/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

I was going to make a joke about how you didn't have a face, and then I opened the pic

lol'd hard

>>6662316
>>6662308
... I was... just... get out of my head anon

>>6662316
>>6662318
mission accomplished

>>6662325
>>6662308
I thought this chick was scamming... I mean... the dress looks so bad on that dummy... and you didn't even use the WORST picture showing just how filthy that door is...

I really thought she was trying to scam... and even then, AP tags can be sewn in...

... did she take it down?

Is this a replica at least?
Treating brand like that...ugh.

>>6662354
Nope, it's still up for me?

I was wondering the same thing though, but dunno CC's max.

>>6662359
Nope, supposedly legit

>>6662354
ah i see it again, scratch that

>>6662308
Can we turn this into sales horror thread??? So Janitor doesn't delete.

I see sellers complaining about this... but as a buyer if you don't have measurements listed, a worn picture (if the item is NOT new, please note) or just GOOD proof photos... Yes I will ask you questions, and yes I will ask for more photos. And I'm not sorry if you get pissed off when I don't buy it because guess what, you didn't represent the item properly in the first place...

>>6662380
Measurements, definitely. Good proof pics, sure. A worn pic... eh. Especially if it's new, or not suiting, I'd decline.

>>6662362
She should be shot.

>>6662387
I said... if the item is NOT new...

and obviously this would be something like a JSK or a skirt (I'm not asking for a worn picture just for me, I'm saying ifyou say 'Worn half a dozen times!' you probably have a worn picture) and not like... shoes.

And also note I didn't say I expected to be provided a worn photo, just that I would ask for one. And if your proof photo is good enough, then I probably won't ask anyway.

>>6662390
Saddest thing is, she's selling it supposedly never worn because... she's too fat to fit it:

>"bought this and it didn’t fit me and its been 6 months and it still doesn’t so im selling it"

Oh my God that room looks so fucking dank and dirty and disturbing and other bad words that begin with D, Jesus fuck.

>>6662380
Measurements, proof pics and good photos/descriptions of any wear or damage. From least to most important, honestly.

>>6662394
You know that means she's tried to cram herself in it, and it's all stretched out probably with seams ripping. With the shirring stretched all the way on that mannequin there's got to be some damage.

>>6662406
Likely. She's trying to get $300 for it- idk how much pink goes for but I think it's the least popular, right?

>>6662394
I can't really make fun of that because I know that feel.
>this is so cute! I'll use it to motivate me to get thin!

>>6662420
I mean, I'm also a fatty-chan, but I don't wreck dresses and then sell them as "never worn." That's the bad part here.

>>6662426
I agree. But if you put yourself in her shoes, you'd probably want all of your money back, too. She'll probably justify it by saying she never wore it out.
Not saying I condone it, but I understand it.

Shirring is meant to be "stretched," calm your titties ladies. As long as she's not stretching it past a certain point it'll flex right back down to normal size again.

The Chess Chocolate jabot jsk is actually a very popular plus size piece. And OP's pic isn't a repica, you can tell by the waist bow, back ties, and the jabot itself.

The official measurements say
92cm bust
and 72 cm waist, but amateur measurements have estimated that it can be stretched to a max of 130cm.

>>6662428
I mean, I want a lot of things. I want Rain to be my bangmaid, and I want scotch to come out of my water faucet, and I want kneesocks to look cute on me. But we can't always get what we want, and if you damage a dress, you have decreased its value, and you won't (or at least shouldn't) get all your money back.

>>6662420
>>6662426
>>6662428
all of this could have been avoided 100% if she had NOT taken the picture on her dummy...

>>6662434
Stretched. Not stretched completely out.

>>6662435 is correct- when the shirring is THAT stretched, the dress is irreparably stretched out and that needs to be reflected in price.

someone make a secret post about this bitch, please.

>>6662445
No it's not.
The only time an item becomes damaged is if you overstretched it past it's durability point and seams start to snap and distort.
The shirring on that dress can be safely stretched to at least 120cm, and I highly doubt that dummy is that big.
>Source: A friend of mine with a 112cm bust resold that in mint without any problems and nobody complained of stretching.
She was just smart enough to put it on a hanger and take a picture instead of putting it on a dummy like that.

