A question about the leather

  1. Sign up to become a TPF member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It's free and quick to sign up, so join the discussion right now!
    Dismiss Notice
Our PurseForum community is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. Thank you!
  1. For all you Bbag experts- When did the leather change? As much as I love the different styles of bbags, I can't see buying one with this leather. I would love to find an authentic bbag with the old leather to buy, but I need some help knowing which colors are the older, less veiny leather. Thanks!
  2. The leather changed starting with Fall 2005. =\

    Fall 2005 bags had a few colors that were exceptional though, such as Calcaire.

    But anything before that was the nice old leather.
  3. I think the change was gradual. The 2003 bags have little to no distressing. The leather on these bags is also very matte. The spring 2004 bags had a little more distressing than the 2003 bags did, and each season after that the bags seemed to get more shiney and the level of distressing increased substantially. The leather also feels much thinner now.

    A few months ago there were some rumors floating around that Balenciaga was going to return to the old leather. (Each season's leather has been different, so I'm not sure which "old leather" was being referred to.) However, a few weeks ago someone posted that the Bal SA's are claiming that Bal is sticking with the leather that there are currently using. I doubt we'll know for sure until the Fall 2006 bags are released.
  4. I kind of think the distressing on the bags was random (from s/s '05 and earlier), I think some has more distressing than others - my '04 Rose is less distressed than my '03 Red.... the distressing on the older bags is very natural and gives an authentic 'vintage' look. I agree that after the level of distressing increased a lot - and the leather does feel very different (and kind of 'cold' instead of 'warm' to the touch).

    The old leather (early '05 and earlier) feels very smushy, cloud like, and 'huggable' - it's so soft and thick, and seriously indescribable.

    While the newer leather (fall '05 and later) seems to have a shinier 'coating' and less natural and all over the place distressing.

    I have the bordeaux though from Fall '05, and while the leather is different - I still like it, to me it is just different.
  5. Addicted, I am feeling your indecision! I have one Bal City from 2003 in black. The leather is TDF on this bag. I thought I would upgrade in 2004 with a newer black and ended up returning it. The leather was thinner and not as nice.

    I so want a City in either caramel or camel and cannot seem to go through with a transaction when I find one for sale. At times I think of posting a Want to Trade in the Marketplace - one of my Paddington's for a caramel or camel (cognac shade) City, then change my mind. The Paddington leather is so much nicer.

    A friend of mine has her bags shipped from Bal NYC. She has a s/a who goes through dozens of bags to find her the one with the leather of her specs. You have to either hand-pick these bags yourself if possible or find a s/a who really knows Balenciaga. Otherwise, you are stuck with what they send you.
  6. ^ roey, the leather from 2004 is really really nice!!!
  7. Yes, I do remember the black bag I purchased having nice leather in terms of minimal distressing and softness. I held each bag for a long time to try to figure out why I wanted to keep the 2003, and it was because the leather on the 03 bag was a little bit thicker than the 04. And, this might sound nutty, but my 03 bag has a leather Balenciaga plate on the inside, and the 04 had the hard silver plate. I hated that plate on the camel first I bought and then sold. I had this sickness about constantly wiping off smudges and fingerprints to keep it looking shiny. Yeah, my next husband should be a man in a white coat... :biggrin:
  8. ^ oh, I understand - Balenciaga was really inconsistent in '03 - early '04, I have an '03 that has a silver plate, and then an early '04 that has a leather tag.... the leather is also pretty inconsistent - but always thick, soft, and beautiful on the older bags - my '03 definitely has the thickest yummiest leather, but it is also more distressed than my '04 rose - so I think it just all depends on the 'batch', but I have never seen a bag in '03, '04, or early '05 leather that I didn't want!!! :smile:
  9. Thanks for all the info ladies! I guess I need to look for bags in colors from before 2005!