/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

imo casual lolita isn't a T-shirt and a skirt, it's a simple, jsk or skirt, maybe non print, with a simple blouse or dressier cutsew, with a straw boater, subtly patterned legwear or ankle socks, and simple shoes such as plain Mary Janes or oxfords

>>8985977
So just a coord that's toned down?

>>8985977
Do you have a picture example? Because what you're describing right now sounds like normal lolita to me.

>>8985981
That's not even toned down, that's the kind of stuff that WAS a normal coord back in the day. The fashion has gotten very OTT in recent years.

>>8985974
I think a big part of casual lolita comes down to the top being worn with it. The top, whether it's a cutsew or a blouse, should match the skirt in color and theme (if applicable), and should be a suitable cut (not too loose or baggy and not skintight either). This is the area I always see casual coords fall down in.

It doesn't have to be really frilly, I mean you can wear a plain camisole-type top with a color-matched skirt as long as it fits well and isn't too low-cut, and you could pair it with a cute cardigan or something to get some layers going and so your arms don't feel too exposed (unless you're dying of the heat). Camisole-cardigan combos are really cute in casual.

>>8985985
The OTT thread has loads of replies about how this fashion was inspired by rococo, a fashion where girls were constantly trying to top each other.
OTT should be the typical definition here.
Anything less would be then, toning it down.
You forget that lolita is already something that sticks out like a sore thumb. Making it casual would be toning it down so to speak.

>>8985991
Lolita was never originally inspired by rococo, it grew from the same branch as otome and, if anything, takes inspiration from Victorian girl's clothing.

So no, OTT isn't the baseline or typical definition. OTT wasn't even a thing in the fashion until about 2008/2009, or at least it wasn't at all widespread, and even then it was only sweet. OTT classic, which would better suit the "rococo" aesthetic didn't really emerge until much later than that.

>>8985977
This is just regular lolita.

>>8985992
Should probably add that I don't dislike OTT by any means, but it's not the standard.

>>8985991
Oldschool lolita was also sticking like a sore thumb, however it wasn't OTT at all, at least by nowadays' standards. And it was more about "looking like a porcelain doll" than putting on every frill possible. You can look like a porcelain doll while dressing up or down, it doesn't matter how ott/casual it is.

>>8986007
This is really useful! Thank you for this.

>>8986007
This is awesome. I wish they were all same style/same color palette.

>>8986007
First two: Casual
Third: Casual-ish
Fourth and fifth: Regular lolita
Sixth: OTT-ish
Last two: OTT

>>8986007
I like that this runs the whole scale from wearing a lolita garment in a non-lolita outfit to wearing every frill in a five mile radius. Thanks for sharing!

>>8985998
But lolita itself is in fact, over the top compared to everyone else.
Also, everything I've read says it was inspired by rococo and Victorian fashion.
I believe there's even a line about it in Kamikaze Girls?

>>8986014
okay but what are you basing this off of and why should we listen to you?

>>8985994
There were zero accessories talked about in that post so no.

>>8986033
not that anon but I would say it is based off of common sense

>>8986031
Takemoto brought in the Rococo bit to talk about the decadent lifestyle, but not the clothes themselves. Whether or not he made this up himself or if it popped up elsewhere, I'm unsure. I could be wrong, but there IS zero resemblance between the base fashion and rococo, it's a non-radical element of Lolita. It came mostly from victorian fashion and, much as people like to reject it, looking doll-like.

Of course, fashion evolves and something of a Rococo aesthetic wouldn't be out of place in the modern classic wardrobe, but it wasn't originally there. I personally like it, though I don't wear it myself.

>>8986010
make it then

>>8986042
This is supposed to be a discussion thread. Not a "watch me shut every comment down with simplistic ideals"
Explain the common sense part or can you not?

>>8986052
And why don't you try to explain what you have against that classification if it is not common sense?

>>8986007
The third one is now what is considered casual today. It's very hard so get away with just a t-shirt with casual these days.

>>8986034
And accessories have something to do with it being regular lolita? "Accessories" are not a part of lolita silhouette (except headwear)

>>8986070
Because I'm trying to learn the differences between lolita and casual lolita.
Especially since every time someone attempts casual lolita, every gull comes swooping down to let them person know that they didn't do casual lolita and that their outfit isn't even lolita now. And no one ever backs it up. It's almost as if people just pull opinions out of their ass and slap it on the internet because that's more fun than actually speaking about something.

>>8986076
>someone posts a simple coord with no accessories
>SHE SHOULD COVER HER BARE WRISTS
explain.

>>8986047
kek no

>>8986007
Would be awesome if someone did this with their own wardrobe.

