/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

Just wrong all counts. You are looking only certain kinds of classic if you think they're the same.

I do what I want

I like lolita better and vintage in my area is really overpriced.

Maybe because I hate the vintage aesthetic but love the lolita aesthetic?

>>9715122
>cheaper
yeah, I can tell...

>>9715122
The cheap ribbon and lace slapped on is what I'm here for

>>9715122
Ok, I'll bite. There are some lolita pieces out there that resemble vintage/ 50's fashion but lolita is a lot broader. Maybe Fanny Rosie esque classic can resemble vintage, but do you also look at Mana and think 'this is the same'? If so you should get your eyes checked.

Vintage is boring with designs and accessories. It went out of style for a reason. You're probably salty toward Lolita because you suck at dressing in the fashion.

>>9715122
You can wear lolita daily too, not sure why you're bringing that up.
I mean are you genuinely curious, just trying to convince people to wear vintage because you don't like lolita, or can you honestly not see a difference between the 2 styles?

>>9715122
Problem is vintage is for the foreseeable future associated with fat feminists, especially the glasses.
They ruined it for everyone.

>>9715128
>>9715143
>>9715156
Everyone replying ITT but these three are retards

>>9715122
Vintage is really over-priced made of cheap fabrics. Lolita is adorable and versatile.

>>9715156
wouldn't you rather have fatties wearing that than Lolita?

Vintage =/= 50s and it triggers me way more than it should when people equate it to that, as someone who enjoys vintage fashion from several decades. Especially since 50s is clearly the most meme'd and overdone vintage style.
Then there's the obvious point that only a very small percentage of lolita looks remotely like 50s fashion, they'e two very different aesthetics generally. They have very different silhouettes, different cuts, lolita obviously focuses more on lace/ruffles/prints etc. I can't believe I'm actually replying to this bait thread.

Okay I'll take the bait I'll call it vintage fashion though there is more to vintage fashion than just 50s nostalgia.

>Vintage fashion is cookie cutter
While there is variety in the vintage fashion community, the two main looks are either circle skirt or wiggle skirt. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room for experimentation or creativity. While individual styles of lolita may be subject to a cookie cutter look, the three main styles of lolita cover a lot of variety in cuts, length, fabrics, motifs and motifs.

>Vintage fashion is typically heavily sexualized
You see many people who wear vintage fashion are into pin ups and burlesque. The style is a lot more sexual than lolita, which not everyone is comfortable with. It is also way more sexualized by outsiders, because of the ties that the vintage fashion community has to burlesque. Lolita is a good deterrent of day to day sexualization. which not everyone is comfortable with.

>The vintage fashion community is very white.
Lolita being a fashion coming from Japan may make it more appealing to non-white people.

>>9715122
Retro fashion is aaaalways in. Lolita pieces are really foreign and odd looking to Westerners. If you want to get less weird looks, Vintage is better.

I love mod style but this is a vintage style that really DOES NOT have the Lolita silhouette.

>>9715122
Because lolita is kawaii.

Because I can't wear rococo gowns every day.
Also vintage is boring.
Also, wild concept, people like to dress how they want and don't give a shit what others think.

>>9715195
tfw not enough wiggle room in a wiggle skirt

because vintage is not kawaii, you fucking pleb

>>9715122
Because I hate polka dots and vintage/rockabilly or whatever retarded name they have for it is seen as Fat Cuture now and those fatties really hate it when a normal figured person shows them how it was really worn. Dnw to deal with hangry, mentally ill hambeasts in problem glasses, polka dots, and overdone make up.

In lolita I can just turn my nose up at fatties who can't zip up their brand and molest the tea party buffets.

>tfw I love both vintage and lolita fashion

Sorry? Oops.

In any case, late 1940s fashion does not resemble lolita as it features heavy set shoulders, with a sometimes practical, sometimes form fitting silhouette (think Agent Carter), and neither does 1960s fashion as >>9715216 states. 1950s fashion on a superficial glance may look similar, but has a different silhouette from lolita. They have much more form fitting top types than lolita such as OP, and sexier necklines. They tend to have more circle skirts when having a 'fit and flare' silhouette, with the 'fit' part being much more curvaceous than that of a lolita silhouette. Underwear is heavily employed in 1950s fashion to achieve a) pointy nipples (with cone bras) and b) a really tiny waist to emphasis an hourglass figure. We don't really care about underwear in lolita, except you know, the petticoat, and maybe bloomers.

I really love the details in vintage actually - 1940s fashion has such interesting cuts and small pintucked details, moreso than 1950s pieces I noticed, but in either case you do you. But tl;dr, vintage isn't lolita, and to a semitrained eye it's pretty damn easy to spot the difference. I wouldn't give up lolita because a) all those lace details that weren't in fashion since the Edwardian era are in all its glory in lolita, and b) no fuckin moth holes.

>>9715122
Vintage is too sexy, I wanna look classic and modest, not be associated with pin up or the perfect housewife.

>>9715122
yeah why to look like marie antoniette if you can look like a pin up whore

>>9715156
if people aren't fat why should they be concerned with being associated with those who are

>>9715164
i think you mean vintage repro, the legitimately vintage stuff that's still wearable today is wearable because it's well made and made of fabric that can withstand time and wear. vintage repro brands like hell bunny use cheap awful fabric and charge sky high prices

>>9715156

But now we're associated with fat sissy ageplayers and fetishists.

>>9715122
It’s cuter

>mfw everyone is equating vintage fashion with rockabilly/pinup when all I want to do is look like grandma when she was young kei

I feel like I'm being all like #notallvintage but seriously, most of the vintage people I follow on insta don't even the sexy kind of vintage and are within normal BMI.

>>9715336
Same. Also is there an issue with appreciating both? I feel like a lot of people in this thread maybe just dislike vintage but feel like they have to say they hate it. Can you really not name a single thing about any vintage fashion that you like? It's pretty expansive, and many lolitas still take inspiration from vintage fashion in the details of their coords. Like. Gulls. It's really okay to think both are cute.

>>9715243
>molest the tea party buffets
Lmao
Also vintage just isn't as delicate and cute as lolita. And cheaper? Yeah I can see that.
It's overruled by SJW fatties with their retarded glasses and short bangs anyway. They can keep it.

>>9715376

I just splurged on a vintage dress for a winter ball. It can get pricy, but hnngh the details. I think it's a lot of anons' ignorance, which I can understand since I was there myself not so long ago, but pretending we don't take inspiration from vintage at least is really laughable.

I also don't know why lolitas are naming every bad stereotype on earth about vintage when we have pretty ugly stereotypes ourselves. Don't throw rocks in a glass house, etc.

>>9715376
I love clothing-that-is-older-than-my-parents/grandparents vintage, but I haven't seen anything that I genuinely liked from rockabilly/pinup/retro vintage. It tends to look like cheap costume versions of actual vintage clothing because companies cut corners by oversimplifying designs or using stretch fabric for fitted clothing.

>>9715410
I just want a version of Lolita that keeps the fantastic tailoring and quality but maybe with lower waistlines and necklines. Less Maiden but not yet Lady, mature without jumping straight into grandma territory. For all gulls are terrified of anything to do with mature femininity (nipped waists, bare shoulders and low necklines) without making it sexual, I'd love a Lolita look that keeps the craftsmanship, tailoring and careful attention to detail but is more Womanly. Otome Kei and Larme kei just tend to have the same girlishness to them, where Aristo goes into costume or granny territory.

I keep hoping one day we'll get a Mary Magdalene like company doing a Dior New Look deal.

