/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

>>7466180
Lots of A-line dresses are sweet! For example, Baby's Dreamy Pony, Baby's Juicy Baby Love Love Berries, Innocent World's Chocolate Fountain...

A lot of people tend to confuse substyles with themes, it seems. OTT is not a substyle, it's a theme. Same with country, kuro, shiro, guro...

There are some gray areas, though. I used to think sailor and hime were just themes, but now they've got lots dresses specifically made for that style... I'm not sure exactly what they are anymore.

I can tell you what I'm freaking sick of
>cupcake petti
>"Oh this must be for a sweet coord!"
>no cupcake petti
>"Oh, not sweet then."
Just, augh. This is what happens when people try to classify things but in the process create sweeping generalizations.
I have trouble pulling off cupcake pettis (they always look like globs of poof on me) but I love the shape of a-lines and wear it with almost every sweet coord I own. I think it brings a more 'elegant' feel to sweet coordinates.

Also oh my god that chart makes me cringe.

>>7466191
I think that sailor for the most part still falls somewhere between classic and sweet in terms of style and does not warrant consideration for its own section as of yet. A style only really becomes a style when you can have something that is distinctly different from the other three existing ones and still maintain the lolita aesthetic.
Pic related is (imo) examples of sailor pieces that can easily fit into sweet, classic, and (to a lesser extent) gothic respectively.

Just my opinion:
I think there is Sweet, Classic and Gothic ( and maybe Punk) for the actual sub styles. If something isn't obviously one of these then it's themed. Themes are everything else but still will fall into a main substyle. How you style things will determine where they land within the substyles if not clearly defined.

>>7466252
That middle seifuku looks so pretty.

>>7466218
Do you wear a-lines with cupcake skirts?
I feel like such a noob but petticoats confuse me. I didn't even know if I had an aline or cupcake for awhile, because I wore it under all my sweet skirts and thought it looked fine. Sometimes I wear a shorter one under it to give some poof at the top

>>7466252
God I love sailor loli. I want to wear it exclusively.

>>7466290
>cupcake skirts
There really is no such thing.
There is no kind of skirt that demands a cupcake petti and nothing else.

>>7466252
But the distinct difference IS the sailor collar, plus all the sailor prints are everything but sweet or classic

>>7466252
By your definition gothic isn't a own style as well because it is always the same shape as sweet and classic.

>>7466320
Yes and no. Something can be sailor lolita without having a sailor collar, pic related. But it still falls somewhere under the umbrella of the big three. Also sailor prints still fall under the umbrella. The example you gave me is leaning towards classic. Also print motif does not automatically establish style.

>>7466325
I didn't say anything about shape? What makes a style a style is an intersection of colour palette/motif (and by extension prints)/cut and general trends within each faction.

>>7466290
No. What >>7466311 said is about what I was going to say. If you don't want the cupcake look, an A-line petti will look just as fine under a gathered skirt. The petti is what makes the shape with gathered skirts, not the skirt itself. However, A-line skirts will not fit a cupcake petti, due to the narrowness at the hips in a true A-line pattern.

>>7466396
So according to you gothic doesn't exist as well because it is always only defined by the motif, the shape is still always classic or sweet.

>>7467840
Shape can refer to things other than the skirt, you know... even sweet and classic aren't always cupcake or a-line.

>>7467840
On that note I'd like to ask where the line goes from a black classic coord to gothic? I think you're saying that the motifs in gothic are the most important part, right? So by that do you mean the crosses and skulls and nun collars? How do you categorize it if it doesn't have those things?
Someone told me that this isn't gothic, this is black sweet. Is that because of the bows? Can gothic have bows?

>>7466218
I've worn my cupcake petti with gothic lolita before, but the dresses really called for it.

>>7467855
Gothic can have bows but it's not that common/wouldn't normally have that many bows however this looks like someone is using a sweet black dress and styling it gothic (gold chain, headdress, sheer tights). I think it would be easiest to call it Kuro. Another thing plain black gothic brand dresses are not always cotton they are more often velvet (or contains some velvet), chiffon etc.

>>7466180
I wish old school gothic was included and it said their favourite music was Sisters Of Mercy or Bauhaus etc.

I think some dresses can be worn for different styles depending on how it's coordinated.
Like a black AP dress could be a gothic coord depending on how it's styled and how big of a poof you go, or could be dolled up as a sweet outfit. A Meta dress with flowers could be sweet or classic depending on how it's coordinated.

And I also agree that the cut and style of the dress itself also lends a hand to want style it'd work for. IW has a lot of dresses that would be kind of difficult to make into a sweet coord.

>>7467840
Why are you so hell-bent on misreading what I say to make gothic not a substyle.

Gothic IS a substyle because it has its own distinct colour palette (black, white, dark jewel tones), distinct set of motifs, and distinct design features.

Also there is no "sweet" or "classic" shape. Bell and A-line skirts are distributed fairly evenly across the substyles.

I just consider sweet/classic/gothic the only styles and everything else falls between those lines and outfits can incorporate traits from all three styles.

Substyles/themes are the same concept and it's acceptable to build your wardrobe around one theme. Onl6 reason that I think of that is because if sailor is a style, then chocolate would have to be too.

>>7467855
With the cross motifs, the headdress, and those shoes, I wouldn't call this sweet at all.