>>8986081
Wristcuffs are an accessory that are inherently lolita, however they are not part of lolita silhouette imho. They can be used to make some coords look more "balanced" so some coords may look incomplete without them, however they are not required most of the time.

>>8986079
>every gull comes swooping down to let them person know that they didn't do casual lolita
The duration of the average gull is two years, with new lolitas joining us all the time, who think casual lolita is #4 >>8986007 because they're used to #8 being the norm, since most newcomers only dress lolita for events nowadays.

>>8986097
Seems like people want something there more often than not.

>>8986103
Then why even have this thread?

>>8986104
See >>8986103

>>8986109
see
>>8986105

>>8986079
I think lolita handbook is spot on and still relevant on this topic.

>>8986113
Then why don't more people here go by it?

>>8986110
I'm not the OP?

>>8986114
How new are you?

>>8986114
see >>8986103

>>8986103
This x10000

>>8986121
They don't go by it though. Which is what I was talking about in the first place?

>>8986137
Answer the question newfag.

>>8986103
>The duration of the average gull is two years
Well the oldfags need to come out of the wood work and give us their authoritative opinion.

>>8986139
I've been posting on 4chan since 2008.

>>8986141
They were asking how new you are to lolita, not 4chan, you idiot..

>>8986031
My instinctual reaction to this is "Are you new?"

Rococo gets tossed around like a buzzword a lot for lolita fashion but the Rococo influence really wasn't evident in the fashion when it began. Lolita was around for at least a decade before Kamikaze girls.

>>8986148
>They were asking how new you are to lolita, not 4chan, you idiot..
Then they should learn to specify.

>>8986151
It was inspired by Victorian fashion, too, which, was still a time when, girls were trying to out do each other. Again. Go see the OTT thread, they are having the other side of this conversation that everyone here is trying to disagree with for some fucking reason.

You're fucking delusional if you think that lolita itself isn't an OTT fashion.

>>8986509
>This much autism

Do you think oldschool lolita is OTT? Something being unusual or attention grabbing does not mean it is OTT. Please get out.

I think there's a bit of confusion concerning casual lolita. Mainly because it branches in different directions, you've got it's original incarnation; lolita that includes casual mainstream elements such as t-shirts. And then you've got the modern version which is toned town, plainer lolita.

>>8986523
>Something being unusual or attention grabbing does not mean it is OTT.
Compared to other fashions, it does.
Isn't the whole point of casual lolita to make it more wearable and CASUAL? WHERE IS THE CASUAL PART.

For a thread to discuss what casual is there sure is very little talk about what it actually fucking is. Most likely because all anyone can do is blab shit like "go look it up yourself HURR GOOGLE HURR"

>>8986603
>>8986605
>>8986616
>>8986619
These just look like lolita to me

So... a cardigan will make it casual?

>>8986628
that seems to be the rule of thumb...

>>8986547
>toned town, plainer lolita
This is just lolita. Casual lolita is something else, it can kind of break the rules and isn't as stuffy as a regular coord. Lolita has been getting more and more ott with people trying to outdo eachother like crazy, especially on faster and broader reaching social media sites. When the rightmost picture here came out >>8986014, this was called "art-loli" because it was so out there and VERY ott. Now it is just considered ott, apparently.
There is a reason some people only wear lolita to cons, it's turning in to retarded costume wear.

>>8986632
And without that it magically becomes not lolita? Because the shiloutte is so ruined right?

>>8986639
How are you getting that from what I said? It's no secret that cardigans are used often in casual coords and can tone down more elaborate ones, at no point did I say that using a cardigan stops an outfit being lolita...

>>8986644
Wow you can't read.
I'm talking about when you don't use one. Then it stops being lolita? When you take the cardigan off?

I really feel like snarky not-lolita chan in the COF thread is in here just to argue and act like it's super complicated. No amount of deflecting and being contrary will make those god awful coords lolita.

>>8986667
then I think you're missing the point of the original post.
without cardigan=lolita
with cardigan= casual lolita
99% sure it was intended in humor...no need to be rude

>>8986619
>>8986629
>>8986657
>>8986674
Are casual coords
>>8986678
Is debatable

The rest are normal, old school, or bad coords

>>8985974
I don't think there are really set rules you can follow, it just has to have "enough" of the Lolita aesthetic to keep the same feeling I guess? There needs to be balance. You can skip a petticoat but if you do you probably want to wear a cutsew instead of a tee shirt, or vice versa, for example. Or if you wear very plain socks wear cuter shoes, etc. So the end result looks comfortable but put together. Lolita items such as cutsews, low heels, skirts, casual bags such as totes, natural hairstyles, all lend themselves to the casual Lolita look. I fully support normal items being used! It's just absolutely case-by-case so you must use your best taste

I think soft lolita is pretty much the new school way of doing casual lolita

>>8986834
that looks more otome to me
>casual reminder that lolita rejects ≠ otome

>>8986744
this anon gets it

>>8986670
>op was trying to be funny
Yeah, okay. I'm the one that brought up the thread discussion in the other thread because we had a thread like this in the past and there was no general consensus add to what casual lolita is.
At least I got the answer I wanted, only is not the case but a lot of dumb anons think it is.
I'm fairly certain you can do casual lolita without the cardigan.

