The ten checks

Three groups. This list is shorter than the footwear one because a bag has fewer failure points, and padding it would make it less likely to be used.

Hardware (checks 1 to 4)

The group that shows the most in a photograph and fails the earliest in use.

Plating on zips, clasps and rings: even coverage, or patchy with a visible base metal
Zip action described in the photograph set: teeth aligned, slider seated, no gap at the closed end
Ring and clasp attachment: stitched through leather or merely looped, which is visible at the join
Weight and feel of the hardware relative to the listing claim, as far as an image allows

Structure and straps (checks 5 to 7)

Where a bag fails structurally rather than cosmetically.

Strap attachment points: reinforced with stitching and rivets, or stitched only
Base structure: does the bag stand when set down, and does the base panel look reinforced
Shape retention: panels sitting square, with no collapsed sides that suggest thin internal support

Interior and finish (checks 8 to 10)

The group that decides whether the interior matches what was advertised.

Lining material and colour against the listing, and whether it is attached cleanly at the seams
Interior pockets: count, position and whether zipped pockets actually close
Lining marks or branding, and whether they match between the interior and any exterior label

Checkboxes work on paper; nothing is stored.

Check 4 is deliberately hedged. Hardware weight is partly judgeable from an image and partly not, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of overstatement this site avoids elsewhere.

Where bags sit in the index

Two pieces of context that change how much an inspection is worth on this category.

Accessories as a category NaN items in the index Hardware and strap checks apply across the category, not only to bags. The QC method page NaN items in the index Material composition and function score lowest of the six, for the same reason this list is short on them.

Bags are one of the categories where a visual inspection is genuinely informative, because most of their failure modes are structural and visible.

What this list cannot do

Three questions a bag photograph is often asked, plus one this site declines to answer at all.

Questions beyond a photograph
Question	Can a photograph answer it?	What to do instead
Is the leather real?	No	Composition is not visible; treat the listing claim as a claim
Will the plating wear through?	No	Coating durability depends on use and climate
Is the hardware solid or hollow?	Partly	Weight can be inferred from how the item hangs, but not measured
Is this an authentic piece?	Not asked here	Authenticity is outside the scope of this site entirely

The fourth row is a refusal rather than a limitation. This site does not assess authenticity on any category, and says so wherever QC is discussed.

Bag inspection questions

Four answers specific to bags and small leather goods.

What is the single most useful bag photograph?

The hardware, close up, with the zip partly open. Plating quality and zip seating are where this category fails first, and both are plainly visible in one frame.

Why only ten checks when shoes get twelve?

Because a bag has fewer independent failure points. A longer list would include lines that never catch anything, and a checklist padded with those is one people stop using.

Does the lining matter enough to check?

Yes, for two reasons. It is the part of a bag most likely to differ from the listing, and a lining that is poorly attached at the seams is a structural weakness rather than a cosmetic one.

Should I ask about the interior before dispatch?

If the listing showed an interior and you care about pocket configuration, yes. Interior shots are the ones sellers omit most often, which is exactly why the mismatch hides there.

QC checklist for bags