/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

why did you buy a dress that you can see through?

>>6489315

I bought it online and in the image it didn't look so transparent. Of course when it came it and I tried it on I was horrified.

I don't understand why a company would manufacture a dress that's unwearable? I get that using cheaper fabric saves money but this is a joke.

Why don't you just buy a full slip? You can find them for pretty cheep in most department stores.

>>6489322

I want to wear it out tomorrow night and I don't live near any department stores unfortunately.

>>6489327
Hum, I don't know what country you are in but I have had luck finding them in places like Target that have a decent underthings/shape-wear selection.

I wouldn't try to line it, just make a really basic shift dress to wear underneath. Loads easier.

>>6489315
Why do they make dresses you can see through? I see them everywhere here in the US and they're stupid as fuck, everything is cheap see-through chiffon that doesn't fit, it just hangs.

sage for mad.

>>6489353

They do it here in the UK as well and I don't understand it either. Why make a dress nobody can wear?
I wouldn't have bought it if I knew it was going to show my bra off to every body when worn.

>>6489353
Well I guess you could wear it as a tunic over leggings and a tank top, but I think it's just manufacturers being cheap and using shitty thin fabric and hoping enough people will order online or buy without trying it on first.

>>6489355
I think it's Tumblr. Tumblrfags wear see through dresses over their studded bras. I've never seen anyone IRL wearing this shit though, I hope stores figure that the fuck out soon and start selling things with more mass appeal again because most people don't want to look like Tumblr threw up on them.

>>6489361

Well the annoying thing is that it's from New Look, which is a reputable clothing chain in the UK. You can find one in almost every large town and multiple stores in cities. I remember seeing them on the rails when they were stocked but didn't get one at the time for whatever reason. Found loads being sold on eBay (I wonder why) and thought I was getting a bargain.

It's weird to have something so cheap and nasty, New Look usually doesn't stock such shoddy wares.

>>6489353
>>6489355
That reminds me of when I went to Boston for a day to shop around earlier this year and noticed a decent number of women were wearing either lace tops or those crocheted sweaters with holes with only their bra underneath.

Did not look good at all

>>6489317
You're probably not meant to wear it on its own. Same as a chiffon blouse or whatever. You're supposed to wear something under it. Also translucent fabric isn't any cheaper.

It'll be too complicated to line; I agree with the anon who said to just buy/make a slip or dress to go under. Or just wear a white vest top and shorts or something.

>>6489420

I don't understand, lining it sounds easy. Don't I just have to cut out a piece of fabric the same shape as the upper torso and sew it on the inside?

Since it's a two piece bodice (or it looks to be) it should't be that difficult. Lay the dress flat on the ground and stretch it out a bit until it's flat. Lay tracing paper over it and trace the front in back. Add seam allowances to the sides, shoulders, hem and possibly neckline (it won't fray so it's up to you). Then you have your lining pattern.

Sew together the side seams and shoulder seams. Then turn it inside out (wrong sides together) and hand sew it into your dress. (Tack it down at the sides, neckline, arms, and waistline) It shouldn't be too difficult.

>>6489353
Ugh so much this. I went shopping for winter clothing and chiffon blouses were everywhere. They look wonderful on a hanger but that shit does not work on a human body unless it has something underneath it. Why someone would pay $30~$40 for a shirt that needs a shirt underneath it is beyond me.

Op just make a slip. Then if you buy any more skank dresses you won't have to deal with this again

>>6489426
And they just fucking hang there. It's so hard to find anything that fits close to the body or streamlines the body anymore because of this stupid blocky shapeless trend. I hate that peplums are coinciding with that trend because I love peplums and the small-waist-big-hips illusion they give but so many peplums are paired with the blocky shirt trend that it messes that effect up.

>>6489428
-the stretch of your white jersey may be different from the dress
-you have to hand stitch it in
-probably not worth it for the comparative effort involved with buying or making a slip.

>>6489312
You could also wear a long sleeved white shirt underneath. If I were you I'd be scared of ruining it, especially since it'll be your first time sewing.

>>6489428
In theory, yes, but it's more difficult with stretchy fabrics because you have to cut them exactly the same with the grain-lines matching and such, otherwise they'll stretch in different directions. And because the dress is already finished, you'd have to take it apart to put the lining in. You may as well just make the dress in your fabric and transplant the collar. It'd be quicker.

I've got dis dress OP. isn't it fucking annoying how it has that "bib" thing inside? You can clearly see from the outside that it's lined down to about your chest and then you're naked under it (semi).