People can whine and whine about how ~you never ate out of Lolita~ but I'm tired of the Victorian doll look and want to go more for a modern Betty Draper/Edith Head look.

Rockabilly and all that just looks trashy and tacky as shit though. Tacky colors, bad craftsmanship. It's more who can yell 'look at me, mom!' loudest than actually creating a cohesive coord.

If only a company would combine the class and craft of Lolita with a more feminine (as opposed to girlish) look.

>>9715456

>>971545
Dumpity dump

>>9715456
>I'm tired of the Victorian doll look
>I'm tired of one of lolita's main sources of aesthetic inspiration
Why are you into lolita at all then? No one is forcing you to keep wearing it.

>>9715456

>>9715462
Just saying, I'd love to see a New Look inspired line~

Not all EGL is based off looking like a Victorian doll, Newb Gringrich.

>>9715456
Less obese tattooed women, more Betty Draper

I like lolita because I like the gothic victorian aesthetic. I really don't like 50's vintage fashion.

>>9715456
All this, but reimagined for a new generation, the lolitas that like the general aesthetic but want something a little more feminine and less frilly without going aristo.

Straight up copying and pasting 50s looks, be it rockabilly or retro, is boring. I'd love to see this kind of silhouette reimagined as EGL reimagined cutesy fashion, or the Victorian Doll aesthetic, for young women.

>>9715467
>using EGL to refer to the entire fashion
Not all of it is based on Victorian dolls or Victorian fashion in general, that's true, but it's one of the predominant aesthetics in the fashion. If you don't like cute girly styles, kawaii fashion might not be for you.

Done wrong, vintage often looks cheap and it seems that it's easy to do wrong.


Though I'm not into lolita either, so

>>9715477
Eh, maybe you're right. It's tough to move on, though. Brand spoiled me with its quality, scope, and creativity and the community spoiled me with its never ending stream of challenges in coord making.

Sucks there just isn't anything out there that offers those qualities but with a more feminine angle. Axes Femme and a lot of brands like it just hang off the body and are, frankly, nothing special.

And most ~retro~ stuff just looks ridiculously tacky (pictured) and not classy, feminine, or cute at all.

>>9715490
Seriously.

>>9715491
It's like a uniform.

>>9715471
Same, I don't care what others wear but I don't think 50's pinup style is cute at all. I want to look like a victorian goth vampire princess, not a 50's housewife.
Even the current trends in classic are leaning towards OTT flowers, frills and underskirts. The stuff that one anon posted looks too simple to work in lolita. And not in the 'if it's not OTT it's boring' sense, they're just not frilly and detailed enough to work. They're nicely tailored pieces although too formal to be daily wear and they're to simple plain to wear to say, a tea party. I don't think there's really a way to meet in the middle without taking away from either of the styles. Even Fanny Rosie style classic can read as vintagey to normies, but it's still very clearly lolita and has the same influences as lolita.

>>9715480
So you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

>>9715477
Lolita's really only loosely based off a vague idea of 19th century fashion, which really means big skirts and "old timey" clothing designs. Seeing design elements that are recognizably Victorian is actually pretty rare in lolita. There are a good number of lolitas who have done 1950's-1960's influenced coords already so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to want more pieces that take direct inspiration from that particular style.

Also you can enjoy lolita without liking cute girly styles. Classic and gothic lolita exist for a reason.

>>9715494
>they're just not frilly and detailed enough to work.

Quite a bit of Mary Magdalene, Victorian Maiden and Juliette et Justine isn't frilly and covered in OTT flowers, though, and they seem to work fine?

>>9715496

>>9715497
Different anon but I'm contributing to the dump

>>9715496
I was talking about the current trend being OTT classic, but even then the dresses you posted is a far cry from >>9715456 and still reads as lolita and have a clear influence of kawaii culture.

But OP, what if I wear both?

>>9715499
Did not know a singular bow made something part of kawaii culture.

>>9715498

>>9715503

>>9715244
Those cone bras.

>>9715502
>implying the bow is the only difference

>>9715498
See, the collar on this makes me think Alice in Wonderland, but maybe I'm being thrown by the colour.

Add some interfacing to the bodice and maybe boning to help it keep its shape, maybe sculpt the collar into a V shape like pictured and I could totally see that as a classy day dress or picnic dress

>>9715507
But then it wouldn't be lolita.

>>9715504

>>9715195
Vintage has too many tradcons in it.

>>9715506
Never said it was the only difference, just questioning where the "kawaii culture" comes in. It's elegant, it's very much lolita, but doesn't exactly scream "OMG KAWAII >w<!!!" It's got the silhouette that is uniquely Lolita (full a line skirt hitting at the knees or just below as opposed to ankles, meant to be used with a petti,) but again, not a kawaii thing- a Lolita thing.

>>9715122
Don't question me you're not my mom

>>9715508
That's why it's a completely hypothetical idea based off a theoretical substyle that doesn't exist.

A next step after Lolita that is less costumey than aristo and less granny than a lot of more mature looking classical coords. If it could be done, how would it be? It doesn't exist so it's all just for fun.

>>9715457
This is cute.

>>9715493
I feel like retro fashion is less about looking like Grace Kelly and more about looking like that one sad secretary with the smoking addiction who ended up spending the 1980's watching daytime soaps in her trailer before dying and being eaten by her 23 cats.

>>9715514
>less costumey than aristo and less granny than a lot of more mature looking classical coords.
Do you mean like otome? Or do you mean an actual substyle with it's own aesthetic that is somewhere in between that still follows the rules of lolita? Because I'm curious about that too. I guess aristo is closer to gothic aesthetic wise than classic, so the possibilities are pretty broad.

Some AATP releases spring to mind that don't completely fall under gothic or classic, and aren't 'pirate lolita' either. They're clearly lolita pieces but they're often coorded in a way that looks lowkey and wearable with some western influences. There's one coord in one of the newer magazines (either melt or miel I can't remember) that I'm thinking of specifically. Idk if it's just 'soft lolita' though. But that particular coord stood out to me as its own thing since it had a particular vibe to it that was fresh and different yet still wearable.

>>9715534
I'd say keeping the Lolita silhouette of a full skirt. Otome seems to have more of a vertical silhouette instead of an a-line. Let's say our made up substyle still had to wear petticoats.

I think it's the length of the Lolita skirt that makes it more, idk, realistic as an everyday garment than wearing a vintage dress with a petticoat.

I'd feel like in a vintage dress and petti you would look like you're just wearing a 1950s costume. There something about just wearing old clothes unchanged that make it feel less like a fashion like lolita and more like wearing a costume.

There's something I'm having a hard time describing that makes lolita practical as an everyday thing, OTT notwithstanding. You can coordinate to the nines but it still looks, and feels, like clothes. Wearing a 1950s dresses with a petti is less of a fashion itself and more just borrowing someone else's clothes. Lolita has never been a straight up Victorian recreation or adult sized dolls clothes, it's always been its own thing, drawing inspiration from the Victorian era, or fairytales, or rococo, but never trying to make a costume out of those things.

>>9715122

Vintage fashion doesn't capture the Rococo spirit nor the Lolita aesthetic. It never will.

Sure, Lolita can be a bit on the expensive side. Finding and buying all the right pieces for a coord and then putting it all together can be tedious, putting it on takes a while, and even the simplest of coordinates is bound to stand out wherever you go. It's a bit impractical, really, as well as time consuming.

