Marc Jacobs small Camille

iluvmybags

& My Motos & Shoes!
O.G.
Sep 13, 2006
38,160
229
The Windy City
according to the measurements that ShopTwigs provides, it's the same size as the original (it's actually half an inch deeper)

I had posted this before (I forgot who's thread it was) - but when I talked to the Manager of our MJ store, he said from what he remembered at the resort buy, the "Small" Camile was about the same size as the original -- if anything, he said that MAYBE they chopped an inch off here and there, but he said it looked exactly the same. Judging from those measurements, I'd have to agree - there doesn't seem to be much of a difference at all, so I wonder why they're calling it the "Small"? :confused1:
 

matchka

42But what was the ?
O.G.
it seems a bit strange that they would come out with a "small" version that is so close in size to the original.....

Shoptwigs provides these measurements for the Small: 10.5"H x 15"W x 7"D 5.5" Drop

Measurements provided for the original Camile: 12.5"H x 16"W x 7"D 6" Drop

Not a lot of difference really.... But when I looked at pics of the two, the Small appeared to be less tapered toward the top of the bag, and had more of a square look to it. Just my observation from looking at website pics, though.
 

iluvmybags

& My Motos & Shoes!
O.G.
Sep 13, 2006
38,160
229
The Windy City
it seems a bit strange that they would come out with a "small" version that is so close in size to the original.....

Shoptwigs provides these measurements for the Small: 10.5"H x 15"W x 7"D 5.5" Drop

Measurements provided for the original Camile: 12.5"H x 16"W x 7"D 6" Drop

Not a lot of difference really.... But when I looked at pics of the two, the Small appeared to be less tapered toward the top of the bag, and had more of a square look to it. Just my observation from looking at website pics, though.

I don't think those measurements are right -- I measured the base of my bag and it's 15/15.5 inches across (I didn't measure the top part, its more narrow). along the sides of the bag it measured 11.5 high and 6.5 inches deep (maybe 6.75 - this is the hardest to measure since the depth can vary so much). Maybe I'd measure the "Small Camille" and get diff measurements as well, but after talking to people who have seen both, they all said there's not much difference -- to be honest, I talked to someone higher up at MJ & they told me they thought they wanted to lower the price a little, so they chopped an inch off the bag and called it the "Small"

I do really like the blue color and am curious enough to want to check it out in person
 

Attachments

spaceyjacy

fashion ruckus
O.G.
Dec 4, 2007
7,100
0
Planet Spacejace
I know that an inch here or there doesn't seem like a big difference, but if you compare the volume of the two there is a difference of 297.5 cubic inches. That's a big difference when you are considering how much can fit inside! Thats bigger than an extra bag measuring 10 X 7 X 4, like a Cammie or something!

The small Camille would have a volume of 1102.5 cubic inches vs. the regular Camille which would have a volume of 1400 cubic inches.

Also I think the measurements given are correct. From the pics posted it looks like Iluv is just measuring a little differently than they probably would to post on the site. For instance, measuring all the way across the bottom instead of measuring seam to seam.
 

yogagirl

O.G.
Apr 16, 2006
311
13
I just saw this bag at the store and I
really liked it! On the shelf they don't appear
that different in size but carrying I can
definitely see and feel a difference.

(now I am almost regretting picking it up off the
shelf as I just know I am going to obsess about it!)