>>7467855
Yeah I'd say that dress on it's own is sweet, or even hime, but that coord is deffo gothic

Is she wearing a leg garter on her head?

>looking for black colorways of certain prints

Oh no problem, I'll just look at the bittersweet tag!

>i've made a huge mistake

whoever in the west brought that single thought into existance to call black colorways bittersweet needs to be strangled. Creepy cute is not bittersweet, creepy cute is just a stupid theme you can add to any fashion, not just lolita. Bittersweet is just OTT sweet with a black colorway print, it does not involve eyeballs and bats or whatever other special snowflakes fell into your brain when you first heard the word 'bittersweet' in relation to lolita.

>>7467949
>>7468022
Alright, so if she didn't have the necklace or the crosses, that would be sweet?
I'm not sure if I'd agree on the shoes, since I've seen a decent amount of sweet with heels. They're so plain that I'd say they were neutral. Now if they were huge chunky Mana hooves, certainly.

I've heard someone say that the easiest way to tell is to swap the colors in your head to pastels, and decide if the coord would still make sense. Then it'd be sweet. But I think that trick would be harder for classic?

Is this gothic or classic? What if her blouse and tights were black?

>>7468083
Even if it were all black, it's really gothic accessories/elements that make something that rather than just kuro...but this one is throwing me too, since the black-on-black rose motif and cross necklace do drive it in that direction. From your thumb I was all set to say classic. I guess it is classic but with gothic influence

>>7468083
I'd call that a swing and a miss personally no matter what style she was going for

>>7468079
I think rather than thinking that something is one or the other you think that maybe it's sweet with gothic styling. Like I would describe some of my own coordinates as sweet with classic styling- so I'd be more inclined to accessorize in a classic way (heels, lace details, classic cut blouses) as opposed to classic sweet which is more like Baby's (I tend to think of it as what might have been traditionally thought of as sweet compared to what is considered sweet today).

I wish there would be Natural Lolita coords, I almost forgot about the style until I had to lookup the japanese lolita fashion wikipedia page again.

>>7467917
>Gothic IS a substyle because it has its own distinct colour palette (black, white, dark jewel tones), distinct set of motifs, and distinct design features.
But Sailor Lolita got that as well yet you say it isn't a style.

>>7468693
I think you're sort of wrong. Sailor only has to have certain motifs, sailor collar and maybe nautical themes are the only things, where as actual substyles need a lot more going on with them.

>>7468707
>where as actual substyles need a lot more going on with them.
Actually, no, best example for that is still gothic.

>>7466288
>seifuku

Why do so many people misuse this word.

A seifuku is like a japanese sailor school uniform.

That's just a sailor-collar dress.

They're different.

>>7468763
This. Fuku means uniform.

I think the biggest problem in this thread has nothing to do with the clothes. There is an obsessive need in the loli community to label everything and put it nearly into a box. Often coords don't do this. They fit more into a benn diagram incorporating multiple styles and themes rather than fitting nearly all into one description.
I find it weird that so many are unable to accept that an outfit can be both good and difficult to pigeonhole.
I wonder if the Japanese community is as obsessed with labeling everything or just prefer to wear good outfits.

>>7469009
>I wonder if the Japanese community is as obsessed with labeling everything or just prefer to wear good outfits.
It is pretty much the same, best example for that is the japanese wiki page for lolita but they care less about the guidelines besides wearing a petti.

>>7469014
Not really, they care a bit more about guidelines and less about what one substyle a coord fits into, multiple maybe but still.

>>7469018
That's sure why all japanese lolita guideline articles say the opposite, totally forgot that.

>>7469009
Neatly*
Venn diagram*
I hate spellcheck.

>>7469027
Could you please rephrase?

>>7468693
Show me a sailor lolita coord that is uniquely sailor and does not fit into the category of either gothic, classic, or sweet.

>>7469042
Same goes for you, please show me something gothic that doesn't fit into the category sweet or classic without the mortifs.

>>7469042
See
>>7466320
And if you count this as sweet or classic, you obviously got no clue how those styles are defined.

>>7468707
No? The basic shape is always the same for each style, there is no more if you take the accessory shit and prints away.

>>7469042
>distinct color palette
white, black and navy at sailor
>distinct set of motifs
Anchors, fishes, boats, etc
>distinct design features
sailor collars, sailor hats

>>7469040
Basicly: You are wrong and should maybe consider reading the japanese lolita guidelines, everything besides the petticoat is not neccessary.

>>7468079
It's not just that they're heels, but they look like booties, and to me those kinds of boots are associated with more gothic looks.

>>7468098
I agree with this. The bag especially swings it into classic for me, and something about the choice of leg/footwear maybe... it's inbetween somewhere.

>>7469058
What?

>>7466252
Where can I find that middle dress/what is it called?
I am in love.

>>7474437
I want to know this too!

>>7474437
That's Victorian Maiden, I believe

>>7474437
>>7474493
It's Victorian Maiden, but I can't remember the name. They've done at least two releases of it that I can recall.

>>7469064
>white, black and navy at sailor
Forgot red! Don't forget red!

Also I'd say stripes are also a "motif" of sailor... or rather, a pattern?

>>7474437
>>7474493
http://lolibrary.org/apparel/classic-marine-jsk
paired with http://lolibrary.org/apparel/british-marine-tippet-2014

>>7474503
>>7474505
>>7474542
Thanks!