>>6662458
yeah... and we know the girl in question was too big for it... it's not really about the dummy... it's about the fact the girl stated she's too big. So she must have attempted to wear it... and looking at the state of her... room? I think it's safe to assume she didn't stop at 'oh wow this is obviously too small' and took it off... especially since she says something about '6 months and still doesn't fit' meaning she tried it on multiple times...

>>6662463
If the girl is bigger than the dress then, logically, if the dummy were the same size as her the dress wouldn't be able to fit on it. That dressform is adjustable.

Her trying it on twice wouldn't have ruined or damaged the dress in any way unless she had popped a seam or fatigued the shirring, which would take a lot more than one or two wears. But I'm willing to bet if she took it off the dummy and just took a picture of the dress hanging it would still look normal and not warped. The dressform was a poor choice.

I'm also not agreeing with the price. I think since she tried it on then she shouldn't be selling it as new. But it is a popular print and I don't blame her for wanting to get some of her money back for something she didn't really get to enjoy.

>>6662474
Uh, if you've ever tried something on that was too small seams tend to pop accidentally pretty much on the first try on. And that's with things that are 1 or 2 sizes too small.

>>6662481
She mentioned no popped seams and sellers do generally mention that because people can leave legitimate negative feedback for it if their item was advertised as new but turned out with damages. So if there are any popped seams on it she could get in some deep shit feedback wise.

>>6662474
ELASTIC GETS DAMAGED DUE TO ANY STRETCHING. Are you stupid? Her simply putting it on the dress form for these pictures is going to cause it to be stretched out somewhat. It has potentially increased the min measurement by 2-3 cm.

>>6662488
Except this is a tumblr sale, so she really doesn't need to worry about feedback...

>>6662493
>are you stupid?
Are you? Something won't get extreme damage like seams popping with one or two try-ons unless she was extremely careless and tore it off her body rapidly.

As someone said, this wouldn't even be an issue had she not used a dressform to take a picture of the dress.

>>6662498
Well then I guess there are plenty of fatties and noobs who will buy it then without asking those sorts of questions.

>>6662493
>ELASTIC GETS DAMAGED DUE TO ANY STRETCHING
Any stretching? Not the same anon but that's an exaggeration.

>>6662488
Not the anon you're talking to, but that's pretty naive. Most lolitas don't do an accurate or thorough inspection of the wear on their garments.

>>6662513
The buyers should though, and if they have a damaged item when they paid for it new then they should dispute. And if they can't recognize damages well...

>>6662488
...

Did you see her fucking room and the dirty smears on the damn door?

>dis gurl will totes mention damage!

yeah...

>>6662522
So because her room is dirty that affects her credibility of telling the truth? Interesting. As long as the dress isn't dirty and isn't touching the smears I wouldn't care if I were interested in that dress.

>>6662503
>>6662518
People don't deserve to get ripped off because they're new to the fashion. Selling this dress as "never worn" is bullshit.

>>6662530
>Selling this dress as "never worn" is bullshit.
I never said I agreed with the price she's advertising it for.

>>6662525
>As long as the dress isn't touching the smears I wouldn't care if I were interested in that dress.
>mfw dress is clearly touching dirty door and mask in second pic

>>6662535
That's what people are arguing against. Obviously you can sell whatever damaged shit you please as long as you don't pretend it's not damaged and price it accordingly.

>>6662538
Selling it as "used" and "damaged" are two separate things though, and I'm sorry but until someone inspects it and sees if it's damaged it doesn't appear to be. And just because the dressform appears to max out the shirring doesn't mean it's overstretching it.

>>6662545
Did you not read?

About how she said the dress doesn't fit her. Which means she is BIGGER than the dummy. And she said over the course of 6 months it still didn't fit her. Which means she tried it on multiple times and it still didn't fit.

You dumb son?

>>6662545
Fine, you object to our imprecise use of "wear" and "damage." It has "wear." It is not "never worn."

Now please stop grasping at straws to make this excusable.

>>6662552
I've tried things on that were smaller than me once or twice and didn't do any damages to them.
You've got to be one clumsy asshat to do damage to something you've only tried on twice.
Especially if you were careful about putting it on and taking it off.

>>6662553
>Now please stop grasping at straws to make this excusable

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm just informing you it's possible to try on clothes that don't necessarily fit you without ruining them, and as I previously said I did have a problem with her listing it as "new" when she has tried it on.

>>6662555
Yeah, I look at the shit stains on the wall and think 'this is a considerate and careful person!'