But that's what Lolita ~is~. It's decadent, it's detailed, it's self indulgent, it makes a bold statement and is unapologetic about being what it is. Wearing Lolita embodies all that.
The time, the money, the energy- it's all worth it. To put on Lolita is a feeling all it's own that can't be compared to anything else because of all that it is.
That feeling means the world to me, and I wouldn't give it up for anything or anyone.

You say vintage fashion is cheaper and is more easily worn everyday. That's true. Compared to Lolita, it's inexpensive and more practical/conventional.
But in being so it lacks the spirit of Lolita. In fact, it becomes it's very antithesis.

And that's not what I want.

I want the decadent and unabashedly bold feeling that only Lolita can give, not just some ~silhouette~.

>>9715122
because im not a basic bitch, CAROLINE

>>9715494
So I've been thinking about this and I think you're right. How could you make a maidenly style that, though not lolita, still has the charm of Lolita? Like Lolita's big brother that decided they want to move out of the house but end up setting up in lolitas attic.

I say sticking only to 1950s would cut us off at the knees because ultimately it would just be 50s dresses with shorter skirts.

Understanding that this totally made up style that is not lolita but would appeal to lolitas wanting a change, what if we looked at all the influences of Lolita and approached those with the same 'no longer a girl, not yet a lady' approach?

So less Alice Liddell, more Mina Harker. Less Rose of Versailles, more Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette.

We keep the general silhouette of Lolita, but adjust the necklines and waists to be more womanly, while still having the frills and femininity.

I was thinking you would do something like a mix of pictured and Mary Magdalene's OP's that have an off the shoulder effect.

You'd get the womanly neckline, but still have the sense of decadence that comes with frills and lace and ribbons.

>>9715552
Dropped pic oops

>>9715553

>>9715538

I think I get what you're trying to articulate. Lolita has influences from certain time periods but is it's own thing and it has so much variation. A petticoat is necessary for most lolita coords but a petticoat does make any dress lolita. I don't think skirt length is a defining factor anymore since brands seem to be experimenting with it more and more while it still being lolita.

I think it's a combination of the petticoat, acceptable skirt length and the overall aesthetic, details and modesty etc. that makes a coord lolita because like you said lolita is it's own thing. It takes inspiration from a lot of things but it's modernised in a sense. It has it's own guidelines and overall aesthetic that differentiates it from looking like it's a direct copy of something else.

To make a retro substyle of lolita, I think it'd have to be similar to the way that sailor lolita has nautical motifs and aesthetic, or the way hime is a derivative of sweet lolita and hime gyaru but they're still both clearly lolita and the main pieces are always lolita. You couldn't just use a random 50's dress, which will probably have nice tailoring but not much else, not to mention usually lower necklines and plain flared skirts that just aren't lolita for obvious reasons.

Lolita is it's own cohesive thing because even across varying substyles, it still has the same attention to detail, lace trims, decorations, illustrative border prints etc. To make a 50's substyle you'd have to take lolita main pieces that have the right aesthetic and style your hair, makeup and accessories accordingly. You could even do this with honey cake for example. I think the defining factor is the main piece still being lolita and the overall coord sticking to the rules of lolita. To make it as you say 'feel like clothes' the way lolita does, it'd still have to objectively be lolita. Otherwise it's just a vintage costume with a petticoat or an ita mess.

what about a Lolita substyle based on 1950's children's clothing?

more inspo potential

I dunno, some of them look pretty similar to Lolita already, like the simpler Classic lolita

>>9715490
>>9715491
>>9715493
I will say one thing; This is "rockabilly", not a true representation of 'vintage.'

I don't wear lolita any more and do tend towards 1950s/1960s repros, and it SHITS me to no end when people (usually those wearing it) confuse a bunch of different distinct styles.

Rockabilly is 'trash' vintage. Literally. It's supposed to look trashy, and started as a pseudo-punk deal.
Then there's the 'pinup' style; a basic caricature of pinup illustrations. Where dumb people think that red lipstick was something that normal women wore every day in the 1950s.
Then there's, you know, actual clothing as worn in the various decades referenced. Contrary to the belief in this thread, there's an enormous range of cuts, styles, motifs and ways to coordinate clothing for every era. I think people are just so used to seeing some chick throw on a cheap polyester Hellbunny dress and call it 'vintage' that it sours them on it, though.

>>9715156
>>9715243
>>9715252
If I want to buy vintage-style clothing in my country it's either repro which comes at a minimum "XS" with 74cm waist because literally only fat women wear this style, or I'm expected to pay €75+ for a stained dress that needs its zipper and lining completely replaced. I'll stick to IW, MM and VM, thanks. If I ever want something vintage (because I do think it can be cute) I'll pick up a truly vintage Vogue pattern or something and make it myself. Those are dirt cheap in my country, probably because none of the fat women fit real vintage sizing.

>>9715122
As if a simple circle skirt could ever capture the feeling of a fluffy petticoat under a bell-shaped dress.

>>9715122
it's associated with retarded neo feminists so I'd rather pass.

Vintage/Retro/Rockanilly fashion is ugly as sin. I also steer away from lolita pieces that have a retro vibe- For example, I hate this new Meta set. But I also love a lot of Meta's other pieces.

I want to feel cute and elegant, not tacky as fuck.
>also sage for comparing 2 vastly different styles and aesthetics

>>9715590
Holy shit, thanks for linking this anon. I actually fucking love this.

>>9715122
God I fucking hate the look of vintage. I came here to look like a victorian doll, not some rockabilly reject

>>9715558
>>9715560
If you wanted to take even more influence from the same things as sissies, sure.

>>9715122
I wear both, but not rockabilly, more 60s schoolgirl
That crazy lace is what I'm at about though, old school frump life

>>9715558
It already is.

It's been done, OP.

>>9715565
Thank you for this!

There are so many other styles that would equate to vintage and don't stay within the era's of the 40's and 50's. I do agree that brands like Pin Up Girl Clothing really give vintage fashion a bad rap seeing as how cheap everything looks while worn. I can totally see how that will ruin your first experience with "vintage" fashion.

You absolutely can mix vintage with lolita though. Just stay within the realms of lolita fashion. Wearing a dress from Hell Bunny or PUGC does not equal lolita.

>>9715722
How is this vintage though?

If only 90% of vintage wannabees weren't Betty Page wannabes. Ruined the look for me.

>>9715731
the sweater, which looks authentically vintage, and the coord itself emulates an actual vintage style without looking rockabilly. its nice

How does one look at lolita and not see any connection to vintage and retro styles? How do you look at 30's velvet dress and think this didn't inspire lolita at all? I'm so confused..

All of the vintage dresses ITT are nice, but they still miss that quintessential lolita feeling to me. Lolita has a pretty specific aesthetic and I think the crossover from vintage fashion is narrower than people think. That's why we get awful itas who buy a vintage dress just because it has a large skirt because they can avoid paying the price of an actual lolita dress and accessories. Cheaper doesn't mean it's loliable, and I wear tons of daily skirt coords along the lines of >>9715722 so I don't see what the upside of vintage clothes are as it pertains to lolita.

I do love vintage clothing and have many pieces inspired by Audrey Hepburn, but when I wear them it's because I'm going for that look and NOT a lolita look.

>>9715593
Me too, it's adorable.

>>9715740
Its more pertaining to quality anon, if you owned brand you would see the difference immediately.

>>9715764

A 1930s dress that's been well taken care of usually has pretty good quality, anon. There's a reason most dresses before 1950 are ridiculously expensive. We're not talking shitty repro here, were talking wearable history that is a testament to the craftsmanship of the time.

>>9715565
>Then there's, you know, actual clothing as worn in the various decades referenced.

