Okay, I'm sure many people will disagree, but here's my honest take on Chanel's quality:
I think back in the day Chanel's quality was better, the leather was heartier, the stitching tighter, so the bags lasted longer. There are alot of vintage bags in impeccable condition. I think half of it is because they spent alot of their life in dust bags and half of it is that they were made to a more exacting standard. I feel like Chanel meant more as a brand and was more exclusive decades ago. I think today more people own Chanels, sales are record high, and they can rely more on their name than their quality in selling their bags. I hate to say it, but I don't buy Chanel for quality. I expect my bag to be at a certain base level of quality, but I really expect to have to baby my bags (with the exception of some caviar bags). I buy other mid-range brand bags for quality craftsmanship because I know they have to have quality craftsmanship to sell bags, as they aren't a multi-million, if not billion, dollar fashion house that can sell a vinyl sack for a thousand dollars (no offense to cabas owners!). People will buy Chanel because it's Chanel regardless of superior quality. I've really never heard raves about the quality craftsmanship of Chanel above other brands, but maybe it's the nature of people to rant about flaws not positives.
Lambskin bags need to be babied because of the nature of the leather, but I have plenty of other Chanels with loose stitches and have heard horror stories from other PF'ers about issues with new bags that you just wouldn't expect. Bottom line, I buy Chanel because I like their bags, but I am disappointed in the quality of some of their purses so I would make sure to baby my bag so my investment lasts as long as possible....those are just my humble thoughts...