Chanel’s Rise & STALL: Defects, Difficulties & Deflection (formerly the 19 tote saga thread)

@papertiger I am intrigued, do you have a picture anywhere of this vintage bag?


I’ve had a good experience too—multiple pairs of ballerinas and slingbacks and a pair of Mary Janes. I mentioned upthread I gave up on Chanel bc of two faulty pairs of platforms a few seasons ago, but if it hadn’t been for all the swirling complaints about quality in their other items, I might have thought it was just that particular SKU. Some YouTubers have postulated the decline in bag quality is bc they can’t keep up with demand, so maybe there just isn’t that same demand for shoes?

Thanks everyone here for their contributions, I haven’t been this invested in a tpf thread in years. :amuse:

It should be in the vintage ref thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: tulipfield
This is one of the best, most informative threads in a long time. Initially I was shocked at the resilience of the 19 and wondered what sorcery was in this bag - but now i'm considering it to be a future purchase due to its indestructability. I'm a vintage buyer so only have a small handful, but with all the talk of the quality of the new lines I think i'll stay vintage for a long time to come.
While the 22 is a weird line for the brand, (I still think it has a dust bag look). I am that person looking on the internet for a padded puffer jacket looking long strap bag to use at the gym - which i now realise closely resembles the 22 style. So there is always a market.

An earlier post mentioned the chinese labour factories in Italy. Wasn't there some articles a few years ago about this, how earlier generations were brought there for labour. It's generations later now and they pride themselves on being skilled artisans, what i'm saying is not so much a slave labour type forced-workforce. (using slave labour as a loose term as i'm not sure how far back the earlier post is nor the term which was used to describe). There might still be many unfairly treated workforces as there always is; but i think the current practice is not like that as in some asiapac regions well known for the bad practices.

I’d like to concur on this as well. It dawned on me the info re: inside knowledge of Chanel factories using Chinese immigrants in sweat shop conditions dates back to a very long time ago, based on the timeframe of when that person worked for Chanel. I can’t remember the dates but it seemed to be 80+ years ago. I asked a seasoned SA (been with Chanel 30+ yrs) and they said it’s very outdated information and the conditions and general description of the type of people working is not at all accurate today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Roie55
I love it too. It's great to be informed and brands should apricate the good feedback from their top loyal clients! This forum is free research for them.
In regards to Chanel, they already have a winning formula so the videos and negativity doesn't really affect them badly, Hello advent calendar !

Bravo! I was just waiting for someone to bring up the Advent Calendar. That was quite a misstep on their part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: park56 and sjunky13
I’d like to concur on this as well. It dawned on me the info re: inside knowledge of Chanel factories using Chinese immigrants in sweat shop conditions dates back to a very long time ago, based on the timeframe of when that person worked for Chanel. I can’t remember the dates but it seemed to be 80+ years ago. I asked a seasoned SA (been with Chanel 30+ yrs) and they said it’s very outdated information and the conditions and general description of the type of people working is not at all accurate today.

That’s very true. Not that it excuses how they were treated when brought from China but a lot of the Chinese went out on their own and are multimillionaires because they did. Now the brands are subcontracting to them.
There was some kind of labour raid in the 2010s that prompted Chanel to build that factory in Pulia. I’m
not saying it was a raid on Chanel directly. It was all of the factories in Prato. And other brands share that factory &/or have built in other cities in the NW area. I say Chanel for the purposes of this thread.
The people of Prato are upset that now people are being brought in from the ME, the Baltics & Northern African to be the workers.
It’s very much like a wheel. First this one is on top, then that one…Someone will always be the one run over.
Someone way back in the thread said something about the super fakes becoming better quality. This is why. People learn the craft then go back to AP and start their own thing. They have access to all the same leathers & definitely the logo hardware.
The super fakes are why insurance companies won’t accept on line certificates and most of the old school, reliable Chanel authenticators won’t do it from a picture for a bag post 2016. They want to see it and feel it. Even then some bags get authenticated incorrectly.
Sorry OT again.
 
