SA-Full Rohm by Hammesfahr

[Serge M.]

Guys, I'm posting this by request of a collector for your opinions.

-Serge
.

[Serge M.]

.

[Br. James]

My first opinion is: Never dismantle an artifact -- in doing that you run the great risk of damaging the piece and losing your investment, as well as endangering the historical worth of the piece!

My second opinion is: From what I can see, the engraving on both sides of the blade is not balanced; both the motto and the Röhm dedication appear to be too high on the blade.

What is your opinion, Serge?

Br. James

[Serge M.]

What is your opinion, Serge?

Br. James

Br. James,
My Opinion..... it's OK to dismantle this junk. Throw the blade away and sell the parts.

However, others may think different. Let's wait for other opinions.

-Serge

[Luko]

Bad work at all. Maker mark seems to be fantasy and did not exist in such configuration.

L.

[Mac 66]

Bogus blade

[F J STEPHENS]

Hammesfahr Rohm dagger

Br. James,
My Opinion..... it's OK to dismantle this junk. Throw the blade away and sell the parts.

However, others may think different. Let's wait for other opinions.

-Serge

Serge,

In response to your request for comments, regarding the supposed Röhm dagger under review, here is an analysis which you might find interesting:

There are a number of features on SA daggers which appear to be constant throughout all original pieces – and one of these is the width of the blade at the shoulders – the official RZM specification shows this to be 33mm across the shoulders. My own examination of countless blades has also confirmed this to be the case – so having selected your photo image which seemed to be reasonably direct-on to the image of the blade (with no notable parallax issues) I made a copy photo and scaled it to size on a coloured field which was exactly 33mm wide.
The result, therefore should show the blade at exact life-size, and therefore any inscription on the blade correspondingly being life-size.

Using a hard copy print-out of the image (which I double checked by measuring) I then placed on my print-out a clear film life-size copy of some Röhm dedications (I normally use these films for over-laying on blades to check the inscriptions).

These were then scanned – and therefore the scanned result would show both the original template, and the blade in question, in direct relationship to each other in comparable size.

The actual result, when closely checked, shows that the Röhm inscription on the blade in question, is approx. 3mm longer than the facsimile templates of original inscriptions.

That is to say, the overall length of the questioned piece is 116mm – whereas every other authentic Röhm I have checked has shown a length of 113mm, and this has been regardless of the maker mark on the blade.

There are known to be some slight differences between Röhm inscriptions from different producers – but this has been down to minor re-touching and preparation when the etching templates were being prepared . . . . yet despite these differences all the overall lengths were the same at 113mm. (However, a wide range length differences were detected on many suspect Röhm dedications).

The difference of 3mm may not seem to be much, but in my view it is sufficient to give the piece away as having a modern etch on the blade.

Other differences with the piece might be noted with the trademark - this being the Gottlieb Hammesfahr in an arc, over the Pyramid emblem and the location Solingen Foche . Well just for the record, this mark did exist – it was registered by Hammesfahr in about 1904, and it appeared on bayonets and also on swords. As far as I can tell it was discontinued in the late 1920s when the now more recognisable oval version of the company trademark was registered.

The other point of interest is the tang mark – this being a “Double-head arrow” device. This is a recognisable tang mark from the period, and is principally encountered on Böker manufactured pieces (although it has been noted a few other manufacturers); it has also been identified on early period NPEA daggers trademarked by Karl Burgsmüller – leaving open the possibility that Böker may have produced the NPEA daggers to order for Burgsmüller – who was a retailer supplying uniforms and equipment for the Napola organisation.

I rather suspect that this dagger started out as a conventional Model 1933 SA dagger; and that the whole of the reverse side of the blade has been polished to remove a trademark and possibly an RZM licence No (which were not being placed on daggers at the time of the Röhm dedication awards). The application of an earlier, and less frequently seen version of the Hammesfahr mark, has served to add some intrigue to the piece. However- it has still been faked up, in my opinion.

Frederick J. Stephens

PS Unable to add my photo image - will send it privately to Serge or another contact, to add to this text.

[Serge M.]

Adding image for Frederick by request.
.

[Br. James]

"My Opinion..... it's OK to dismantle this junk. Throw the blade away and sell the parts."

Hi Serge,

I LOVE your opinion...I didn't think of that aspect of this question!! I couldn't agree more!

Br. James

[Br. James]

How nice to receive the analysis of Mr. Frederick J. Stephens, a well-respected scholar and student of this field! His efforts on this question are greatly appreciated.

