Other than the fact that that briefcase - and none of the Lexington Briefs - are "pebbled" I don't see any problems. The style number isn't in my files but if it was made for the Outlet that's not a problem.
answers to AUTHENTICITY questions!!!
- Thread starter kallison
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Other than the fact that that briefcase - and none of the Lexington Briefs - are "pebbled" I don't see any problems. The style number isn't in my files but if it was made for the Outlet that's not a problem.
Originally Posted by pydbl 
The link below is the bag. I debated about whether to get this bag or the other one that was described as *(near) mint*. (Stupid me). In the end I got the latter because the seller for the latter auction has 100% feedback, and the former's seller has a lower feedback...
Btw, thank you and noshoepolish for helping me with dealing with the seller. He (thought it was a she...) let me return the bag (though I paid for shipping out of my own pocket...)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_500wt_1321
The link below is the bag. I debated about whether to get this bag or the other one that was described as *(near) mint*. (Stupid me). In the end I got the latter because the seller for the latter auction has 100% feedback, and the former's seller has a lower feedback...Btw, thank you and noshoepolish for helping me with dealing with the seller. He (thought it was a she...) let me return the bag (though I paid for shipping out of my own pocket...)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_500wt_1321
It's also not "vintage," as described by the seller. Having been made in 2006, it's just a baby!
They had released those at the Factory Stores back then. I think I bought one or 2 or maybe I got one from eBay myself. They went pretty cheap towards the end of the release.
You're welcome for the assistance.
When buying bags, buyers should be asking for more photos. The corners, if not described, should be included in the description. Top, bottom, left, right, front, back, interior, creed. Make sure the listing includes the strap.
Your seller should refund you return shipping.
You're welcome for the assistance.
When buying bags, buyers should be asking for more photos. The corners, if not described, should be included in the description. Top, bottom, left, right, front, back, interior, creed. Make sure the listing includes the strap.
Your seller should refund you return shipping.
That's what I figured, NSP. It looks like they discontinued the original style a few years before and then brought it back with a new number and the"burnished" leather that they used a lot in the early to mid-2000s. It looked like the bottom edge of the front flap had more of a point in the center too but other than that it was still almost identical to the older version.
Thanks!
(I'm not clear on why the buyer returned it though, but maybe if I read the posts again...)
Seller said it was in mint condition without mentioning coffee stains, light corners, and wear under the flap.
That's what I figured, NSP. It looks like they discontinued the original style a few years before and then brought it back with a new number and the"burnished" leather that they used a lot in the early to mid-2000s. It looked like the bottom edge of the front flap had more of a point in the center too but other than that it was still almost identical to the older version.
Thanks!
(I'm not clear on why the buyer returned it though, but maybe if I read the posts again...)
Bags stamped with X are bags that Coach sent to discounters such as Marshalls, TJ Maxx, Filene's Basement, Nordstroms Rack, etc. It lets Coach know that those items aren't eligible for return or exchange at Coach stores or outlets.
This caveat has been posted earlier in the thread, but because there are some very frighteningly "good" fakes currently listed, I think it's worthy of repeating.
If anyone is looking at style 10341, legacy signature satchel, they should be very careful. On the "better" fakes, the pattern complies with Coach's centering and alignment "rules." The creed has legitimate and correct serial numbers and the font appears very close to the real deal. The lining is usually the correct-looking legacy stripe fabric.
This is the Coach stock photo for that bag. Note that it came in several colors:
The following are some side-by-side examples of fake vs. authentic. There are other problems with most of the fakes, but these details should be helpful in determining whether a bag you're considering is fake or not.
PLEASE HAVE ANY PURCHASES YOU ARE CONSIDERING LOOKED AT AND AUTHENTICATED BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK FOR.
If anyone is looking at style 10341, legacy signature satchel, they should be very careful. On the "better" fakes, the pattern complies with Coach's centering and alignment "rules." The creed has legitimate and correct serial numbers and the font appears very close to the real deal. The lining is usually the correct-looking legacy stripe fabric.
This is the Coach stock photo for that bag. Note that it came in several colors:
The following are some side-by-side examples of fake vs. authentic. There are other problems with most of the fakes, but these details should be helpful in determining whether a bag you're considering is fake or not.
PLEASE HAVE ANY PURCHASES YOU ARE CONSIDERING LOOKED AT AND AUTHENTICATED BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK FOR.
