abierfriend

Updated Apr 18

❌SOLD❌Authentic Chanel Double Flap

Name: ❌SOLD❌Authentic Chanel Double Flap
Brand: CHANEL
SKU: 5e28bdcc10f00fe4a2491ee6
Price: 3495.0 USD
Availability: OutOfStock

CHANEL

$3,495

Buy now, pay later with . Learn More .

Size

Not for sale

Like and save for later

Authentic EUC Chanel small double flap vintage (1991-94) bag. Made in France. Soft buttery quilted lambskin leather. Minimal signs of normal wear. Super clean burgundy interior. 24k hardware with no visible scratches. No rubbing on bottom or corners Normal exterior side creasing shown in photos Mark on first interior flap from inside zipper as shown in photos Approx 9.1" x 5.5" x 2.6" Single Shoulder strap drop 16” Double shoulder strap drop 9” Comes with box, dustbag & authenticity card

Category

Color

Shipping/Discount

Seller Discount: 5% off 2+ Bundle
~~$7.97~~ FREE Expedited (1-3 day) Shipping on orders over $500!
FREE authentication on items over $500!

brchan and 47 others like this

14 Comments

msvivavaldez Is the leather depuffed or is that just the angle In photo?

Jan 31Reply

msvivavaldez Also is the jumbo or medium size?

Jan 31Reply

abierfriend @msvivavaldez it’s vintage, from 1991-94. You can see in the posted photos it’s not as puffed as today’s bags. Hope that helps! I also commented in the bundle.

Jan 31Reply

msvivavaldez @abierfriend thanks what size is it? Jumbo or medium? Looking for jumbo to have the longer strap

Jan 31Reply

enassoud What size is it ? Jumbo ? Medium ? Maxi?

Feb 01Reply

amk5149 What year was this bag bought?

Feb 02Reply

avr42 Can you show pics of the hardware on the inside and the made in France or Italy label on the inside?

Feb 05Reply

abierfriend @avr42 hi! That stamp is not in this bag. It’s vintage from 1991-94. I’ve posted a phot of inside flap - last pic. Let me know if you have any other questions!

Feb 05Reply

abierfriend @avr42 it is made in France due to the stamp on the CC front lock

Feb 05Reply

abierfriend @avr42 hi! I posted pic of the ‘Made in France’ for you. I guess the lighting was bad when I looked for it early this morning

Feb 06Reply