>>8986093
once i get my summer schedule solidified between work and classes I can try to dedicate a whole day to doing this.

The only catch is that I tend to avoid OTT with a passion so I may only reach OTT-ish.

>>8986097
i only use wristcuffs to make sleeves longer on OP's when they are a little short.

>>8986864
Anon, plenty people would be willing to explain, it's just that you're being a snarky cunt and that makes people want to tell "google it" instead of helping.

>>8986840
Otome in japan is dead

>>8987257
Okay newfag

>>8987257
Lolita in Japan is dead. Fairy kei and mori and cult party are dead. It's all dead except for H&M.

>>8987460

>>8987463

>>8987465

>>8987466

>>8987468

>>8987470
And now for the controversial coords

>>8987474

>>8987475

>>8987477
And the questionable borderline ones:

Can this be considered casual? It has a cutsew+caardigan+skirt combonation, and a side bow instead of a headbow, but the bright red and parasol doesn't read that way.

>>8987478
I've always thought this one as casual, but last time I posted it someone commented that the strawberry bag was pushing it. I feel that the sidebow and cutsew combo keep it casual.

>>8987479
Salopettes and AP's hoodies are generally considered casual or non-lolita, but again, a themed bag and headdress make this normal lolita to me, not casual.

>>8987478
I wish I could read Japanese. I want this entire set every single time I see it. And I've seen it float around for the last...God, how old is this? 6 years? Older?

>>8987481
This coord reads as just normal lolita to me, maybe slightly toned down. But it seems just-waist skirts read as casual to many due to the years of OTT; last time I posted this someone thought it was casual due to the hat+bag combo with the skirt.

>>8987468
Does anyone have a casual coord with the Cosmic skirt, possibly in navy? Did I dream seeing that?

Did she accentuate the waist with a separate ribbon?

>>8987484
Last one:

Another typical salopette+cardigan set up, even with a beret, but the bright colors and themed bag make it regular lolita to me (if salopettes can be considered lolita).

>>8987481
does anyone know what that headdress is called or where I can find it?

>>8987482
dress cherry ribbon clip

Girly marin cut (?)

Dream dot (kanji I cant read) knit cardigan

dress cherry necklace

enamel ribbon wristband

dress cherry ring

fashionable stripe umbrella

border ribbon crew socks

not sure about the last one other than shoes.

None of this really helps though I think

>>8987317
>It's all dead except for H&M.
So just larme and nymphet fashions are alive there?

>>8987502
It kinds of does, I hope! I know they're probably all AP, so it narrows things down for me considerably. I wanted to find the specific shoes, since they seem to have a really good heel height, but I think I can manage. Thanks so much, anon!

>>8986635
What print is the girl on the right wearing? I thought it was meta, but I can't find it on lolibrary.

I'm smitten.

>>8987317

>everything is dead in Japan, I know because I speak for every Japanese person alive

I feel like everyone forgets that these were all subversive styles to begin with, yes h&m is popular as a whole, but it's popular everywhere, these styles were only found in a small part of Tokyo called Harajuku, why do you think you'd find them everywhere?

>>8987575
I feel like it might be IW

>>8987488
This is one of my favourite coords. I'm a classical lolita but I'm thinking of mixing up my wardrobe for things like this

>>8987611
Possibly.... Checking through all the tags for it.

>>8987502
just fyi it's "drain cherry" not dress cherry

>>8987537
The shoes are these anon.
http://lolibrary.org/shoes/jewelry-ribbon-shoes-2013

Items in order are:
Drained Cherry Ribbon Clip
Girly Marine Cutsew
Dream Dot Embroidery Knit Cardigan
Drained Cherry Necklace
Enamel Ribbon Wristband
Drained Cherry Ring
Stylish Striped Umbrella (as named by lolibrary)
Border Ribbon Crew Length Socks
Jewelry Ribbon Shoes

Other anon was pretty close.

>>8987669
>>8987684
I love you, /cgl/, thanks so much.

>>8987575
If you can find the larger image of it, it probably says in the sidebox.

>>8986907
Hey, anon-chan, did you know that you're great?