I posted this in the Hall of the Shame due to the SportsCoach, but I was wondering if the green one was fake, too. Are there any creeds with just one letter?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-coach-gre...123?pt=US_CSA_WH_Handbags&hash=item4162093e13
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-coach-gre...123?pt=US_CSA_WH_Handbags&hash=item4162093e13
Good question - this looks to me like just a mistake in stamping. The stamping mechanism used before 1994 apparently included both letters and numbers although the numbers were never used, but in this case someone made a mistake. The bag looks like a completely genuine Cafe Bag from the early 1990s Lightweight/Soho line and the overstamping lines by the other letters don't look wrong.
So in this case, I think it's just a glitch, and it's the first time I've seen this kind of mistake although stamping mistakes were not that uncommon. Coach usually wouldn't trash a completed bag because of a small stamping mistake, and many of them just ended up at the outlets.
(The Sportscoach, on the other hand, IS a piece of trash!)
Attachments
Thank you. The seller must be clueless to pair these two pieces together. I wonder how and why the Sportscoach label got started.
BTW, the first line should read "The stamping mechanism used before 1994 apparently included both letters and numbers although the LETTERS were never used..."
Sorry 'bout that - caffeine deprivation.
Originally Posted by Hyacinth 
Good question - this looks to me like just a mistake in stamping. The stamping mechanism used before 1994 apparently included both letters and numbers although the numbers were never used, but in this case someone made a mistake. The bag looks like a completely genuine Cafe Bag from the early 1990s Lightweight/Soho line and the overstamping lines by the other letters don't look wrong.
So in this case, I think it's just a glitch, and it's the first time I've seen this kind of mistake although stamping mistakes were not that uncommon. Coach usually wouldn't trash a completed bag because of a small stamping mistake, and many of them just ended up at the outlets.
(The Sportscoach, on the other hand, IS a piece of trash!)
It was started as an obvious attempt to fool buyers into thinking their company was connected with Coach. The real irony is that Coach actually took them to court for trademark violations, and Coach lost the case. Apparently the presiding judge was an idiot, or Coach's lawyers were. Luckily the Sportscoach people didn't stay in business long.
There was even more blatant "trademark hijacking" attempted against Coach by some Korean companies, but that's another story...
Good question - this looks to me like just a mistake in stamping. The stamping mechanism used before 1994 apparently included both letters and numbers although the numbers were never used, but in this case someone made a mistake. The bag looks like a completely genuine Cafe Bag from the early 1990s Lightweight/Soho line and the overstamping lines by the other letters don't look wrong. So in this case, I think it's just a glitch, and it's the first time I've seen this kind of mistake although stamping mistakes were not that uncommon. Coach usually wouldn't trash a completed bag because of a small stamping mistake, and many of them just ended up at the outlets.
(The Sportscoach, on the other hand, IS a piece of trash!)
It was started as an obvious attempt to fool buyers into thinking their company was connected with Coach. The real irony is that Coach actually took them to court for trademark violations, and Coach lost the case. Apparently the presiding judge was an idiot, or Coach's lawyers were. Luckily the Sportscoach people didn't stay in business long.
There was even more blatant "trademark hijacking" attempted against Coach by some Korean companies, but that's another story...
Thank you for the information. This is so interesting. I can see why they lost the case, though, because just having Coach in your name isn't enough. If they were using Coach logos then they would be in violation. Although, McDonald's was able to put a restaurant with the same name out of business. Coach isn't just a name - it is a word that could be legitimately used by another company. If you started a company named SportsVuitton, I'm sure you would lose the copyright battle. I wonder if you would get away with a company named Sportsack.Originally Posted by Hyacinth
So in this case, I think it's just a glitch, and it's the first time I've seen this kind of mistake although stamping mistakes were not that uncommon. Coach usually wouldn't trash a completed bag because of a small stamping mistake, and many of them just ended up at the outlets.
(The Sportscoach, on the other hand, IS a piece of trash!)
It was started as an obvious attempt to fool buyers into thinking their company was connected with Coach. The real irony is that Coach actually took them to court for trademark violations, and Coach lost the case. Apparently the presiding judge was an idiot, or Coach's lawyers were. Luckily the Sportscoach people didn't stay in business long.
There was even more blatant "trademark hijacking" attempted against Coach by some Korean companies, but that's another story...