poorly on the blade (ie looks roughly polished, etc) is due to it being manhandled to
So something I saw over the last few days got me thinking; How do you tell if an SS dagger than displays poorly on the blade (ie looks roughly polished, etc) is due to it being manhandled to try and make it look more presentable or if it *may* have been a Rohm dagger that was ground down either by a factory or an individual if other factors line up possibly pointing to that?
In looking at ground Rohm's from Lakeside Trader, nearly all of them have what I will call "track marks" on them, either on the reverse where the Rohm inscription was, on the front or sometimes both to differing degrees, but it is present in all of them, on top of several of the ones I've seen having a ground (or partially ground) maker's mark as well as the other marks that indicate something was removed or done to the blade.
I have this dagger, which also has the same markings as the ones for sale on Lakeside as well as the ground marker's mark for Gottlieb Hammesfahr (and the marks look to begin at the same spot on the blade in the front and the back), in addition it has a district stamp on the crossguard which places it as an earlier dagger per the Lakeside section where they discuss cross guards.
So my question is; Is there a possibility it may be a ground Rohm dagger? It's just a theory and possibly, probably, incorrect, but I was wanting to get feedback from members of the forum around it.
The rohm inscription is only on the reverse so no reason to grind the obverse. Further the round marks on your dagger are pitting. The dagger was extensively pitted and someone worked it over very aggressive to remove pits. I believe this was done on both sides. I'm not sure that yours was a ground rohm as normally only the top of the makers mark is disturbed.
The pitting in my opinion is the tell tale sign. Yours may also have had its motto darkened.
The rohm inscription is only on the reverse so no reason to grind the obverse. Further the round marks on your dagger are pitting. The dagger was extensively pitted and someone worked it over very aggressive to remove pits. I believe this was done on both sides. I'm not sure that yours was a ground rohm as normally only the top of the makers mark is disturbed.
The pitting in my opinion is the tell tale sign. Yours may also have had its motto darkened.
Thanks Tim
Agreed that it wouldn't make sense per se to have ground the front of the daggers, but if you look at some of the examples from Lakeside, you can see the same "track marks" present on the front of some of them as the back...which is why I included them to show that the dagger I have isn't unique in possessing them....if it was, I'd agree with you it was a result of someone simply working it over to make it more presentable...which doesn't exclude that as a possibility from the ones on Lakeside, but...
If your talking about the area I highlighted then that is wear from that being the high spot on the blade. The black line I think is from someone darkening the motto possibly. This area of the blade and the area the scabbard runners strike will get extra wear.
With ground rohm daggers usually this area will be a little concave from the inscription being ground off. Hopefully I am understanding you correctly. JMO.
If your talking about the area I highlighted then that is wear from that being the high spot on the blade. The black line I think is from someone darkening the motto possibly. This area of the blade and the area the scabbard runners strike will get extra wear.
With ground rohm daggers usually this area will be a little concave from the inscription being ground off. Hopefully I am understanding you correctly. JMO.
Thanks Tim
I was referring to the area directly above and below the line you highlighted, where you can see clearly defined lines on either side of the middle of the blade....most of the Lakeside examples of ground Rohm's have the same thing...it may be, as you mentioned, this is wear from the blade being inserted and removed from the scabbard, but there are ones like this on their site which look *similar* to the back of mine like this one; SS Ground Rohm Dagger by Boker | Lakesidetrader
I'm definitely not pinning my hopes on this being a ground Rohm as I didn't buy it as such and not trying to make it something it can not be, but was mostly curious as to other people's opinions based on the examples of them available for sale out there.
Hi David.
In my opinion, the blade of this dagger was in very poor condition, which is visible in the area of the motto. The blade is heavily cleaned and ground on both sides to a commercial appearance. With some manufacturers, there is a difference in the logo between the Rohm dagger and the regular daggers, and it is easier to determine which dagger it is. In this case, I think the logo is the same. Please show pictures of the other details of this dagger so that dagger experts can determine if this is not a parts dagger. First we have to see if the dagger is correct and then think if it is Rohm or Himmler.
Regards Georgi.
Hi David.
In my opinion, the blade of this dagger was in very poor condition, which is visible in the area of the motto. The blade is heavily cleaned and ground on both sides to a commercial appearance. With some manufacturers, there is a difference in the logo between the Rohm dagger and the regular daggers, and it is easier to determine which dagger it is. In this case, I think the logo is the same. Please show pictures of the other details of this dagger so that dagger experts can determine if this is not a parts dagger. First we have to see if the dagger is correct and then think if it is Rohm or Himmler.
Regards Georgi.
It was previously identified in an earlier thread (with lesser quality photos) that it was a legit dagger that had seen better days (First SS Dagger Purchased; Feedback and Comments Appreciated), but what spawned this thread was digging into ground Rohms and how they presented, which was not entirely dissimilar to how this one does, moreso on the back.
Again, I have no information either way on whether or not this one *may* be and in point of fact there likely isn't a way to know with certainty either way (and I'm inclined to think it isn't), but those that were tended to be the earlier pre 1936 daggers with the maker's marks frequently ground into or nearly away in the process of removing the inscriptions from what I've seen in looking at examples available for sale that also have wear on the front as well as the back....the evidence it *is* is likely circumstantial, at best.
This is good. The dagger is real though. If it was Rhom Dagger, one of the colleagues who commented before would have noticed.
After cleaning the dagger, there is an attempt to scratch a cross grain. Usually sellers tamper with ordinary daggers and pass them off as a Rohm dagger, and in this case it looks like someone did the opposite. I don't believe anyone would do such a thing.
Hi David...those lines above and below the motto are Track marks as well.
Too much in and out causes that to scrape the blade since there is dried moisture from the decades past that has attracted dust dirt and also dried oil.
The crap you see on the high points is what scrapes the blade.
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
Hi David...those lines above and below the motto are Track marks as well.
Too much in and out causes that to scrape the blade since there is dried moisture from the decades past that has attracted dust dirt and also dried oil.
The crap you see on the high points is what scrapes the blade.
Yeah, in looking at other dagger that were not Rohms, I saw the same track marks so they're definitely not unique to them. Boo. lol
Still, it sparked my curiosity when I was looking at them last night around that being a *possible* reason why the back of the dagger itself was in such rough shape...but as someone mentioned, the front wouldn't have been scraped most likely, though I have seen examples where the front was banged up as well. So it likely *isnt*, but would be neat if it was.
Ground Rohm SS Danger Question and Observation
.
by Tim030
- Larry C
Bookmarks