But the argument has been that then you just look like you're wearing your grandmas clothes, I think that's the sticking point for a lot of people.

I think a lot of people like lolita because it's unique to them and their generation. Just slapping on a circle dress you found at Etsy or a reproduction of a dress that existed in the 50's takes away the fun of a fashion. You literally have nothing to look forward to, nothing new, because you're just trying to look like someone who came before you.

>>9715122
>classier
>cheaper
Go back to /r9k/ already.

>>9715512
Lolita, at its core, is a part of the original kawaii movement that began in Japan around the 70s-80s. It doesn't need to be pastel colored or covered in Hello Kitty to be kawaii.

>>9715740
I'd say lolita is connected to vintage but not so much early America vintage. I'd say European classical vintage. Lolita is always evolving and changing and maybe there are pieces now that might invoke a 1930's vibe, but you can't deny that lolitas inspiration from the outset was classical victorian and rococo styles.

>>9715764
Are you saying that dress that has lasted over 80 years is lower quality than modern day Angelic Pretty?

>>9715122
I don't think it looks classy at all. At least not the picutres OP posted. It gives me flash backs of when my mom used to dress me up like that for the "50's sock hop dance" my school had every year. It's not nearly as fun to wear as lolita, and it still looks like a costume to normies. I'll take my lace and ribbons thank you, I want to look like a princess.

Because of pic related. At least some of the lolita brands still make clothes that fit me.

>>9715806
derp

>>9715797
I didn't say anything about american vintage. Early american vintage was copying european designers anyway so I don't really get your point. Lolita looks more like victorian revivals in later decades than actual victorian fashion.

>>9715810
Holy shit no way.

In what dimension is a 74cm waist extra small?

>>9715810
Kind of want to make an off topic bitch session about how abysmally difficult it's become to find human sized clothes. Tried looking for tights the other day and my local store will order like 10 M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 and 5 S.

I feel like me and a handful of other normal sized women are locked in a constant death struggle to see who gets the S's first.

>>9715534
Soft lolita is like a more casual version casual lolita, to the point it's not recognizable as lolita anymore.

Rockabilly is fucking ugly.

Lolita has purses that look like fucking food. Lolita > Vintage.

>>9715863
Hell yah

>>9715841
>constant death struggle for size S
this

>>9715838
>>9715841
Different dress in a different cut from a different brand. Nowhere does this site say they cater to plus sizes and they use several thin models to advertise their products, including the ones these size charts belong to. I wasted almost an hour looking for a dress that is both cute and would fit me since obviously filtering on size is useless here. I’m honestly bummed out because I need a cute, feminine dress for a Christmas party and my family hates lolita. The vintage shops in my city are super overpriced and mostly carry super tacky early 90s shit which isn’t what I’m looking for at all.

>>9715797
As an anon said above, early was more inspired by a generic idea of old-timey British/European aristocratic clothing filtered through the prism of popular childrens' book characters (e.g. Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella) and Victorianesque porcelain dolls. Gothic got some mediaeval/religious influence but I feel like a lot of that was also coming second-hand from 90s western goth at the time. Even though Momoko never shuts up about Rococo there isn't noticeable Rococo influence in materials or cuts until after the style was well-established in the early 00s, with everything before that looking much more like Victorian or Edwardian childrens' clothes or clearly showing the vestiges of that natural kei Gunne Saxe/Laura Ashley 70s Victorian Revival prairie influence from when kawaii fashion began, or 80s Vivienne Westwood reinterpretations of British royalty.

But yes, later lolita got influenced by other periods, especially some 50s/retro things (Metamorphose designer said she used to make/wear 50s clothing and that rockabilly was popular in Japan when she started her brand, and in the mid-late 00s AP had a lot of 50s influence too), and to a lesser extent 17-18th century princessy stuff starting to appear. You can see similar details to other eras in some brand pieces, e.g. VM's drop-waisted stuff and 30s-style sailor pieces, Moitie and BtSSB's 40s/50s-ish suit jackets, and Excentrique straight-up releasing Edwardian childrens' clothes in adult sizes a lot of the time. Heck, if we're counting the 80s as vintage now all the cross-pollination Angelic Pretty did with fairy kei qualifies as vintage influence too, and where things blur with otome you get a bit of 60s.

I'd say vintage fashion as a whole is very relevant to lolita but lolita is distinctly its own thing and stereotypical pinup vintage has had barely any influence at all.

sage for unstructured rant because I'm too tired to just make this into an infographic

50's America is a fucking trash era for white people. One of the heights of shit white American culture. People in America can't look past that era and see what real vintage is like, and is the reason I don't want to even go near vintage style.

Posting some examples
70's dress that basically looks old school lolita

>>9715901
50's novelty or meta print?

A vintage style I wish would regain more modern popularity and has a huge influence on Lolita fashion are the Gunne Sax and prairie dresses of the 60s and 70s. They're gorgeous and some of them have a very lolita-esque silhouette. I own two and they are impeccably made. still in great condition despite some of them most likely approaching 50 years old.

>>9715905
Add full skirt and you have a lolita dress

>>9715383
Lolita fashion is being overrun by SJWs too.

>>9715909
Leur Getter or vintage?

>>9715892
>50's America is a fucking trash era for white people. One of the heights of shit white American culture. People in America can't look past that era and see what real vintage is like

Um.

If it's from the 50s.

And it's been sixty years since the fifties...

It's "real" vintage, trash white culture and all lol

>low effort troll 2/10 would not troll again

>>9715911

>>9715906
That paisley pattern tho :/...

>>9715914

>>9715910
>50's America is a fucking trash era for white people. One of the heights of shit white American culture. People in America can't look past that era and see what real vintage is like, and is the reason I don't want to even go near vintage style.

It seems a lot of the trash rockabilly/tumblr people have been leaking in

>>9715918

>>9715906
Here is a Gunne Sax ad that honestly wouldn't be too out of place if it was a spread in GLB.

>>9715906
Honestly, save for the leftmost, these look like sacks with armholes. Which, I mean, if you're going for prairie or Great Depression chic makes sense, but they kind of lack elegance. When you think class you generally don't think 'Prairie'

Leftmost is pretty, though!

>>9715921
A Gunne dress pattern. This is comes much closer to a lolita silhouette than style from the 50s.

>>9715921
Tragic Confession:

Way back in 2004 when I couldn't buy actual brand I would buy Gunne Sax dresses off eBay, wear them with petticoats to school and call it Lolita

Those things are built to last, however. They were in great shape.

>>9715924
Yeah no it absolutely has that granny-kei feel to it...

>>9715924
A Gunne Sax pattern for a girls dress that is even closer to a lolita look.

>>9715922
Great Depression Kei. So kawaii. Can't wait for my Grapes of Wrath meetup.

>>9715929
What part, the cheap quilting fabric, busy repetitive print, or the complete lack of tailoring?

>>9715565
I didn't realize there was a distinction, thanks for teaching a visitor something. These people are crawling all over my neighborhood, I mean everywhere, I can't fucking stand that look.

>>9715925
Damn, was Gunne Sax cheaper back then? Because those dresses run just as high as second hand brand, if not higher.

The Gunne Sax/prairie look still has made its mark on Japanese fashion. Many of the dresses and blouses released by Axes Femme are to me the closest we will get to having the Gunne Sax look back. Not to mention how brands like Grimore and Comyu basically exist from reselling vintage Gunne and other prairie dresses in that style.

>>9715932
patterns show the cut, the fabric's irrelevant. pic related, Gothic & Lolita Bible vol. 1, 2001.

>>9715919
Don’t think you replied to right anon here.

