All this talk..30 vs 35? Honesty? What do you think?

^^yes!! I agree, I know for me, the HAC will look the best. I am 5'4" with some wt. and feel that I could swallow the 30cm and jump into the 35cm...LOL.
Anyway, RC, I know I could tell you the 35cm looks the best and it does...but try the 32 HAC also. It might be a nice inbetween size. Also, the 35cm Kelly is really nice since it has a shoulder strap and is not as bulky as the 35cm Birkin. I love Kellys!!
 
Rockerchic, you are the perfect example of what the brits call a "yummy mummy!"

True they are both gorgeous, but from that angle I think the 35 works best.

Have been trying to work out why, and I think it is because I think the larger size means the bag stands out more (because you are petite) and it is bag that deserves attention!

Dont get me wrong the BB is fabulous, its just which one has the slight edge over the other!

Ahhhh what a lovely dilemma to have!!
 
thanks for posting that fabulous picture, Isus. Love your HAC!

Well based on all your comments, I think I need several of each (30, 35 and the 32 HAC). I may even need a JPG.

Too bad I have to settle for just my current ones.....for now! :smile:
 
I love the look of the 35cm, and if it were a little lighter weight wise- it would be the perfect bag. The 30cm looks like an elegant handbag, while the 35cm looks like a great everyday bag.

Let me ask you this (and forgive me if you already answered this, but I missed it), how does the 35 FEEL on compared to the 30?
 
RC: I think 35!!!!!!!!! but again, you have a dark color 35 and its also a softer leather right? I think a rigid leather and bright color 35 may also be too much for u.
Hey do you think the size of our heads make a difference? I have a big head so I hate wearing small bags because it makes my head look even bigger! LOL....
 
I think you can definitely go with either one. I don't find the 35 to look too big on you. It looks great actually, but I find that the 30 looks even better.
I realize that the Birkin is a tote and a tote is supposed to be bigger. So it's possible that I just don't understand the look of a Birkin (and I don't own one so I have no experience with it at all). Just going by the pictures you post, to me the 30 is a clear winner on you. (And I am very close to your size and proportion.)
 
I love the look of the 35cm, and if it were a little lighter weight wise- it would be the perfect bag. The 30cm looks like an elegant handbag, while the 35cm looks like a great everyday bag.

Let me ask you this (and forgive me if you already answered this, but I missed it), how does the 35 FEEL on compared to the 30?

Jag, my only complaint with the 35 is the weight. The 35 feels much heavier to me --I'm sure it is the combination of it being a heavier bag along with me stuffing twice as much into it.
I am surprised by the majority preferring the 35. i really thought that most would prefer the 30.
Also Yorelica, while I don't have a very large head, i do have a ton of hair, so I think my head looks sort of big for my body as well. Maybe that is why the 35 balances me out a bit!
 
both look fab on you...i want a 30 cm too! i think the 30 might look a teensy bit more suited to your frame but as HG mentioned, the birkin is a tote and the 35 in raisin is great too! i can't remember if the birkin's original size only came in a 35 and 30 was added later. again, i can't help wishing the birkin came in a 32...

sorry i guess i wasn't much help :P enjoy both your lovely bags!!!!
 
I am 5'3 3/4" and have 28cm Kelly's and 35cm Birkins. I love both the 30 and 35 on you. Love both colors and leathers.

Now, I showed both photos to my husband (he's 6'4" and very particular about fashion - introduced me to both Chanel and Hermes RTW) and he said your 35 is "sexier" on you, but "could be cause the outfit is different too" according to him. He also prefers purple to blue so this may affect the vote.

Either way, you look fabby with both sizes. They are almost too diferent to compare.