>>6489355
I have this problem with t-shirts too. So many tshirts from forever21/urban outfitters/etc look really cute online or in a dressing room, but as soon as you hit direct sunlight they are COMPLETELY see through. My boyfriend once pointed out that I'd been walking around in a translucent shirt all day, and I was mortified.

>>6489799
brb laughing

It's called a facing. It's found in almost every decent garment that has an open neckline or sleeveless arms.

It's keeps the shape of the neckline/armsyces from stretching out through wear.

There's lots of things to pick about cheap shitty fashion but a facing ain't one.

>>6489805
No, you don't understand. It doesn't have any real purpose, the collar keeps the neckline in check pretty well because it's made of cotton, not the same jersey fabric the rest of it is made of. I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't so inexplicably long. It's like, when I put it on, the dress is saying "LOOK A BIT LOWER, THIS IS WHERE THE TITS ARE"

I bought this dress from F21 earlier this year. it's completely made of chiffon, and the skirt is all hanging square panels. They don't connect, so if you move the wrong way it completely shows my ass. it's also really thin with a shitty lace lining, so even if I wear nude underwear they still somehow show. Fuck cheap clothing, it's cheap for a reason.

>>6489818
>dat leg showing through the sheet fabric

In all seriousness, I can't stand this kind of style either... I bought a button up from Papaya that I thought was pretty cute but I didn't realize that the back area was made in a way that would show off the entirety of my back if I shifted the two fabrics (there was a slight overlapping section and then SKIN). It's like... Is showing the bra strap hot fashion or something? Or maybe they're hoping for a lack of bra with this kind of shirt...

>>6489826
>sheet = sheer

>>6489812
Uh, >>6489805 is right. It's called a facing. You have to put them in if the garment isn't lined. It's hitting above your boobs because the neckline is low, so they just cut straight across to the armhole without curving up. The collar is irrelevant; without a facing you'd just have to hem the neckline, and then it would roll horribly and the collar/neck wouldn't lie flat.

I've gotten to the point where I've given up and don't give a flying poop about my back showing (I;ve worn a really seethrough blouse with a nude bra before but it was reaalllyy hot so I didn't care). I do mind about seethrough skirts though, and if there's lining on the bottom part of a dress but not the torso part, cause then slightly seeing my bra looks odd.

>>6489830
I think you need to see it. It's not attached to anything. They didn't just not cut a part of it. It really is a weird bib hanging off the collar.

>>6489799

YES, THAT FUCKING WEIRD ASS BIB THING
WHY IS IT EVEN THERE?

What did you end up doing with your dress? Because I mean, you simply can't wear it.

>>6489830

Yeah, OP here. You don't really understand what we mean. There is absolutely no purpose to it being there. You have to see to understand. I might put it on and take a picture.

>>6489894
>>6489841
THAT WEIRD BIB THING KEEPS THE COLLAR FROM LOOKING RETARDED. YOU CAN HAVE A COLLAR MADE OF GOD'S PUBES AND IT WOULD STILL LOOK LIKE SHIT WITHOUT A FACING TO UNDERSTITCH IT TOO.

Not angry, just trying to make it clear.

As pattern maker, you just have a big facing on a dress that was poorly thought out.

It's a shit dress for a shit price. Post photos if you want, but I'm 100% certain it's just a facing.

>>6489897
I can see it in the OP pic. Definitely a facing.

>>6489911
>Collar made out of God's pubes
I choked on my drink

>>6489894
It's in a pile of stuff I'm going to alter or use for other things. I thought I might dye it a different colour, at least that way it might not be so see through.

>>6489911
DAMMIT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND. I HAVE SEVERAL DRESSES IN THIS STYLE AND I KNOW WHAT YOU THINK IT IS AND PERHAPS IT IS MEANT TO BE THAT BUT IT JUST BLOODY ISN'T IT'S A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME AND CAPSLOCK IT JUST BLOODY SITS THERE BEING WRINKLY AND INTRUSIVE

also not mad

>>6491180

I didn't know what the fuck "facings" were until I picked up on some gothic lolita bible patterns. I made a bunch of bodices without the facing (especially sweetheart tops) and wondered why they kept puckering, wrinkling, etc (pretty much looking ugly). Now I know and I am so HAPPY to find it in my clothes.

>>6489911
Facing or not, it looks fucking terrible. Call it what you will, whatever, but it sucks.