>>9715932
>>9715935
It's a sewing pattern example dress, I don't think they are always beacons of flawless craftmanship. I think you really need to be blind to not see how these dresses are really close to the lolita look? Don't we always say lolita evolved from the dresses released by Pink House? Where do you think Pink House got the inspiration from?

>>9715892
Reductionist, much! Whether you like it or not, it’s part of the historical landscape. But hey, let’s throw the baby out with the bath water.

>>9715939
This is from GLB 3, the "granny" floral fabric was a thing in old school.

>>9715935
Yeah, couldn't have been more than 60$. There was Gunne Sax and then there was a designer (Stella McLintock?) who had her own line with Gunne Sax. I liked her stuff better because it was more lacey.

But I have to say, dude, even back then I remember thinking the very inherent prairie/western settler look Gunne Sax had just did not jibe with Lolita at all.

I got it because I was a stupid teen and because there were no shopping services yet, the only way to get brand was to go to Japan.

But they are a very different aesthetic to Lolita. They are very much prairie which is more about, well, poverty, a hard life of making ends meet, and sparsity and recycling clothes and whatever other sources of fabric you had.

It being less Little Princess and way more Little House on the Prairie makes it completely different from Lolita. All Lolita substyle are, in some way, about decadence- look at the three big ones: classic, sweet, and gothic.

>>9715943
Some more vintage Gunne ads

>>9715920
Few more

>>9715948

>>9715943
It's granny, but definitely trying to look Victorian English as opposed to the curtains ma had to fashion into clothes for the children because paw hasn't come back from the cattle drive and looks like we might just lose the farm if the bank man comes a-knockin.

>>9715945
I don't get this vibe, but I guess it's because my interest in lolita is completely about just the clothes and how they look and not the look they give off. Sure the prairie aesthetic is more humble, but the Ingalls didn't really have a hard life at all.

And...isn't romanticizing the farm life all what was en vogue near the end of the 18th century in France? Didn't Marie Antoinette make it stylish to wear simple chemises, she had a farm on her property, she romanticized a "normal" life. That is what I see in the prairie fashion look, it's a rose colored glasses image of a pretty life on a farm, caring for cute animals, drinking fresh milk, collecting flowers all day.

Gunne Sax dresses were expensive, people weren't buying them to roleplay poverty on a farm, they bought them to go to weddings and attend parties, and to take Christmas photos.

>>9715892

What are you trying to prove here? Are you really this blind to not see a difference between >>9715929 and >>9715936 ? Lolitas won't stop wearing lolita and start wearing some fugly vintage just because somr random anon said "it's similiar, right?". Yes, lolita was and is based on vintage and historical outfits, but it's it own style, and posting things like >>9715924, just prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

>>9715949

>>9715951
Here is a classic lolita wearing a modified Gunne dress, and it looks fine. I'd never even know if the post didn't say so.

I'm not saying that Gunne IS lolita, but I am saying to me, personally, it has a lot more in common with lolita than fashion from the 50s.

Wouldn't Gunne Sax fit better with Mori Kei or Dolly Kei?

>>9715954
I'm not telling lolitas to wear vintage! I'm just saying they are similar and providing content to this thread instead of wanking about 50s fashion, which I don't think is all that similar to lolita minus "big skirts". I wear lolita and I love lolita, I also appreciate vintage Gunne Sax dresses, I am not trying to force people to wear it or saying lolita is less superior or something. I don't understand where you are getting that interpretation from.

I admit here >>9715956 that Gunne isn't lolita, I just see similarities in their silhouettes and wouldn't be surprised to see if the look of those dresses helped inspire lolita in the early formative years of the fashion.

>>9715959
If you didn't want to make that impression then you should have titled the thread differently.

As it is now, you're literally asking people why they wear lolita fashion instead of vintage fashion and people are giving you their answers. If you just wanted to discuss vintage fashion then you should have framed it that way.

>>9715951
Dude there's like, a million miles between an Austrian princess turned Queen playing shepherdess in the Trianon and dresses made out of potato sacks after the last tornado done tore up the family farm lol

These tacky ass dresses aren't exactly selling anyone on anything. It's great you like them but holy crap, calm down.

>>9715959
>I'm just saying they are similar and providing content to this thread instead of wanking about 50s fashion, which I don't think is all that similar to lolita minus "big skirts".

>Stop talking about things I don't like and start talking about things I do like! Behold my image dump of why the seventies and early eighties are a period of fashion everyone tries desperately to forget.

>>9715959
Stop trying to make Mormon-Kei happen. Mormon-kei is not going to happen.

>>9715962
>thinks they're the OP
What is reading comprehension

>>9715965
Honestly, these dresses are kinda ugly but based on what we know about the origins of lolita (Pink House, prairie style, etc) they ARE correct that it had more influence on old school than 50s circle skirts like OP implied

>>9715962
First of all, I am not OP. I did not make this thread. Before I commented >>9715906, I made >>9715195. That's it. I thought the OP was an idiot, but the thread seemed to just divulge into a pleasant discussion on the historical vintage influences on lolita fashion, so I chimed in.

Here are two posts that probably explain my point better than I am
1.http://fyeahlolita.blogspot.com/2010/02/old-school-lolita-in-90s-80s-and-70s.html
>"Lolita brands that have been around for decades, well before they were Lolita as we know it now, most likely sold Otome and Natural-kei styled clothes. To those unfamiliar with the terms, myself included up until recently, let's do a quick lesson! Otome means "maiden" and refers to a more toned down and almost "mod" look (at least in my opinion), think such brands as Jane Marple, MILK, and Emily Temple Cute. Natural-kei is a very loose and, well, natural look. Imagine a prairie girl aesthetic, with lots of neutral colors and calico prints. The recent Mori Girl craze is descended from this style."

Though to be fair she also says
>" Perhaps Lolita followed a less linear fashion timeline, and instead of growing directly out of the merging of two fashions, Otome and Natura-kei, which are more feminine than childish, it formed on it's own simply from the need to be cute."

But it is significant enough that she includes it on a timeline of lolita fashion.

2.http://maryhazelbelle.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-prairie-dress-and-pre-lolita-brands.html
This post is less wordy and includes photos of lolita brand dresses and blouses with a more "prairie" aesthetic.

I'm sorry you guys find the dresses ugly, I was just trying to participate.

>>9715969
If it helps, I at least appreciated someone ITT knowing lolita's history and not talking out of their ass

>>9715969
>I'm sorry you guys find the dresses ugly, I was just trying to participate.

Naw you were just salty that people were talking about a fashion you didn't like so you tried talking about a fashion you did like.

But when people didn't really pay attention or didn't respond the way you wanted you just had an autistic fit.

>>9715971
I wasn't having a fit, and I don't have any issues with vintage 50s fashion. I like that style too, I just don't find it similar to lolita. I have no problem debating people if they don't find the dresses pretty and I have no problem with discussing their influences on the style. It's interesting.

>>9715974
Just let it go, people want to use this thread to shit on repro rockabilies. there's no interest in actually talking about vintage influence on lolita

>mfw lolitas are so fucking blind they can't see that their super duper special and ~UNIQUE~ fashion clearly takes inspiration from sources other than the accepted Victorian/Rococo eras

Nobody's forcing you to wear actual vintage fashion but damn, open your eyes.

And for the people saying they prefer lolita because it doesn't look like a costume like rockabilly or whatever does, I hate to break it to you but our puffy, ribbon-and-lace-covered dresses don't look any less costume-y to normies than pin-up/rockabilly fashions. Self-awareness is good for you.

