That was measured across the top, the bottom measurement is approx 8 1/2 inches. I did check for the tag inside and all there is is the made in china tag. I thought it looked like a campbell too. Everything about the bag looks good, the pattern is symmetrical, the lining feels right, the bag has a nice weight to it, not flimsy, stitching looks even. I;m not sure you can tell, but the C's are lurex, if that helps at all.
ID This Coach item! -- Post any Coach item name questions here! --
- Thread starter chelsssea
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
That was measured across the top, the bottom measurement is approx 8 1/2 inches. I did check for the tag inside and all there is is the made in china tag. I thought it looked like a campbell too. Everything about the bag looks good, the pattern is symmetrical, the lining feels right, the bag has a nice weight to it, not flimsy, stitching looks even. I;m not sure you can tell, but the C's are lurex, if that helps at all.
Sorry to open such a can or worms.I really wish there was a way of knowing for sure (she says coach, which I would assume to be an Asian site) where that picture on the Malaysian blog came from because it's identical down to the black plaque at least on the outside.
The one difference is that the leather behind the Carriage and plaque on yours looks about 2 shades lighter than it does on the one in the blog pic. Maybe the grain of that piece is slightly different and it's showing a bigger color difference to the camera than in real life. In fact, in your photos the same bag looks several very different shades of blue depending on the lighting.
I'll say Probably Genuine, don't worry about it. I think Coach does it deliberately just to drive us nuts.
Rinse and Repeat ...
Last edited:
Post 10303
But the question remains - what's the right style number? Apparently they had 2 versions of the same bag. Maybe 50103 was the Sateen version and 50084 was the regular Sig fabric? The Cs on the 50103 look much more metallic.
Last edited:
The color differences on mine seem deliberate. The main body of the bag is the darker teal with the horizontal woven pieces, side trim, and behind the plaque are all very slightly lighter. I know you can't go by feel, but the overall feel of the bag is the same as my authentic ones. I scrutinized and compared hardware like crazy and it's consistently like the others minus the small rings. I seem to be attracted to "difficult" bags. Thanks for your investigating, and I'm sorry for any headaches I may have caused.
Don't apologise! And the headache wasn't from you, it was weather-related. Low pressure system coming through, apparently, I used to get them all the time when I was working and outside a lot.
Enjoy your new bag!
Post 10303
But the question remains - what's the right style number? Apparently they had 2 versions of the same bag. Maybe 50103 was the Sateen version and 50084 was the regular Sig fabric? The Cs on the 50103 look much more metallic.
Ah yes, you may be right, thank you!
See my comment below with reference to your first "comparison" creed.
Reference the blue above, I believe that first creed you posted, supposedly from a bag from the same plant (93) is actually 98. I've enlarged it to further demonstrate that it's not the same plant. The 93 plant bags don't have horse and carriages, with the exception of yours.Sorry to open such a can or worms.
So that comparison isn't a valid one. As I stated above in post #10293 and Hyacinth confirmed, there isn't a single other listing for your style bag from the 93 plant.
And the fact that the only only other picture of a bag in this style is the one on the Malaysian website further makes me think the bag is fake and the picture on the Malaysian website is of a fake.
Again, your bag and that Malaysian bag are the only ones that don't have those pleats/puckers on the lower front of the bag.
I do not believe it's an authentic bag. You seem to really want to believe that it's genuine and if you're happy with it, by all means keep it. But my advice comes with the caveat that you not try to resell it because IMO, if a buyer raises a dispute about authenticity, you might lose the case and end up with a policy violation on your record.
Personally, I'd return the bag and advise the seller of the questionable authenticity.
Attachments
See my comment below with reference to your first "comparison" creed.
Reference the blue above, I believe that first creed you posted, supposedly from a bag from the same plant (93) is actually 98. I've enlarged it to further demonstrate that it's not the same plant. The 93 plant bags don't have horse and carriages, with the exception of yours.
So that comparison isn't a valid one. As I stated above in post #10293 and Hyacinth confirmed, there isn't a single other listing for your style bag from the 93 plant.
And the fact that the only only other picture of a bag in this style is the one on the Malaysian website further makes me think the bag is fake and the picture on the Malaysian website is of a fake.
Again, your bag and that Malaysian bag are the only ones that don't have those pleats/puckers on the lower front of the bag.
I do not believe it's an authentic bag. You seem to really want to believe that it's genuine and if you're happy with it, by all means keep it. But my advice comes with the caveat that you not try to resell it because IMO, if a buyer raises a dispute about authenticity, you might lose the case and end up with a policy violation on your record.
Personally, I'd return the bag and advise the seller of the questionable authenticity.
The plant number is a 3 not an 8, it's just in a weird part of the texture. As far as the authenticity goes, I really don't want to keep a fake bag, especially at $200. However, I was hesitant because I wanted some concrete evidence before I started the return. I didn't realize until now that she does take returns, which makes things easier. I'm so used to sellers that don't that I assumed wrongly.
Attachments
May I ask why you're both sure that picture on the blog shows an authentic bag? Those aren't Coach's stock photos, AFAIK.
Notice that the picture of the bag on the left has the pleats/tucks at the bottom of the front but the blue one doesn't.
The rings on the bag on the left are larger than that on the right:
This is a copy of Coach's 19646 page:
May I ask why you're both sure that picture on the blog shows an authentic bag? Those aren't Coach's stock photos, AFAIK.
Notice that the picture of the bag on the left has the pleats/tucks at the bottom of the front but the blue one doesn't.
The rings on the bag on the left are larger than that on the right:
This is a copy of Coach's 19646 page:
I never said I was sure it was authentic. That was the problem. I only wished I had a way of finding out the original source of the photo. The blogger credits Coach, but who knows.
I'm terrible with quick memo, but I tried to show where you can see the clear end of the bottom of the three. Not that it necessarily proves anything.
Attachments
I don't know whether we'll ever know for sure whether it's authentic or now. But as I said, if I were the buyer, I'd return it. Among the things that make me uncomfortable are the following that are unique to YOUR bag and not a single other that I can find listed or pictured anywhere:
1. The color of the background of the Coach plaque of yours doesn't match the color of the leather.
2. Your bag is doesn't have the tucks at the bottom of the front where the front meets the base
3. The rings on your bag are smaller than other bags of the same style
4. Your bag is the only one of that style with a 93 plant code.
I found this source for the picture you showed. Although that Malaysian blogger used the picture, I don't believe it was one of Coach's own images. I looked at malaysia.coach.com and they use the same stock pics as the regular coach.com site.
This site is based in Dubai, United Arab Emerites:
http://www.shoera.com/2012/07/16/baglovin-summer-shades/coach-madison-woven-leather-caroline/
1. The color of the background of the Coach plaque of yours doesn't match the color of the leather.
2. Your bag is doesn't have the tucks at the bottom of the front where the front meets the base
3. The rings on your bag are smaller than other bags of the same style
4. Your bag is the only one of that style with a 93 plant code.
I found this source for the picture you showed. Although that Malaysian blogger used the picture, I don't believe it was one of Coach's own images. I looked at malaysia.coach.com and they use the same stock pics as the regular coach.com site.
This site is based in Dubai, United Arab Emerites:
http://www.shoera.com/2012/07/16/baglovin-summer-shades/coach-madison-woven-leather-caroline/