SS Rohm

[AVRORA]

Friends opinions are interesting.

[AVRORA]

2.

[GatorGDC]

I found several points of disagreement on the inscription itself.

I don't know what the current consensus is but The Rohm insc.

does not match the one in Stephens or Witmann SS book.

[AVRORA]

I found several points of disagreement on the inscription itself.

I don't know what the current consensus is but The Rohm insc.

does not match the one in Stephens or Witmann SS book.

Thanks for the answer. Is it possible in more details and with photos?
Unfortunately I have`t Stephens or Witmann SS books.

[Rheingold]

Thanks for the answer. Is it possible in more details and with photos?
Unfortunately I have`t Stephens or Witmann SS books.

Do you have any close-up's from inscription?

[GatorGDC]

Aurora I am not able to post any photo sample etch right now.

Let me ask you to try this. Right at the end of the Ernst Rohm
signature I see a loop in the top part of the 'm' which almost looks
like an 'e'. Not the whole letter "m" but just the last curve has a loop
at the top. This is not there in any of the models or other known
good ones I have seen. If you go to Tom Johnson web site, under
new items you will see a recent Rohm which has sold for 8500.

Try comparing that one to your etch. Sometimes this is difficult to
do especially when it is partially obliterated like yours. Compare
the whole inscription letter by letter for any irregularity. As you
may know sometimes ground Rohms get the reverse of the blade
polished and get the whole (fake) etch re applied. This is pretty
common way to upgrade the value. Sometimes they polish it and
re etch the Rohm signature if it is the only thing ground off.

I would appreciate you letting me know what you find in your
comparison. Cheers! Gator

[AVRORA]

Friends I restored it. All is visible on the photo. In hands blade does`t cause doubts in originality. Certainly this signature is partially destroyed ,therefore it complicates comparison. For the photo, I covered the signature by soot.

[GatorGDC]

It looks like some of the disparities in the signature were either the
result of deterioration or restoration itself. I am inclined to say its
a good chance it's good but I couldn't say for certain without another
opinion. If you are in Germany perhaps a local collector could verify it.
A hands on type inspection would be best . There is something else
though, at least in the photo I see faint numbers after the signature.
Are they really there?

[AVRORA]

It looks like some of the disparities in the signature were either the
result of deterioration or restoration itself. I am inclined to say its
a good chance it's good but I couldn't say for certain without another
opinion. If you are in Germany perhaps a local collector could verify it.
A hands on type inspection would be best . There is something else
though, at least in the photo I see faint numbers after the signature.
Are they really there?

There are no numbers. There are traces from a file or other tool which tried to destroy the signature. I have set an example of the original signature which completely looks like as the discussed variant.

[Rheingold]

Looks ok to me.

[Dolph]

The makers mark appears high on the blade as is correct with a Rohm dagger.