Hide the Code, Expose the Risk: What Resellers Need to Know

Partially concealing the serial codes on Chanel bags for sale often serves a specific purpose when practiced by some large corporations. However, the reality behind this practice is rarely rooted in good faith.

Smaller sellers, meanwhile, often conceal serial codes simply by imitating larger players. However, for them, the risk is more tangible, as they can genuinely be affected by scammers stealing their images, particularly when operating on social media platforms.

Here’s why this practice is commonly used:
1. Avoidance of Brand Scrutiny:
The primary motive for hiding serial codes is to avoid scrutiny. Serial numbers are unique identifiers that Chanel uses to track and authenticate its products. When the code is fully visible, Chanel can trace its history to determine whether the bag is authentic, registered, or possibly stolen.

Most lawsuits filed against corporations by Chanel arise from tracing these authenticity codes. By obscuring them, sellers lower the chances of being caught selling counterfeit or stolen items.

2. Contradiction in Counterfeiting Claims:
One common justification for hiding serial codes is to prevent counterfeiters from replicating them or to stop scammers from stealing photos. But let’s be honest—do they really care about this? The reasoning is deeply flawed.

Let’s face it—billion-dollar counterfeiters don’t need photos of serial codes to replicate them. They buy genuine bags, copy the codes, and mass-produce counterfeits. This happens all the time.

3. Shielding Counterfeit Resale:
Some resellers operate in the counterfeit market, selling fake bags as authentic. Hiding the code helps them avoid detection.

The Bigger Picture
 Ninety percent of those viewing these posts are genuine buyers with no intention of misusing or replicating serial codes. The remaining 10% is split between three groups: counterfeiters, scammers, and Chanel itself. Since Chanel, as the brand owner, poses no threat, the actual risk is limited to counterfeiters and scammers, accounting for just 6.7% of the audience. So why prioritize a minimal 6.7% risk over the interests of 99.5% of legitimate buyers? The logic simply doesn’t add up.