do you think chanel is better quality than lv?

#47
I have a few Chanels and a few LVs. To be fair in my comparison, I will compare two bags that have the same age in my collection: lv Mahina XS and Chanel Medalion. As far as quality they are on par with each other. Still look luxurious, the hardware still very shiny without tarnish. If I remember correctly my Mahina was more expensive than the Chanel at the time. Here are the differences, my Chanel Medalion has broken zipper! So it doesn’t zip anymore. Additionally because of structural shape I tend to be more careful with the corners. My Mahina is still flawless and I have put this bag through the wringer, because of the extending strap I have used as travel bag without a worry. That said my LV because it’s not monogram canvas has a reduced resell value. My Chanel did not lose its value from the original retail price.
Sounds like beating a dead horse at this point; buy what makes you happy. Who cares what strangers on TPF think! At the end of the day these are first world problems.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Winiebean, Cali2HI, 880 and 1 other person
#48
I don't think the Neverful is durable enough for it's intended use as a tote bag, at least not for my work but I do use it for golf with lightweight things in it but I can't really put a laptop or tile samples in it and carry it around like I can other work totes like my Chloe Woody. However, my Speedy graffiti rose is one of my go to bags for situations where I know I am going to be sitting a table that is sticky and people will be brushing up against my bag (i.e. Top Golf, a brewery, or my son's sporting events). I have had my Speedy since 2009 and it looks brand new but I only use it 10 times a year or so. I feel too stressed out to take my Chanel bags anywhere like that, especially my tweed and when I do take my tweed bag out, I literally bring the dust bag to put it in when we are eating if my son is with us. Also, when I am driving in my car with my Chanel bags, I put them in their dust bag and buckle the seat belt around them and I don't do any of that with my LV bags. In fact, the only other bag I do that with is a white shearling Chloe bag. I worry so much about my Chanel lambskin bag and metallic leather getting scratched. They just seem so much more fragile than LV, but that isn't necessarily that they are not quality but perhaps more fragile materials.

I guess after that long ramble I could sum it up as both are great quality, IMO but LV seems more utilitarian and Chanel more for looking pretty.

On a different note, the Chanel SAs are a million times nicer and less racist.
 
Last edited:
#49
I have both Chanel and LV and have sold off most of my Chanel because I find lambskin in particular to be very delicate, and I hated having to baby them. I do think Chanel's classics are more classy/sophisticated (as in a CF is more classy than a Speedy) but if we're talking about "quality", in my experience LV wins. Canvas is so durable, and I've found their leather pieces to be high quality, resilient, and well-aging. Quality control is about the same IMO. I think you just see more dialogue about it in the LV subforum because it's so much busier. (Or at least it used to be - I'm not as active on TPF these days.)
 
#50
I also have both and would say LV wins for me in terms of quality for the leather handbags. With the LV leather (calfskin and lambskin), I haven't had to baby them as much (if at all) and many of my bags are still on great condition with hardly any wear to them - especially at the corners of the handbags. This, plus I haven't noticed any tarnishing/color ruboff in the hardware. My Chanel leather bags on the other hand I've had to baby them, especially the lambskin bags, and the hardware have definitely tarnished over time.

I wholeheartedly agree with @AmeeLVSBags, that you should buy what makes you happy. :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back