Opinions please on Pack "Full" Röhm

[Waffenreich]

Good evening gents,

This is one of those "don't ask the question if you're not going to like the answer" cases, but this dagger was sent to me today as part of a group of items I was buying. Rare daggers are not an area I'm very knowledgeable in so I must ask for the opinions of you Röhm & Pack experts out there. I searched high & low on here for some good examples to compare this to and found some crackin' "full" Röhms that some members posted. The hardest thing was to find some that had bad inscriptions and EP&S logos to use as a standard to judge this against. It seems that most of the pics of sketchy Packs were removed for obvious reasons.

With Pack being the most widely faked of the fake "full" Röhms I am preparing myself for some bad news and am not the type to grasp on one thing or another to make the case that something is good. That being said I do find some things I like on this. I compared the inscription and name to known good examples and found almost a 99% match on letter characteristics, spacing, etc.. The logo is positioned nice and close to the crossguard, but has me a bit confused because there seems to be some debate among members here on the "&" in EP&S and whether it should be smaller than the EP and S letters themselves. I found a few SAs on here that show the "&" the same size and these daggers were all given a thumbs-up?? Also, I looked at the EP&S SS examples in Wittmann's book on SS swords and daggers and the "&" is the same size as mine?? So is the accepted theory that only EP&S "Full" Röhms have a smaller "&" sign to make the logo legit to the period?? Lastly on the logo, although it's hard to see in the pics, Siegfried's hammer is a fully etched rectanglular block. The scabbard, which I didn't want to waste the time photographing is just a standard painted type with fittings that are consistent with the condition of the dagger.

The grip is a nice lightly toned oak, indicative of an early production if I read this point correctly and the dagger itself feels like it has never been apart. With a loop you can see that small blemish on the "eu" in "Freundschaft" has effected the etched steel there as well so it doesn't look like the blemish was there then the blade was etched over it. Anyway, didn't mean to get long-winded so I'll let the pics do the talking.

I sincerely appreciate any/all comments!!

v/r

Bob

[Waffenreich]

2.

[Waffenreich]

3.

[Waffenreich]

4.

[Serge M.]

First off I'm not going to give you the details or comparisons of 'WHY'.
This is something that takes a lot of study and time to get good at.
And some of these are getting so good that they really need to be examined 'in hand'.
However, the good news is...this one is not one of them.

IMO, that is a fake Rohm dedication. Hint: It's not a "e-pack Rohm dedication" and one I would pass on.

There are other issues - but that it for me.

Perhaps others may think different. Ask other opinions.


-wagner-

[GaryMJ]

I completely agree with Wags, problems with the motto, inscription and maker mark IMO. I'd pass on this one for sure...

Red

[Waffenreich]

Appreciate the feedback guys. Perhaps at the SOS I will swing by Wittmann's table and see if someone can give me a tutorial on what to look for in a real one.

Wags, although this verdict really comes as no surprise, the fourth line of your reply gave me hope - then I read on and you crushed me - you're mean

[Serge M.]

Perhaps at the SOS I will swing by Wittmann's table and see if someone can give me a tutorial on what to look for in a real one.

>>This is something that takes a lot of study and time to get good at. <<

I wouldn't recommend you doing that. I mean this is a study. You been to the shows. It's not the place to ask a expert. -'Can you show me how to tell a fake Rohm inscription from a authentic one?'. Your asking that person to devote a considerable amount of their time.
On occassion I get asked in a PM 'Wags, please show me how to tell the difference?'
Many just want a quick and simple to follow rules. - And to someone to show them. It's not quite that easy. - There are no 'simple rules'.
There are plenty of old threads here on Rohm dedication etches. A lot of useful info there. Use the search feature. I've posted a original epack Rohm inscription in the past , as others have.

I don't want to sound 'mean' but I just don't want you to be unprepaired when you ask that kind of question to someone like Wittmann who has people standing in line to ask him a 'quick' and simple question. He will probably tell you: "You'll need my SS book, there are plenty of Rohm inscriptions there".
Actually I would recommend buying it. A great book.


-JMO- and just trying to help.

Best of the Quest,
-wagner-

[Ron Weinand]

Wags is right on the money in this case. Shows are not the place to get a tutorial on originality. If it was that easy, everybody would be an expert. Years of study, hundreds or daggers (real and fake) and hours of examination all lead to an expert opinion. Its kind of like an education, time invested and nothing is for free. Mistakes hurt.
Then, after all this, questioned opinions as to your expertise will always arise.

[Waffenreich]

Thanks again Wags, and to you as well Ron.

I understand exactly what you mean and perhaps my comment about the tutorial was taken a bit out of context. I have been a serious (like most, obsessive) collector for 30 years so I know it is not that simple. My point was to swing by and look at some nice original examples of EP&S SAs to note the characteristics of the logos and inscriptions (where available). No bulls..., I literally have a photographic memory so the ability to catalog specific details visually will help me at least be able to spot the obvious up front. I do have Wittmann's SS book, but haven't gone through it yet with that amount of effort so that will give me something to do tomorrow PM.

Wags, I used the hell out of the search function here and probably looked at 100+ Threads on Rohms and Pack SAs and what I found is that there is still some difference of opinion on certain aspects. Again, I am not grasping for a straw here, just saying that a fair amount of difference causes one looking for knowledge to go "OK, so what's the freakin' verdict on this point or that?"

As I said, my gut when I got this was, "hmmm, common sense tells me it's probably not right", but when I tried to confirm it on my own using the Threads I was left at a dead end. I have found this on almost every Forum here on WAF and that is when something is dicey the pics are gone out of fear we will better educate the fakers. OK, fair enough - but how then do we educate eachother if folks don't want to share details. It is interesting that on the two Forums I spend the most time on (Uniforms and Headgear) when a piece is bad the poster will get a thorough education as to what characteristics cause its originality to be called into question. I don't know, maybe it's easier in those two areas to spot fakes, no matter how good?? This by no means was a jab at you for not wanting to go into the details distinguishing good from bad either.

Again, thanks for the comments. I am not emotionally (or financially) invested in this piece so it goes back and I keep the good stuff.

Good hunting and I hope to meet you at the SOS Wags.

Best!

Bob