>>9715979
I find it really weird that Victorian and Rococo are now the only "approved" influences on lolita, especially when there's evidence for prairie style influence in early lolita, very evident 20th century influence in classic and sweet, etc.

What makes those two eras so appealing that everyone points to them and not others? And why is it so bad that lolita has multiple influences?

>>9715979
If you seriously don't know how to not look like you're wearing a costume in lolita you must absolutely suck at coording.

Lol if you' can't go out to grab groceries in anything but 20 layers of OTT noise.

>>9715984
It's not a bad thing at all; these are just newbies/roleplayers regurgitating pieces of information about lolita and thinking it makes them experts.

>>9715984
Because a lot of lolitas are really stuck on wanting to be a princess. Like >>9715964 speaking almost as if lolita is some kind of super serious roleplay fashion where you must be a decadent princess and thats it. And maybe it is because sweet and classic are two of the most popular styles and they have the most Victorian and Rococo influence on them.

>>9715986
Ah, okay makes sense. I know the "but it's Victorian/Rococo!" got around as an argument against ageplay (and they aren't wrong, the influence is there), but it's definitely not the ONLY historical influence.

>>9715984
>I find it really weird that Victorian and Rococo are now the only "approved" influences on lolita, especially when there's evidence for prairie style influence in early lolita

girl

>>9715876
>>9715797
>>9715555
>>9715954
All of these posts say that lolita does have some inspiration from vintage fashion. Sorry your retarded logic unables you to see it.
Yes, lolita looks costumy to normies, no one cares. People didn't like your potato sack dresses, your feefees were hurt, lolitas are meanies, we understand,

>>9715989
I'm not Mormon-kei chan. I am also not a dumbass and know we're 80s/90s lolita started.

>>9715992
where*
fucking autocorrect.

This thread with Lolita's talking about vintage is about as bad as normies talking about Lolita, if not worse because there are some seriously deluded 1700s-1800s pseudo RP-ers in here.

>>9715998
this whole thread was started because some normie wanted to talk about lolita

>>9715999

And you guys are proving yourself just as ignorant. I'm not impressed.

>>9715998
>capitalizing lolita

>>9715979
People are saying lolita is less like a costume because it's its own thing with its own aesthetic, silhouettes and trends. Every alternative fashion looks like a costume to normies, but it doesn't literally look like historical fancy dress the way vintage just looks like someone's old clothes. We're not straight up wearing rococo dresses, we're wearing lolita dresses which are their own style, thus not a costume.

Whereas pinup/rockabilly fashion is just ugly low quality remakes of 50s housewife outfits with the same short bangs and glasses. Also what >>9715985 said. If you're unable to come up with a simple coord that doesn't look like OTT fancy dress, you suck at the fashion.

>>9716004
I think you've been in the fashion too long. Lolita, unless watered down to the most basic and plain coordinate, is still going to look out of place to normal people. When you're in the fashion for too long, you start to forget what genuinely constitutes to weird to people outside of the community.

Unless you're wearing classic, which people might ignore, because of how closely it resembles vintage fashion mentioned in this thread.

>>9715985
Unless you're only wearing solid dresses in muted colors with the most minimal of detailing and poof so low you might as well not be wearing a petticoat (which, for argument's sake, isn't what the majority of lolitas wear), people think you're wearing a costume. There is nothing wrong with this, lolitas aren't here to please anybody, we wear what we want, but to flat-out deny that outsiders perceive this as a costume is straight-up ignorance.

>>9716008
Lolita does look less like a costume than some of these styles, but you're right, some lolitas have lost their perspective on normal / live in super accepting places. Like >>9715985 - I can't "grab groceries" in even the most toned-down classic without questions/some second looks because round here people only dress like that if they're going to a wedding or other fancy occasion. If you are dressing like that every day people do think it's strange.

I really don't see it. Also I think op is a man looking to shit on lolita.

>>9715816
My point is, it's vintage inspired by things EARLIER then the 1900's ( I mean technically the Victorian Era ended in 1901 but whatever) And I never said it was actual Victorian fashion I said it was inspired by it

>>9715998
So like I keep seeing this about RPers but ????

All I've seen in this thread is some people say they want to look like a princess or like they're going to milk a cow or whatever, not that they want to be princesses and milk cows

what the hell is going in this thread

>>9716024
So who linked us this time?

>this thread

>>9716013
Where the hell do you people even live that people see tights and a dress with a flared skirt and instantly think you're in costume?

>>9716032
US

>>9716024
RP-ing has been has been used on the board to reference lolitas at heart and crossboarders looking to blend in. It's not always literally referencing people role-playing.

>>9716032
You've clearly never been to America.

>>9716033
Like the trailery parts?

>>9716032
Fucking this. Sorry not everyone dresses like a complete slob, but if you're unable to coord a printed skirt with a solid cutsew and lace tights without thinking it looks like a costume, lolita is not for you. Is a floral sundress a costume now too?

>>9716034
Ah, thanks! I always thought lolitas at heart were more like the Lifestylers.

>>9716032
I live in the UK and this is definitely not normal for everyday unless you're in a very wealthy area or the capital. I've worn much simpler things than this and don't get harassed but people typically assume I'm going to a wedding/funeral/other fancy event. If I wear light colours like Fanny Rosie in this pic I will get asked if I'm dressed as Alice.

>>9716038
>>9716032
I said here (>>9716008) that classic is literally the only style you could get away with wearing in public without people thinking you're in costume. And even then, it is still possible if your town is small enough. We don't live in a time where people get dressed up to run errands anymore, you'e going to look out of place.

>>9716040
Oh! No, not like "I love lolita so much it is my life." People have been calling those who don't wear lolita but feel they belong in the community anyways "lolitas at heart." It's the type of thing these people say to defend why they should be here.

Not to be confused with newbies interested in learning before making their first purchase.

>>9716032

This looks not normal. Sorry, but I have the same problem too. But if you step back from Lolita lenses, it looks out of place compared to slim form fitting fashions of the modern era. No one considers a petticoat a staple of any not formal wear, except vintage styles as mentioned above. What I wear to work and even toned down Lolita are their own separate fuckin lanes.

>>9716041
I live in Twickenham, never had a problem?

At best I'll get some old ladies giving me compliments, but by and by nobody gives a crap if you dress yourself well-- meaning you're not going to double up on petticoats and take a bonnet to Tesco.

>>9716047
>Twickenham is a leafy affluent suburban area in the south west of Greater London, on the River Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 10 miles (16 km) southwest of the centre of London.
That is both a wealthy area and in the capital.

>>9716045
Man there are some insecure people in this thread. Calm down. Looking different from jeans and a t shirt is not the same as looking like you're in costume.

Dress yourself well for the occasion and nobody cares. The fannyrosie look may get a double take but nobody would think it's a costume.

>>9716049
No one is saying that. It isn't insecurity to have the self awareness to know that lolita isn't within the realm of "normal" fashion. I wear lolita no matter what but I know that if I go out I might get stared at, and that is okay. I don't care about stares or comments, but I'm not going to complain about them, because i signed up for that when I started wearing lolita.

>>9716048
Sucks for you then? I don't know what you want me to say? If you don't like the way you stand out in lolita in whatever mining town you're stuck in, either suck it up or stop wearing it. Chances are though, it sounds like you'd feel odd here too, and jus about anywhere else you go.

It's your choice, I don't see why you're whining about it.

(Aw, we're affluent though? Shame we don't get that in our schools.)