Br. James

[Billy G]

A very curious mark, ironically adorned with a full Röhm inscription. I've never seen this mark on a 3R dagger blade so immediately I was skeptical but never havin seen something is by no means a complete reason to discount something. The tang mark was not lost on me as I have examples of Bökers & Bergsmüllers with the same mark, making me think perhaps the blade is period but humped up. Curious whatever it is.

Frederick's scholarly dissection of this dagger was wonderful to read, thanks for adding your thoughts to the thread.

[Ron Weinand]

I'm with Billy

[Lampwick]

Frederick... you ROCK!!!!

[Pawel Prohorow]

Serge,

In response to your request for comments, regarding the supposed Röhm dagger under review, here is an analysis which you might find interesting:

There are a number of features on SA daggers which appear to be constant throughout all original pieces – and one of these is the width of the blade at the shoulders – the official RZM specification shows this to be 33mm across the shoulders. My own examination of countless blades has also confirmed this to be the case – so having selected your photo image which seemed to be reasonably direct-on to the image of the blade (with no notable parallax issues) I made a copy photo and scaled it to size on a coloured field which was exactly 33mm wide.
The result, therefore should show the blade at exact life-size, and therefore any inscription on the blade correspondingly being life-size.

Using a hard copy print-out of the image (which I double checked by measuring) I then placed on my print-out a clear film life-size copy of some Röhm dedications (I normally use these films for over-laying on blades to check the inscriptions).

These were then scanned – and therefore the scanned result would show both the original template, and the blade in question, in direct relationship to each other in comparable size.

The actual result, when closely checked, shows that the Röhm inscription on the blade in question, is approx. 3mm longer than the facsimile templates of original inscriptions.

That is to say, the overall length of the questioned piece is 116mm – whereas every other authentic Röhm I have checked has shown a length of 113mm, and this has been regardless of the maker mark on the blade.

There are known to be some slight differences between Röhm inscriptions from different producers – but this has been down to minor re-touching and preparation when the etching templates were being prepared . . . . yet despite these differences all the overall lengths were the same at 113mm. (However, a wide range length differences were detected on many suspect Röhm dedications).

The difference of 3mm may not seem to be much, but in my view it is sufficient to give the piece away as having a modern etch on the blade.

Other differences with the piece might be noted with the trademark - this being the Gottlieb Hammesfahr in an arc, over the Pyramid emblem and the location Solingen Foche . Well just for the record, this mark did exist – it was registered by Hammesfahr in about 1904, and it appeared on bayonets and also on swords. As far as I can tell it was discontinued in the late 1920s when the now more recognisable oval version of the company trademark was registered.

The other point of interest is the tang mark – this being a “Double-head arrow” device. This is a recognisable tang mark from the period, and is principally encountered on Böker manufactured pieces (although it has been noted a few other manufacturers); it has also been identified on early period NPEA daggers trademarked by Karl Burgsmüller – leaving open the possibility that Böker may have produced the NPEA daggers to order for Burgsmüller – who was a retailer supplying uniforms and equipment for the Napola organisation.

I rather suspect that this dagger started out as a conventional Model 1933 SA dagger; and that the whole of the reverse side of the blade has been polished to remove a trademark and possibly an RZM licence No (which were not being placed on daggers at the time of the Röhm dedication awards). The application of an earlier, and less frequently seen version of the Hammesfahr mark, has served to add some intrigue to the piece. However- it has still been faked up, in my opinion.

Frederick J. Stephens

PS Unable to add my photo image - will send it privately to Serge or another contact, to add to this text.

This dagger my, sending accurate dimensions:
klinge - 222 X 34 X 5,5 mm.
dedication 113 mm.
motto 103 mm

[F J STEPHENS]

SA Rohm by Hammesfahr

Hello Pawel,

Thank you for your response, and with the measurements of the blade inscription that you have provided.

I am prepared to consider that making a critical copy of an inscription - based on computer images published on this site, as I have done, may well be left open to inaccuracy.

As such, I would very much like to see first-hand evidence to support your claim of the measurements on your dagger.

Do you know how to make a smoked or carbon copy of the inscription on your blade? This entails using a burning candle to deposit soot on the blade, which is then lifted off with Cellotape (a type of adhesive film) and then mounted on a white card.

If you are willing to make this experiment, and then send to me the card result (I will give you my postal address) - then I will be able to see and examine first hand an accurate and exacting facsimile image of your inscription.

I will be most grateful if you will cooperate in this matter.

Frederick J. Stephens