**CLOSED** Authenticate This CHANEL

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi everyone,

Would you please help me authenticating this bag? I have already purchased it but I am still debating if I should keep it

Item Name (if you know it): 2007 Spring classic lambskin jumbo with bijoux chain (Dark Grey color)
SERIAL NUMBER: 11275884
Link (if available): https://www.yoogiscloset.com/chanel...kin-leather-hybrid-jumbo-single-flap-bag.html
Seller: Yoogi's Closet
Who took the pictures: seller
History of the bag: per seller's listed
Comments: there is no authentication card included, does this impact the value of the bag?

Thank you so much for the help,
 
I have 2 bags I recently got that I would like to authenticate, I would appreciate your help! Thank you! :)

Item Name: Chanel Reissue size 226
Serial Number: 16926411
Seller: Consignment store in Manila
Link: Bought in store
Who took the pictures: Me
History of the bag: Consignment store says it was sold by one of her regular clients who always sells her used bags to the store when she needs money
Comments: This was a very low priced pre-loved bag, I'd say around $500 USD less than usual going rates of pre-loved reissues so I was uneasy in getting it because it seemed too cheap. The consignment store said it was a rush sale thats why its selling for so low. Anyway, initially I thought the bag was too puffy for a reissue. Its not as flat as some reissues im used to seeing. However, it may just be difference in production season as i know that no two reissues will ever be alike (especially due to the aged calfskin). I would like to get a second opinion on this.

I then noticed that the packaging was off. I will attach photos of the packaging on the following post. Everything else about the bag seems to add up except for the packaging.

20170727_090738.jpeg
20170727_091113.jpeg20170727_091143.jpeg20170727_091158.jpeg20170727_091216.jpeg20170727_091300.jpeg20170727_091357.jpeg20170727_091410.jpeg20170727_091517.jpeg20170727_091533.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I have 2 bags I recently got that I would like to authenticate, I would appreciate your help! Thank you! :)

Item Name: Chanel Reissue size 226
Serial Number: 16926411
Seller: Consignment store in Manila
Link: Bought in store
Who took the pictures: Me
History of the bag: Consignment store says it was sold by one of her regular clients who always sells her used bags to the store when she needs money
Comments: This was a very low priced pre-loved bag, I'd say around $500 USD than usual going rates of pre-loved reissues so I was uneasy in getting it because it seemed too cheap. The consignment store said it was a rush sale thats why its selling for so low. Anyway, initially I thought the bag was too puffy for a reissue. Its not as flat as some reissues im used to seeing. However, it may just be difference in production season as i know that no two reissues will ever be alike (especially due to the aged calfskin). I would like to get a second opinion on this.

I then noticed that the packaging was off. I will attach photos of the packaging on the following post. Everything else about the bag seems to add up except for the packaging.

View attachment 3776662
View attachment 3776663View attachment 3776664View attachment 3776665View attachment 3776666View attachment 3776667View attachment 3776668View attachment 3776669View attachment 3776670View attachment 3776671
Attached are the photos of the serial sticker, authenticity card, and packaging. The consignment store says this is the original packaging but I found that the dustbag that came with it is off. I know that dustbags for this type of box should be white, shouldnt it? Although it is possible that the original owner requested for a dustbag instead of the white velvet cover when she bought the bag. Idk, just giving this the benefit of the doubt lol.

Also, upon carefully expecting the dustbag, I noticed that the CHANEL printed on it is also off. It seems that the CHANEL is painted instead of printed. I put a side by side photo of the dustbag with a dustbag of a bag I bought from the store in 2010 (13 series) where you can see the difference in the texture of the text. The top dustbag is the reissue dustbag, while the one on the bottom is the original from the store.

I also attached a photo which shows how puffy it can look depending on the light.

Hoping someone could share a light on this matter. Thank you!! :)

20170726_135213.jpeg20170727_092835.jpeg20170727_091736.jpeg20170727_091816.jpeg20170727_091834.jpeg20170727_092057.jpeg20170727_092046.jpeg20170727_091720.jpeg
 
This is the second bag I would like to authenticate, a wallet on chain

Item: Chanel Wallet on Chain (Beige)
Serial Number: 12625222
Link: Bought in store
Seller: Consignment store in Manila
Who took the pictures: Me
History of the bag: N/A
Comments: This one I dont really have any qualms on its authenticity but again just getting it authenticated to be sure. Will attach further photos as they cant fit one post.

20170727_090758.jpeg20170727_092228.jpeg20170727_092235.jpeg20170727_092244.jpeg20170727_092250.jpeg20170727_092314.jpeg20170727_092345.jpeg20170727_092421.jpeg20170727_092427.jpeg20170727_092449.jpeg
 
This is the second bag I would like to authenticate, a wallet on chain

Item: Chanel Wallet on Chain (Beige)
Serial Number: 12625222
Link: Bought in store
Seller: Consignment store in Manila
Who took the pictures: Me
History of the bag: N/A
Comments: This one I dont really have any qualms on its authenticity but again just getting it authenticated to be sure. Will attach further photos as they cant fit one post.

View attachment 3776706View attachment 3776707View attachment 3776708View attachment 3776709View attachment 3776710View attachment 3776711View attachment 3776712View attachment 3776713View attachment 3776714View attachment 3776715
Attached are photos of the serial and authenticity card.

20170727_092637.jpeg20170727_092709.jpeg20170727_092811.jpeg
 
Dear authenticators,
I read from the second post in this thread that Chanel watch cannot be authenticated here. Just wondering if this is still true -- could anyone here help authenticate Chanel watch?

Thanks so much :smile:
 
Hi Dear, Please help me authenticate the vintage Chanel bag below. Thank you so much!
Item Name (if you know it): Vintage Chanel classic flap in Pink gold hardware
SERIAL NUMBER: 6439553
Link (if available): http://www.vestiairecollective.com/...leather-timeless-chanel-handbag-4010577.shtml
Seller: Fran on Vestiairecollective
Who took the pictures: seller
History of the bag: per seller's listed
Comments: there is no authentication card included. Does it worth the price tag? Also, i feel like the pics are taken under a filter. While the two images in the middle are under natural lighting.
 
Item Name (if you know it): extra mini
SERIAL NUMBER: shown in the pic (last 3 digit blacken by me. Please let me know if you require full serial)
Link (if available): n/a
Seller: private seller
Who took the pictures: seller
History of the bag: not known, no receipt of purchase
Comments: Can you tell me know which year model? Thanks in advance!

Pics:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1vgEKDRxsZbaE56RFJhWjlRVFk/view

bruwuFAmsd6wTVC1YLOtFVN6m6oKEqFQSBqOlluGrLPY1AboKoFg6qA9K9lj23MjSF0YcE7Pe9gMY0c=w1920-h947

LX9wYPc7syLRqK_0OtNHOWJUpWlwbo3dBg2abuQZGtxaiz4zL0zyOBPJudh46EN9-sPaL64z-yeDqPI=w1920-h947

I know you guys are very busy but I highly appreciate if you could tell me whether it's authentic or not. As you know, minis are on the verge of distinction... so I need to act fast if this is authentic.

I don't dare to purchase it first without knowing because it's pick-up and cash only. If it turns out to be fake I can simply consider throwing $1k+ to trash bin because it's forbidden to sell fakes in my country. This item is listed in my local non-English selling platform which requires registration prior to being able to view the listing. Selling platform provider do not offer any support against fakes that's why I'll highly appreciate your input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top