>>9716049

Awareness is not insecurity. If I was insecure, I would not wear lolita. I'm simply aware that I'm supposed to dress professionally and however elegant lolita may look, it's not a mainstream look that modern professional wear is.

I mean, that's the reason why we wear the fashion, right? Because it's not mainstream and we like to express ourselves? It's weird that at first we're insistent it's unique, but then backtrack and say it's just the equivalent of fancier normal clothing. It's obviously its own style.

>>9716051
>I don't care about stares or comments, but I'm not going to complain about them, because i signed up for that when I started wearing lolita.

Honestly sounds more like you like being gaped at in lolita for not looking "normal," so idk why you felt the need to weigh in on people talking about coording to just go about town.

You seem to have a very precise and hardest definition of what "normal" fashion is, but you might be surprised to find that most normies just don't care. Again, a well corded outfit might get a double take, but nothing more than that.

Not everyone coords like they're going to a tea party 24/7. You might get a double take or two, but nothing more than that.

>>9716042
Nah, you could definitely tone down sweet and gothic to look not like a costume. It's more about the pieces you choose than your substyle. Any style can be toned down to a cutsew op with minimal poof, solid tights and flat shoes, clean hair and understated makeup. Skirt + cutsew coords are casual.

If you wear a jsk and blouse with a smaller petticoat you'll likely just get old lady compliments as >>9716047 does, but you're not going to get gawked at in casual lolita unless you live in bumfuck nowhere where people don't even wear dresses and skirts.

Personally I wear toned down gothic in my daily life, and if anything the only comments I get are about my obnoxiously long black hair and my eye makeup, not my clothes. I don't go out in a corset dress, RHS or a bright wig with roses and shit in my hair. I go out in a knee length black skirt with a cutsew, lace tights and flats. It's really not hard. The only acknowledgement I get is my 4 year old cousin saying my skirt is pretty.

Sorry if you feel like people in the middle of nowhere are gawking at you for putting minimal effort into your appearance, but the truth is normies actually don't care about you that much.

>>9716056
>Because it's not mainstream and we like to express ourselves?

Or maybe just because we like the way it looks...?

What is this obsession with "mainstream" and "normal"? If you're making your clothing decisions specifically to buck "mainstream," your decisions are still being decided by what is "mainstream."

I think a lot of us just dress lolita because we like the way it looks for its own sake. That's it. Not as a statement or as a performance art, but just because we like it for itself.

>>9715841
>not needing the XL3 size for your long amazoness legs
womanlets btfo

>>9716064
>the truth is normies actually don't care about you that much.

>>9716067
>XL3
>amazoness

>>9716053
>I live in the UK and this is definitely not normal for everyday unless you're in a very wealthy area or the capital
>wealthy area or the capital

are you retarded
can you read

>>9716066

That's kind of what I was getting at but I didn't express myself well. Lolita does not look like mainstream fashion. I don't care either way that it does, it's just that mainstream fashion doesn't have enough ruffles or well made dressy shit for my liking. But why is there this weird obsession that 'well coorded toned down' lolita should look acceptable for normies? Does it actually matter? We're already wearing an alternative fashion because mainstream fashion is not giving us what we want. So who cares if you get stares or not? Does it actually matter when normie grandmas or cousins or whoever compliment you? Because I guarantee you normies can have shit taste.

>>9716072
Sorry you live in some Chav infested hellhole? In the end it's your choice to dress lolita or not. You know your area, do some critical thinking.

Wear it and know you're going to get stared at or don't wear it and don't get stared at. If you choose to wear it, you can always choose to coord in whatever way you think will work for your area. But whining is just pathetic.

No ones forcing you to wear lolita, no ones forcing you into a massive coord.

If you're old enough to post on CGL you should be old to dress yourself.

>>9716053
I don't know why you're getting so defensive, or projecting so heavily. An anon asked if there were really places where dressing nicely is out-of-place; I replied, you then jumped on my comment without reading it properly. I have visited London and plenty of nice, upper-to-middle class areas and no, I don't feel odd there too because locals in those sorts of area are used to seeing people dressed formally or oddly and only tourists give a shit. Meanwhile in the residential areas of the several major cities I have lived in (no, not poverty-stricken mining towns), both toned-down lolita/otome and normie formalwear stand out a ton, and even in the city centre you're likely to get people asking what you're dressed up for, and a lot of second glances because it's somewhat unusual to see women wearing dresses, especially in winter.

Even classic that people fawn over and say looks like simple, elegant, classy normie-wear is something a normie would only wear to a wedding or garden party, so yes, it does look weird to wear that to your local Tesco Metro or Aldi. I think gothic is a bit easier to get away with because people expect goths to look extra.

>>9716075
Thisss.

>>9716064
>>9716062
I do not care if people stare at me or don't stare at me. I do not care if I get comments or I don't get comments. Again, I just am self aware to know that lolita can look out of place and can attract attention. That is just an undeniable fact.

I don't get why you're reacting so hard to people pointing out that lolita can look weird. And what if someone doesn't like the toned down classic look? If someones preferred style is sweet, then that really is going to look out of place no matter how you tone it down. "Lolita is normal if you tone it down!!!!" is useless advice to someone who doesn't want to wear toned down classic.

This whole derailment only started because someone pointed out that to a normal person with zero knowledge of alternative fashion, rockabilly is going to look just as weird as lolita.

>>9716001
Nayrt but you know autocorrect does that all the time, they probably just didn't fix it.

>>9716077
>mfw I live in the US and never get shit, even when I wear something more OTT
Sorry you don't have any reading comprehension skills

>>9716075
>But why is there this weird obsession that 'well coorded toned down' lolita should look acceptable for normies?

Who says it does?

I think there have been a lot of posts saying that we like wearing lolita just as a fashion, not as a statement piece. We don't coord down for "normies," we just don't coord up because coording up feels like wearing a costume.

Not all of us think of Lolita as a way to cosplay 24/7. It's not toning down, it's just treating it like clothes that we like sand that make us feel good. Not everyone needs seven pounds of artificial flowers, a bonnet, and a peignoir to feel like a coord is complete.

>>9715799
Actually, yes, some of them are. I've owned some clothing from the 50s that was not made very well. Stitching off/bad and hems fraying. Unlined and made with a cheap cotton fabric similar to a cotton quilting fabric you might find st joanns.

And desu, I'm sure there are many angelic pretty pieces that will still be around 80 years from now. Some of my ap is made with wonderful thick fabric that shows almost no wear and tear after ten years of owning and wearing them.

That's my experience

>>9716091
Yeah just don't feel like arguing about how where I live isn't wealthy.

Here's perspective: there are average suburbs of D.C. to seem wealthy to someone living in a shitheel Oklahoma

>>9716095

And also, even if newer ap isn't quite as durable, most of it is still made to last. some of my newer ap coats are so thick and nicely made they'll probably survive a nuclear winter

>>9716091
ntayrt but the US is a huge, diverse country, any anon that isn't an idiot knows you can't generalise experiences in one area to the US as a whole

I wish lolita and vintage/retro were both mainstream. It'd make shit way easier to find, and if people saw it everywhere then maybe they'd finally leave me the fuck alone

>>9716096
>>9716102
That wasn't my point... my point was that I in fact do not live in a "Chav infested hellhole" because I live in the US

>>9716110
I really liked when ruffly shit came into mainstream fashion last year, I didn't like the H&M take on the trend but I noticed I got less stares in simple ruffled lolita items after that.

>>9715799
It all depends, eventually you'll learn old brands and their quality. There's a lot of amateur handmade stuff floating around too being sold for high prices just because it's vintage. A lot has survived but the texture is weird and brittle and not suitable for any extended wear. It's why I only buy vintage items in brick and mortar stores or brands that I know online.