>>6662354

That looks legit. It has the crown lace and the metallic golden sheen on the detailing. Most replicas I've seen don't have these.

I've got Chess Chocolate, and whilst I don't use the shirring, a friend of mine trying it on remarked on how stiff the shirring is, so it may well be altered.

>>6662557
Okay. So you "have informed us." Why do you keep fucking arguing?

>>6662558
I'm sorry you feel that way but like I said until someone inspects the dress it's just speculation and nobody will actually know if it's damaged or not.
It's as simple as not buying the thing if you think it's a shady deal. I don't see the issue besides the condition listing here.

>>6662558
and before you jump on me for judging her think about how she decided to take those pictures with that filth clearly visible and didn't think twice about putting them on the internet... multiple pictures at that.

>>6662560
No shit it's just speculation, and this is just /cgl/, not civil claims court.

>>6662560
>It's as simple as not buying the thing if you think it's a shady deal.
Again, no, because there are naive girls new to the fashion on Tumblr and they don't deserve to get ripped off either. What she is doing is wrong, and it's not wrong to call her out on it.

>>6662563
Because you keep calling me things like "stupid" and giving me examples to the contrary to my points. What else do you expect me to do but to give you more instances to the contrary?

>>6662565
I don't know what to think about that or if she thinks that's normal. That's not how I would conduct advertising the things I sell. If someone wants that dress enough then they will buy it, and if they think the conditions are grimy or that she's a liar they won't.

>>6662570
So wait, you're picking on me for bringing up points and treating cgl like a "claims court" yet you also want cgl to play as fashion police for every naive girl about to hop into buying their first dress? I don't understand you.

And second of all I'm not saying it's "wrong" or not to call her out on the listing condition. It is correct to say the dress has in fact been worn or used if it's been tried on. But it's bullshit to say that the dress is "damaged" when we really can't prove that.

>>6662569
>Because you keep calling me things like "stupid" and giving me examples to the contrary to my points. What else do you expect me to do but to give you more instances to the contrary?
First of all, it is not just one person arguing with you. Second of all, just fucking walk away! If you've said everything you needed to say, just walk away. I don't understand why you are so committed to proving that she possibly didn't do any damage to the dress she clearly respects enough to stretch out on a dressform and push up against a filthy door.

>>6662574
You have made your asspained little point about "worn" vs "damaged" already. Not everyone agrees. Staying here to counter every post that disagrees with you won't change any hearts or minds.

P.S. Seriously it is not just one person arguing with you.

>>6662575
And you could also not respond to me then if there's nothing more to be said, js. I don't have an obligation to end the conversation just because you're getting frustrated that I won't accept the "damaged" argument. And in the other anon's case are resorting to namecalling.

>>6662581
Dude I don't have to stop speaking just because you don't want me to be around when you quote my posts to disagree with them.
You can do your part to end the convo and stop replying too if you're this buttmad.

>>6662582
I just find your zealous defense of this girl bizarre. But now that you've resorted to
>lol u frustrated
it doesn't look like you'll be making your high-minded arguments for scamming anymore. Oh well.

>>6662588
You are frustrated, I can tell.
I don't get your zealous attack on this girl and trying to write her off as a "scammer" now just because she has a dirty door and took a picture of her dress on a plus-size dressform when unofficial measurements have clocked the max shirring of that dress at 130cm anyway.

And here I am just disagreeing with you in a civil manner on a few things and you're talking to me like you're chewing your tongue.
No idea what your problem is.

>>6662593
NSA

I'm a fattychan. My bust size is 109cm. I tried a BTSSB jsk with shirring on and know what happened? It stretched it slightly. My sister had tried it on previously and it was a snug fit. After I tried it on, she could fit 2 fingers in the bust. That shirring should have stretched to 115-120cm when stretched according to amateurs and I still slightly damaged it.
This girl is ABOVE 130cm all round and you think she didn't do any damage?
The more and more you reply, you sound like a fellow fatty-Chan but in denial about what your size is actually doing to your clothes.
Anything that places stress on the fabric IS damaging.

>>6662637
>The more and more you reply, you sound like a fellow fatty-Chan but in denial about what your size is actually doing to your clothes

Except I had a friend with 112cm bust and she didn't damage it...? And actually resold it to someone smaller than her who didn't complain about it?

And a BTSSB jsk has different measurements than this dress, I don't see how you can compare two separate dresses with completely different fits and measures.