>>8987470
this will always be GOAT for me

>>8987474
I like this one

>>8987759
It's easily found in reverse google image search, but the text is Japanese. Definitely not IW, though.

>>8987477
Does the girl on the right have her left sock inside out?

Here's one of my personal outfits. I never get too OTT but I hope it's a good enough representation.

>>8988316
Where did you get those tights in the 2 photos on the right?

Ok, so back around 2011 or so I posted these as what I thought were examples of more toned down and casual lolita outfits - not sure whether this is still what people think of as casual or not.

>>8986834
I think some casual lolita looks like otome and that casual Lolita is harder to define now because Lolita proper has changed so much; it looks more normal, offbrand blouses are ok, it's more print oriented, Lolita 'inspired' like other Kawaii fashions or generically vintage 'inspired' rolled into one (minus OTT)

>>8987317
>Lolita in Japan is dead.
I live in Tokyo and this is kind of true. Most of the lolitas you see around Harajuku now are either westerners or Chinese.

>>8988199
Not really, the text isn't legible. I know it's from Kera, but no idea what issue.

>>8986044
This. There are a few pieces that closely resemble Wateau gowns and Manteau gowns of that period (with a shorter skirt and differently shaped petti) but it'd be unfair to draw the line directly from 18th century gowns to Lolita when the reality is that lolita is a transperiodic inspired fashion - taking bits of inspiration from different eras (I.e. Juliette sleeves, Dior's New Look silliouette, Edwardian girl's wear, etc) and sometimes combining them into an entirely modern look.

If we're speaking origin wise, otome is it's closest cousin as a couple early existing brands were making clothes with that appeal (like Pre-Angelic Pretty "Pretty"), and otome kei was heavily inspired by the Victorian romantic revival. You can see that in all sorts of films and TV shows of the time like Candy Candy (or the film Candy ) and Little House on the Prairie.

>>8988427
That's so sad. I wonder if the harajuku kids simply grew up, or if people were overwhelmed by weebs and the media, and have gone into hiding, or even by the sheer pace of fashion sub-culture trends popping up recently.

The last time I saw Japanese lolitas in a huge cluster was the NY sale at LaForet, but it's not the same as Harajuku bridge.

/sage

>>8988362
I love your hair in the last three. I have my hair almost as short as that, to halfway on my ears and I'm trying to grow it back out but now I want to chop even more off.

>>8988354
It's a brand called legmogue! They're pretty amazing since I can wear them all day without getting tightscrotch.

>>8988316
Just so you know, I always love your outfits. You're amazing

>>8986140
Oldfag here. I'm afraid casual lolita has always been somewhat controversial. The battle is between girls who use the label the way girls now use "otome" to whine that nobody should critique their outfit, mixed in with girls who do know how to lolita and that a checklist is not the way a living fashion should be defined, vs girls trying to keep lolita fashion distinct and not devolve into normalfag skirt fashion. So the line keeps getting argued over.

Both the handbook and the guidebook are pretty decent to make sure you don't cross the line. Remember, these are supposed to help newbies figure out *how to dress*, including suggestions of the bare minimum to still come across as lolita. It is not a checklist, and it does NOT tell you how to judge lolita outfits.

Hope that clears things up for >>8986137, nobody uses the list to say why an outfit is not lolita because that's not what the handbook/guidebook is for.

For lolita accessories. The silhoutte and the petticoat is the starting line, not the finish line. A poofy skirt doesn't automatically make your outfit lolita. You have to add more lolita elements in order to distinguish your fashion as lolita instead of retro or hillbilly or 50s housewife style, which all have poofy skirts.

So in an outfit where the lolita blouse is swapped for a t-shirt, the skirt is plain and doesn't look clearly lolita, there's no other lolita elements -- and all the accessories aren't lolita, you end up with an outfit with literally, actually nothing lolita about it.

For the record, I think this anon has it mostly right >>8986744.

Girls in lolita groups aren't psychic and can only judge your skills at lolita by the photos you post. So it's up to you to give them a good impression by posting a coord that is clearly lolita. There's nothing to stop you from wearing what you want by yourself, it's another story if you're seeking validation/feedback posting to a group.

Hope that helped, I'm going to bed.

>>8986093
will consider doing this. unfortunately i don't have anything mega OTT though.

>>8988695
Thank you! Winter is coming here and I need new tights.

>>8989817
It's kinda pointless if you can't reach the entire spectrum

>>8986093
Good idea!
I think I might try this.

>>8988739
Aw, thank you so much!

>>8989975
I don't know how warm you need them to be (I'm going to guess you're in Australia? So not that warm?) but they're not the thickest tights around, good for coverage and light winds and that's probably it.