A full Rohm E-Pack that has never been apart, and has not been cleaned. Look at the quality and judge for yourselves. Doubts? Need a hands-on? Notice the grain, and frosting. Hope the photos do it justice. David

Photo#2

Photo#3

photo#4

photo#5

photo#5 sorry

photo#6

photo#7

photo#8

photo#9

photo#10

the experts here often refer to the distance between Rohm inscription and makers mark, as both were part of the same template in EPS and also other makers. If you check other Full Rohm EPSs in this forum, the E Pack logo appears to be closer to the xguard.

see this thread for example
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/...673027217#7673027217


Would love to see a closeup of the Pack logo

Gustav,According to the website you sent us too.This dagger is not correct because the space between makermark and inscription is not suppose to be different by the same maker.I do not know if that is an old thread or not.Again we may have the near perfect fake if it is a fake.I like it better than most I see on this site.IMO (:}X

The best close ups I can get of the logo

Next photo

HERR MANN, come out come out wherever you are. Lets here from the experts .OK from an amateur, there is alot that is not right with the trademark.Is this the perfect fake.Before the market heads south on Rohm&Himmlers I want too thank E-bay for banning us hobbiest and keeping the market strong for so long. (:}X

Let me ask a thought question here. No one here is going to say, I don't think, that this dagger is not an original third reich dagger. The only question is was the Rohm inscription added to this dagger after the fact which I understand. BUT then either the original E-PACK logo was left on and the etch applied in which case the logo should be good. OR the whole thing was redone and then you had to grind the original etch off, what ever it was, and reapply the cross grain. Is there evidence that the grain was redone? It appears very uniform in the magnified photos. One should be able to at least decide that it is an original blade. David

Okay, I'm not an expert but I play one on TV.

My concerns are these:

1) In photo number 7 the blade to crossguard fit is very sloppy. I'm not so sure it would have left the factory like that.

2) The photos of the EP&S logo show lack of detail in the etch, especially in the lettering which shows poorly formed and differently sized characters.

I claim no expertise on Rohm inscriptions. However, I have doubts that a quality manufacturer would have produced this blade. I welcome any further comments.

Looks as though we have a REDDICK blade from the 80's here.

Ed is right !
This one is an obvious fake, no doubt about it.
It ain't even a good fake.
I don't know about the dagger but the Rohm inscription is post war made.
Sorry for the bad news.

Well, I bought this dagger from Tom Wittman 5 years ago and I have two documents with it. One is the letter with his description of the dagger and the other is a life-time quarantee that this is one of the best full Rohms he has ever owned. What say you now? David

Well, whether or not it came from old Witty, I still believe that it is fake.
If he sold you this dagger 5 years ago, I sincerely believe that it could have been an honest mistake.
There are actually only a handfull of experts that I would really trust for authenticating Rohm blades, Craig being one of them but it would have to be a physical inspection.
The best person for the job though would be Gailen David but I think that he no longers does it.

Read the following thread.
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/m/6710087993

Everyone thought that the E.Pack was a complete fake.
This faked E.Pack Rohm dagger is even listed in Steven's reference book on "Reproductions" and has the same identical flaws as the one pictured.
Guess where this dagger came from ?

I stand by the concerns that I listed in my above post. There are daggers in my clunker drawer with better fit and etching. You deserve at the very least an explanation for these deficiencies. I would demand answers, regardless of the source.

Aside from the Rohm inscription, the E.Pack logo mark is NOT even authentic.
Please, read the following thread on E.Pack logo.
http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/477091573/m/7560084504
The one on your left is the fake one.
Your "&" in your logo is much too big as compared to an original one.

Here's your E.Pack logo.