Turning this into a shady sellers thread.

Was watching this blouse on ebay but ended up deciding not to bid on it, and saw it end today at 34 GBP:

>http://www.ebay.com/itm/261175458877?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

However, a couple hours later I'm on tumblr, see a sales post link with an awfully familiar photo... and:

>http://egl-comm-sales.livejournal.com/20727751.html

Here the seller is trying to sell the blouse again for 2 times the auction's ending price.

I'm curious whether the ebay buyer backed out, or the seller is just refusing to sell it for that little and relisting it on the commsales for about double. But isn't backing out of an auction like that against ebay's terms? Not to mention, relisting it for double what the auction went for.

Just smells fishy to me.

>>6666972
>But isn't backing out of an auction like that against ebay's terms?

I thought so. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. The seller can't just say that the item went for "too low" of a price and say to the buyer "Oh sorry, you can't actually have that." There's a minimum bid for a reason if they were paranoid of it selling too low to begin with.

It is fishy, but I really can't tell if the egl seller is the same seller from ebay. They're both from the UK and they're both using the same photo..

>>6666984
They have the same username on tumblr (where they link the egl post) and ebay, and the same proof photo; they must be:

http://allofthemwitchs.tumblr.com/post/44495887704/selling-many-things-an-innocent-world-blouse-an

>>6666984
Not exactly the same username actually, now that look again; but a very, very similar one.

>>6662362
Chess Chocolate Jabot apparently goes up to 130cm. It's stretched on the dressform, but not entirely maxed out. But she said it didn't fit her, so I imagine on her, it's even tighter. Just hang it up and take a picture over some curtains or something. What gets me is the messy surroundings and the icky door. Like, why would you even post that? Do something to make it look nice and presentable! Ugh!

>>6666984
I double checked and yeah that's definitely the same seller. No idea what's going on there.

>>6666972
Well then wtf is she doing selling a blouse that she already sold? Unless she has two of them and is just too lazy to take a second photo. She's got some explaining to do.

>>6667003
I would ask on the sales post, but you know how the mods are about 'calling out' on sales posts...

>>6667003
I highly doubt she has two of them... especially with no mention of such between 3 posts, and only 1 proof photo..

>>6666972
I saw that, she put it up on LJ before the auction had even ended.

>>6667554
Really? I didn't actually check the timestamps so I didn't notice that part...

Definitely shady then, there's no way a buyer could have backed out if that's the case :/

>>6662981
The point seems to have completely bypassed you.

No matter the brand, shirring works the same way - as you get closer to the max stretch of the shirring, the chances of damaging it are increased. Above anon was several cm below the max and still stretched it slightly.
The original seller couldn't even fit into the max shirring (which at 130cm max, makes her a fat fuck) so the chances of her damaging it are very high and almost guaranteed.

>>6667554
If I was the ebay high bidder, I'd sure be pissed right now. Wonder if the bidder has seen that post/knows what's up yet. The commsales post doesn't show it sold yet, so...

>>6667003
Maybe she just had a friend win her own auction? Because it was going for so low... Shady seller, I'll take note to never buy anything from her.

>>6667583
>so the chances of her damaging it are very high and almost guaranteed
Chance? Yes.
Can you prove it is actually damaged? Absolutely not.

>>6666984
I've fucking had someone back out like that. What a cunt, she was just butthurt it went for so low. Reported her obviously.
But of course ebay didn't do anything about it.

>>6671268
ebay is just absolute crap at this point, and etsy is going that way too, neither will stick to any of their public TOS. Usually though, it's the seller they screw over so it seems odd that they didn't do anything on your part...

On a related note, just had this pop up on my dash. All they had to say was "it's too short"
I wonder why

>>6674658
looks worse than PT's... wow and that took a lot to say that

>>6674658

Aren't salopettes meant to be loose, not close fitted like a JSK?

>>6674658
Maybe if she wore a corset...?
I'm really confused because she looks smaller than PT, at least her arms look thinner.
How does that work?

>>6674658

Lol, why do these cows think this fits them?

>>6674658

maybe she intended it to be a better fit if it were longer?

I dont think she is huge, its just too tight on her for her weight. If anyone wore something that was too tight its going to be unflattering..

>>6674658
>mfw I was the one that bought it from her
>mfw I have no face

i've recieved it, and its not really stretched at all.