Did anyone on this thread ever read Dana Thomas's book Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster many years back? In the book she reveals (probably for the first time for many, this was published back in 2007) how many luxury labels were outsourcing production to low-wage countries and finishing the products in Western Europe, using Chinese labor in Italian factories, skimping on materials, and utilizing assembly line production. (She also gave background on the transformation of small ateliers into brands in stables owned by the LVMHs and Kerings of the world.)

One interesting point was that out of the major luxury houses, she singled out Hermes, Louboutin, and Chanel as among the few that were still sticking to honest production methods and high-quality materials. So for a time I felt safe shopping Chanel, until I began to see rumors about their production methods and complaints about defects crop up on tpf maybe some 8 or so years ago. (I also noticed more recently some issues with Louboutin heels.)

My question is, what changed so quickly between 2007, when everything was supposedly fine, and the mid-2010s when complaints began to crop up? Thomas was pretty scathing in her assessments of other fashion houses with quality and production issues, so I assume she was being honest about her assessment of Chanel at the time.
 
Did anyone on this thread ever read Dana Thomas's book Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster many years back? In the book she reveals (probably for the first time for many, this was published back in 2007) how many luxury labels were outsourcing production to low-wage countries and finishing the products in Western Europe, using Chinese labor in Italian factories, skimping on materials, and utilizing assembly line production. (She also gave background on the transformation of small ateliers into brands in stables owned by the LVMHs and Kerings of the world.)

One interesting point was that out of the major luxury houses, she singled out Hermes, Louboutin, and Chanel as among the few that were still sticking to honest production methods and high-quality materials. So for a time I felt safe shopping Chanel, until I began to see rumors about their production methods and complaints about defects crop up on tpf maybe some 8 or so years ago. (I also noticed more recently some issues with Louboutin heels.)

My question is, what changed so quickly between 2007, when everything was supposedly fine, and the mid-2010s when complaints began to crop up? Thomas was pretty scathing in her assessments of other fashion houses with quality and production issues, so I assume she was being honest about her assessment of Chanel at the time.

Thank you for that. I’m going to read it.
To your point about Louboutin, this is someone that I know personally and I love him to death but, you’re not wrong. A lot of high level people have left the organization. Obviously this is for another thread and mostly OT but Louboutin’s problems started when he accepted VC money from Exor who has previously only invested (that I know of) in automotive & sports.
Back on to where that lines up with Chanel (they’re not alone). When you get VC money from investors that don’t have a fashion background or fashion isn’t the major part of their portfolio, corners start to get cut as they need profits not quality in order to keep investing in other companies.
 
That’s very true. Not that it excuses how they were treated when brought from China but a lot of the Chinese went out on their own and are multimillionaires because they did. Now the brands are subcontracting to them.
There was some kind of labour raid in the 2010s that prompted Chanel to build that factory in Pulia. I’m
not saying it was a raid on Chanel directly. It was all of the factories in Prato. And other brands share that factory &/or have built in other cities in the NW area. I say Chanel for the purposes of this thread.
The people of Prato are upset that now people are being brought in from the ME, the Baltics & Northern African to be the workers.
It’s very much like a wheel. First this one is on top, then that one…Someone will always be the one run over.
Someone way back in the thread said something about the super fakes becoming better quality. This is why. People learn the craft then go back to AP and start their own thing. They have access to all the same leathers & definitely the logo hardware.
The super fakes are why insurance companies won’t accept on line certificates and most of the old school, reliable Chanel authenticators won’t do it from a picture for a bag post 2016. They want to see it and feel it. Even then some bags get authenticated incorrectly.
Sorry OT again.

I thought the same thing, that people must’ve worked in the factories and started producing super fakes when they left. You’d think they’d make them sign NDA’s or something similar, but I suppose it wouldn’t matter if they’re in another country.

IMO the super fakes can sometimes look really good in photos, but not in person. To an untrained eye I could see how it could pass, but I’ve seen fakes that generally look good in the sense that the shape is in line with the real version and many wouldn’t be able to tell, but to me the material is easy to differentiate even from a distance.

