Can somebody set me straight on this Darwin vs natural tanned leather? r/o

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. Okay, I did a search a found a thread on this topic and in that thread they said that the Darwin leather is the same as the natural tanned leather being sold right now on Mulberry.com.

    However, in another thread in the handbags section, someone mentioned that the natural tanned leather was actually thinner and lighter than the Darwin.

    So, who is correct?
     
  2. circoit, I find this really confusing. I also think that the natural tanned leather is thinner and lighter but every time I ask an sa they tell me that it is exactly the same as darwin!!!
    A good friend has an oak bays in darwin and I swear that it is heavier and thicker than the current nat tanned leather bays but I haven't had both of them together to compare. who knows?
     
  3. When I was in House of Fraser in London, I was looking at a choco Roxy. It said natural tanned leather on the tag. When I told the SA I would take it, he said, "Let me get you a fresh one." He pulled out a another choco Roxy and it was much thicker leather with bigger, rougher leather pattern. It said "Darwin" on the label. I said, "Oh no, I want the display Roxy," because it was finer, thinner and lighter. I saw the two side by side, and I prefered the natural tanned. It was definitely thinner and finer, more elegant looking. He said, "You really know your Mulberry," and then, "We try to keep the nicer ones on display." So even he admitted that to his taste, the natural tanned was a smoother, lighter leather. I really like my choco Roxy!
     
  4. Wow, thanks so much for these responses. Is there anyway to tell which bag is made out of which if I were to purchase site unseen? I really would prefer the natural tanned leather.

    Also - how long ago did this change take place?
     
  5. An SA in my local store told me that the leather was rolled a lot more to give a smoother finish.
     

  6. I suspect that the leather is rolled a lot more to go further :rolleyes: :lol:

    I've checked out the natural Roxanne compared it to the darwin Elgin and the leather was definitely different.

    I don't think there'd be any way to specify the type of leather that you want. It seems like they may have just rebranded some of their old, Darwin bags with the new Natural tags. The only way would be to order over the telephone and ask the SA which one seems thicker, stiffer, heavier.

    That said, once you have the bag in your hand, and you're not comparing it to lots of others, I don't think you'd mind so much about the type of leather as they're both gorgeous :yes:
     
  7. I've got a choco darwin Antony and black natural tanned Antony. The leather on the natural tanned bag seems a bit more uniform but other than that i can't see a difference!
     
  8. The tags, on the bag, say which leather it is. So, ask for a natural tanned leather. If you see "Darwin" on a bag, it is the older model. House of Fraser had a lot of choco Roxys, so it was a question of just looking at all the labels and getting the one I wanted.
     
  9.  
  10. ^^^^hula, I'm glad someone else has been told the same thing by SAs!!! I thought I was going loopy but I am sure my mate's bag is thicker. Like you, I think I prefer darwin - well I know I do. If I'm ever lucky enough to actually own my own bays, I would really hope that darwin is still knocking around. :yes:
     
  11. i prefer darwin too the old ones are the best or so they say i knew i was right but the s/a in the outlet was strict in telling me the characteristics were just the same obviously doesn't own a mulberry herself x
     
  12. A bit late into this thread but I have an old chocolate Darwin Roxy and there is definitely not the same thinner softer feeling in that one as in my Nat Veg Tan Chocolate Bays.

    I do prefer the sturdier old Darwin!!!:love: