Thoughts on Gryson Rachel?

jadejett

O.G.
Jul 30, 2006
1,665
0
Toronto, Canada
I just snatched up a Gryson Rachel in black on NM's clearance link tonight but I realized afterwards that this bag is huge. I DO like big bags and have always wanted a Gryson but am wondering if this is a case of "sale sale sale gotta have it rather than need it" temporary insanity. :lol:

I can cancel it by tomorrow morning so there's still time, so I was curious to find out people's thoughts on this bag, if anyone has it, or has modeling pics. I did a TPF search and came up pretty short on comments on this particular bag, which I don't think bodes well. :shame:

Here's the link:

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/c...0000cat980731cat8840736cat12110736cat14220742
 

Lexie2000

O.G.
Jan 6, 2006
7,213
0
Wild Wonderful West Virginia
Hi Jade....
I have the Tate and I think it is plenty Large enough (10" x 10"). I looked at a Tate in the store once but it's near humongous. The 14 across isn't bad but it's so deep at 18 inches high.
I love My Grysons and sometimes the quality of the bag will make you keep it regardless of how it functions for you. These bags reek of quality but I wouldn't have opted for the Rachel just because of it's size.

Here's a beauty of a tate from a TPF member I believe...

http://cgi.ebay.com/NWOT-Rasberry-C...ryZ63852QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
 

kellykapoor

FashionShow@Lunch!!!
O.G.
Aug 23, 2007
1,067
15
Blue State
I saw the Tate in IRL at the Nordstrom sale and found it too small. It just had a lot going on for a bag that size. If the Rachel was available, I think I would have snatched it up. Enough rambling, I think you may want to wait and see if it works for you before you decide against it. Congrats on the killer deal too :yes:
 

1sparkle4u

SF Bay Area
O.G.
Feb 3, 2007
264
0
Hi Jade....
I have the Tate and I think it is plenty Large enough (10" x 10"). I looked at a Tate in the store once but it's near humongous. The 14 across isn't bad but it's so deep at 18 inches high.
I love My Grysons and sometimes the quality of the bag will make you keep it regardless of how it functions for you. These bags reek of quality but I wouldn't have opted for the Rachel just because of it's size.

Here's a beauty of a tate from a TPF member I believe...

http://cgi.ebay.com/NWOT-Rasberry-C...ryZ63852QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
After all the craziness of the Gryson sale I ended up with the Tate in Cerise. I think you have the same one. I haven't used mine yet and I am wondering are you still loving it as much as you did a couple months ago? Now that some time has passed and you probably have carried it more, is it still one of your favorites? Functionality, etc.? Thanks!!!
 

Lexie2000

O.G.
Jan 6, 2006
7,213
0
Wild Wonderful West Virginia
No, I have a Tate in Camel that I bought about 2 years ago. I LOVE that bag. I think it's the coolest thing. It is just the right size for me and I love how the shoulder straps attach at the front of the bag instead of on the side of the zipper.
My Husband says it looks like a backpack but I don't care. I love how it wears. And the leather looks as great as the day I got it. I should have waited.....I paid 800.00 at Active Endeavors (ouch!)
 

momonthegooo!

Member
Oct 18, 2007
117
0
I think the Tate is too small but the Rachel seems pretty big. On the other hand it's a perfect day bag and Gryson makes gorgeous bags so I would stick with it!
 

jadejett

O.G.
Jul 30, 2006
1,665
0
Toronto, Canada
Ok girls. I *DO* love big bags. You've convinced me. How can I really go wrong with this label? :lol:
I'll let you know when I receive it and post pics!
 
Top