About 8 years ago I was scouring eBay for a Celine nano luggage bag. I owned it in a trio color and wanted one in black. I was heavily researching the site as I couldn’t trust many to be authentic (ie, addresses like Hong Kong, etc, were immediate red flags) but I wanted to score one at a better price and stores were out of the black. One was somewhere in China, and although normally I wouldn’t purchase from this country because all the fakes originate here, but I naively convinced myself that well, real ones exist here too…I looked over the photos dozens of times, did so many comparisons.

When I received the bag I immediately knew it was fake just by touch. But the bag looked so good someone who doesn’t own designer bags and/or isn’t familiar with a specific brand could easily be duped. The hardware didn’t feel right (it was so light), the bag didn’t feel substantial. The weight of leather and quality were not there. The stamping looked really good but there was something slightly off about it.

It was the best looking fake I had seen, but even having said that, I could still immediately tell the differences without close examination. The feel of authentic bags is a world of a difference. But overall it was pretty surprising how on the surface, without being handled, if I were to see someone wearing this bag, I wouldn’t immediately think it’s fake. Where I live I see fake bags daily. They’re generally very obvious to me, even just passing a person on the street. I don’t understand the fake market, I am adamantly against it, but it is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
IMO the super fakes can sometimes look really good in photos, but not in person. To an untrained eye I could see how it could pass, but I’ve seen fakes that generally look good in the sense that the shape is in line with the real version and many wouldn’t be able to tell, but to me the material is easy to differentiate even from a distance.
......
It was the best looking fake I had seen, but even having said that, I could still immediately tell the differences without close examination. The feel of authentic bags is a world of a difference. But overall it was pretty surprising how on the surface, without being handled, if I were to see someone wearing this bag, I wouldn’t immediately think it’s fake. Where I live I see fake bags daily. They’re generally very obvious to me, even just passing a person on the street. I don’t understand the fake market, I am adamantly against it, but it is very interesting.
This is a whole other heated topic. I think most (99%?) of us here are against the fake/replica market as well for various reasons. In short, it's a division between the Have and the Have nots that drives that market.
 
It was the best looking fake I had seen, but even having said that, I could still immediately tell the differences without close examination.


When some of the largest authenticators in the world have stopped authenticating certain bags or are hesitant to do so, wether Chanel or Hermes, because the fakes are THAT identical, its an issue. And these are the super fakes of today, not the fakes sold on Ebay five-eight years ago. The new super fakes are not $200 bags, they run into the thousands with a Hermes exotic. These do not have seams in wrong places or CC's not overlapping correctly etc.

The super fakes are custom orders by word of mouth connections. Sadly, counterfeiters have made tons of advances in this field. You can have a bag made with the authentication number you desire; and that gold bar in the Chanel bag has made it easier to produce a likeness to Chanel bags. Chanel does not like anyone other than themselves to authenticate bags-look at how they have tried to shut down other large online resellers for selling 'fakes' . There was some talk early on that gold bar was a chip, which its not. At least not at this time.

Counterfeiters today work in state of the art factories. They get their leather from the same tanneries . They have access to the hardware, thread, you name it. With what is coming out now, its very very hard to know what you are getting if you are not buying from trusted sources.
 
When some of the largest authenticators in the world have stopped authenticating certain bags or are hesitant to do so, wether Chanel or Hermes, because the fakes are THAT identical, its an issue. And these are the super fakes of today, not the fakes sold on Ebay five-eight years ago. The new super fakes are not $200 bags, they run into the thousands with a Hermes exotic. These do not have seams in wrong places or CC's not overlapping correctly etc.

The super fakes are custom orders by word of mouth connections. Sadly, counterfeiters have made tons of advances in this field. You can have a bag made with the authentication number you desire; and that gold bar in the Chanel bag has made it easier to produce a likeness to Chanel bags. Chanel does not like anyone other than themselves to authenticate bags-look at how they have tried to shut down other large online resellers for selling 'fakes' . There was some talk early on that gold bar was a chip, which its not. At least not at this time.

