Who Likes This SA ???????

[JR.]

http://70.87.163.50/forums/showthread.php?t=507183

[Mac 66]

Not me, the blade looks fake

[JR.]

You're right Mate............ a whole lot of problems with this one, from head to toe

[RevYJ]

I'm always suspicious of these partial Rohms where just the name is ground off as well as the maker mark. If you're only going to go part way on the inscription then why go the extra mile for the maker mark? Makes me think that someone took a reproduction blade with the telltale maker mark too far from the crossguard and did their best to make it pass.

Oh yeah, blade has too sharp of a spine, crossgrain looks weird, and the inscription is wrong anyway. I don't like the crossguards either. Sorry, I don't think this is a period blade.

[Mac 66]

Oh yeah, blade has too sharp of a spine, crossgrain looks weird, and the inscription is wrong anyway. I don't like the crossguards either. Sorry, I don't think this is a period blade.

Thats my thoughts as well

[addyfie]

That blade is BAD to the BONE the inscription is no where near!!!! and that crossgrain is pretty darn funky

[Ed Sunday]

Another piece ment to deceive !

[heers68]

Alles Fur someone else!! Kevin.

[Eric Von Rader]

What a fine quality Chinese cutlery example. Use it for a fishing knife!

[ValhallaMilitaria]

One for the bazaar...

[Don Prince]

Great call RevYJ... I compared the inscription to one that I had in my computer data base and it is in NO way similar to the original inscription. Since the blade is a fake, then it makes the dagger a complete zero...

Regards,
Don_

[ETN]

Yikes

[JR.]

Yeah really That blade is so obvious............. even a caveman could have spotted it !

[ETN]

Yeah really That blade is so obvious............. even a caveman could have spotted it !

Yep