Counterfeiters today work in state of the art factories. They get their leather from the same tanneries . They have access to the hardware, thread, you name it. With what is coming out now, its very very hard to know what you are getting if you are not buying from trusted sources.
OMG! Thank you. Having been someone who worked on the co-creation of the blockchain software, Aura, there was a lot of discussion on meetings with the companies that chose to participate in the project about the metal serial number plate.
Go into a boutique and ask them to scan your bag to track the lifecycle of the bag. There is no chip to scan so there’s no need to have any kind of scanner. That should tell you something right there. The metal plate DOES NOT contain any microchip.
This is a quote from a Chanel director in the anti diversion division that I just got off the phone with, “The plates have no chip. There is no life cycle tracking and the only reason the sticker was replaced with the plate is because it can’t be removed so that it can be attached to a replica bag. There is no buyer information stored any differently than when we started putting the serial number in the computer to match the sale of the bag.”
I hope that clarifies all of the misinformation that’s on the web (none of which is a statement from Chanel) that says there are chips embedded.
 
OMG! Thank you. Having been someone who worked on the co-creation of the blockchain software, Aura, there was a lot of discussion on meetings with the companies that chose to participate in the project about the metal serial number plate.
Go into a boutique and ask them to scan your bag to track the lifecycle of the bag. There is no chip to scan so there’s no need to have any kind of scanner. That should tell you something right there. The metal plate DOES NOT contain any microchip.
This is a quote from a Chanel director in the anti diversion division that I just got off the phone with, “The plates have no chip. There is no life cycle tracking and the only reason the sticker was replaced with the plate is because it can’t be removed so that it can be attached to a replica bag. There is no buyer information stored any differently than when we started putting the serial number in the computer to match the sale of the bag.”
I hope that clarifies all of the misinformation that’s on the web (none of which is a statement from Chanel) that says there are chips embedded.
Right?!? I find it amusing that several reputable online resellers refer to the metal serial number as a microchip.
 
Right?!? I find it amusing that several reputable online resellers refer to the metal serial number as a microchip.
First of all, the metal has to be super thin to even read a microchip through it, if they did have it and to my knowledge, there is only one company making the chips that could be read through metal and they own the patent on it. It also has to be tin plated steel in order to not interfere with the signal. This is regarding metal.
There is so much disinformation on the internet.
The thought that
1.) They can store personal information like that without having a consent signed is just insane and
2.) To think that a chip could be read through metal as thick as that plate is ridiculous (insert eye roll)
Edited for another auto correct issue.
 
Right?!? I find it amusing that several reputable online resellers refer to the metal serial number as a microchip.
It's because that's what Chanel called it, or various SA's referred to it as. But if you think about it, Chanel wants nothing to do with authenticating anyones bags in the past and there are no chip readers in the stores. And is it legal to store all your personal info on a chip without your permission?
 
First of all, the metal has to be super thin to even read a microchip through it, if they did have it and to my knowledge, there is only one company making the chips that could be read through metal and they own the patent on it. It also has to be tin plated steel in order to not interfere with the signal. This is regarding metal.
There is so much disinformation on the internet.
The thought that
1.) They can store personal information like that without having a consent signed is just insane and
2.) To think that a chip could be read through metal as thick as that plate is ridiculous (insert eye roll)
Edited for another auto correct issue.
Jinx!
 
Are there any CC cosmetics or brushes etc you think are really well made and good purchases?
Yes! I love the touch up brush #104. Eye brush 204 is great! The shape is perfect for smoking eyes out. The foundations are also lovely . I love Sublimage! My fav Chanel beaute item is the Stylo Yeux eyeliners, they last and colors are beautiful. A must have!
They didn't renew Luci Pica's contract thank god. So maybe we will see something else than red shadow, blush and lips. :smile:
 
  • Like
Reactions: De sac and gail13