>>9716118
The more we wear lolita, the more people will get used to it. So fuck them, don't bother toning it down. I go all out when I wear lolita, I like to put together bold looks with cute statement pieces

>>9715958
Natural Kei. I believe a lot of popular brands from the natural kei era borrowed heavily from Gunne Sax.

>>9716067
if you were really an amazon you would know that going up a size barely increases the length (maybe a half an inch at most)

also
>amazoness
wtf
sincerely, size 4/6 6'0 anon

>>9716067
Adding an ess onto the end of Amazon is extremely superfluous anon, Amazon already refers solely to women. You might as well say queeness or womaness while you are at it.

>>9716067
>XXXL
>muh amazoness legs
O-Okay anon
Is this the new "I'm not fat it's just my boobs uwu"?

>posting about wearing american vintage fashion on a japanese fashion board

>>9715799
Another thing to consider is that Angelic Pretty is made very fucking well. Not all vintage is equal, especially if you factor in the handmade and lower end garments. Sure, a handfinished dress or like an Emma Domb or something might be very good quality, but as time has gone on we have found ways to improve the way we make clothes more sturdily. Sure, mass produced fast fashion of today is shit quality, but it's not meant to last. Well-made garments of today, as long as it's not cheaply produced, can but just as good as vintage.

>>9715459
dude her fucking waist is non-existent.
a small waist is aesthetically pleasing, but this is legitimately terrifying

>>9715906
girl on the left is fucking gorgeous

>referring to rockabilly retardation as "vintage"

>>9716969
The bodies of an average woman in the 30s-50s was significantly smaller all around; hands, feet, and waist training from the start of puberty was very common. I had a wasp waist for a short time when I waist trained in middle school. You should see some of the bodies of aristos pre French Revolution, where their intestines are all squished down lower in thier abdomen to close their ribs that tight. Neat stuff.

>>9717041
Here's an actress from the 20's she's close enough to what I'm taking about.

>>9717041
Waist training in the 30s? Are you retarded? Girdles were common then, but waist training and actual corsetry was really...not.

>>9715122
Not the same joy of collecting and hunting down pieces, completing sets. Lolita meets or meets of women in vintage clothes? Can't put a kitchen sink your goddamn hair and adorn it with bows wearing vintage. I mean you can but it's just not the same. No glitter prints. No god damn chocolate prints. No what the fuck Meta moments. Ain't no drama like lolita drama. Like who cares what Barbra is selling on the vintage facebook buy sell group. Let's get some juicy flavor of the moment gossip. Mr. Yan stories never get old. I'd rather hear Replica debates than listen to Carol talk about her latest thrift store find. I mean really now.

>>9717041

It's a petite girl with a girdle, not corset waist training.
>t. Petite girl who uses girdles sometimes

>>9717046
Tiny waists are cute but this is fucking terrifying

>>9715415
>>9715255
Repro vintage sucks. Unique Vintage’s clothes are shit quality but expect you to pay like $40+. I have true vintage clothing which feel so much sturdier despite it being so old.

>>9717046
Nice try, but pretty much every photo of Polaire was edited by hand, as was customary at that time.
https://redthreaded.com/blogs/redthreaded/that-waist-photo-editing-at-the-turn-of-the-century

>>9717053
Don't worry, it's not real anyway.

>>9716146
Yes, i know, but it was just for an easy bait

>>9715901
would genuinely wear, that's my aesthetic

>>9715901
That's adorable! Source?

>>9715495
Classic and gothic lolita are still girly and cute af lol

>>9715122
You are headed in the right direction, just slightly deviated

>>9715243
why did Vintage/Retro/Rockabilly become fat culture? I've noticed and been wondering this for ages, what is it that pulls the fatties in? most vintage is tiny, I've never understood

>>9717682
The cuts, or at least the ones that are common in 50s repro vintage, are usually flattering for fuller figures. It also has the added bonus of being unique and not a boring potato sack that normie stores try to push on plus sized girls.

>>9717684

Which is weird, because true vintage often runs small. I think the myth of ~voluptuous Marilyn Manson~ gets perpetrated and it's become some sort of symbol of empowerment for fat people. So here I am, buying out the dresses that people can't fit into. It's nice in a way, sort of like how the only thing left in American shops sometimes is the xxs during clearance sales.

>>9717716

Ok sorry, not perpetrated, just thrown around and gets popular. That word.

I should not type after 16 hours of work.

>>9717716
>voluptuous marilyn manson

....... Is that you Francis?

>>9717716
>voluptuous marilyn manson

>>9717716
>voluptuous Marilyn Manson

>>9717041
>I had a wasp waist for a short time when I waist trained in middle school.

Stupid, lying, or troll? We report, you decide.

>hands, feet, and waist training from the start of puberty was very common.

How does one train their hands and feet, exactly? Socks with spiral steel boning?

>>9716969
Fatty spotted.

Dude, it's a corset or girdle on a normal sized woman. Calm down. Diabetes is far more terrifying.

>>9717716
Well, also because she was a size 12, but a 1950s size 12. Still had like a 24" waist tho.

>>itt: ton of people who have never touched a corset

>>9717716
I understood what you were trying to say lol
This is one subject that really ruffles my jimmies, though. I know a lot of fat women into lolita or retro style clothing who idolise Marilyn Monroe and constantly make digs at me for having “no curves” and being shaped like a child. But Marilyn’s measurements were like 36-24-34 and mine are 35-25-39. I have a smaller bust, but my waist-hip flare is even more dramatic than hers. So how is it that I supposedly have no curves while in a sense being more curvy than their idol? Why are they even idolising someone with a 24” waist when they themselves are twice that size with no intentions to lose weight? I really don’t get these people and they make up >75% of the vintage/retro community in my area.

>>9717797
What you’re talking about are fat acceptance people. People who take vintage seriously (I’m one) hate these cows as much as you do. They’re delusional, but no more or less than the whales in lolita comms, and please don’t make the mistake of conflating vintage lifestylers with the fat-acceptance movement. We can’t really do anything about them.

>>9717799
Reminds me of when I was in a vintage shop and a very large woman was bitching at the owner. The owner is a sweetheart and was being far more nice than she had to be, but this bitch wasn't backing down. The issue? The only things they had in her size was a set of 70s muumuus. She eventually left in a huff after whining that the owner must hate fat people and would certainly go out of business soon. This place has been here for a decade. Funny thing is, a lot of plus sized women do shop in there, as she explained, but they buy up any good stuff in their size very quickly.

>>9717046
Not to add to a dead conversation but you can literally see the marker strokes next to her waist where they tapered it in.

>>9715122
I don't wear vintage because I look like a 12 year old dressing up in her nana's clothing when I do. I had purchased an entire pin up wardrobe only to realize it didn't suit me at all. I simply don't have a mature enough face or figure for the style. My tits are WAAAY too small to ever look good in that kinda thing.

More sack dresses for me!!!!

>>9717876
Not all vintage is pinup or mature, there's tons of cute stuff for petite, young looking women out there. You just have to try a variety of eras and cuts. Trendy 60s clothes are great for straight shapes, there's lots of a-line cuts and shorter skirts.

T. 5'3" AAA cup vintage enthusiast

>>9715336
>>9715244
>>9715122

Most lolitas I know wear vintage as their daily wear what is OP smoking

>>9715540
Underrated post right here

>>9715906
I love this... Anon, can you please please post a pic of the Gunne Sax dresses you own?

As someone active in the vintage/historical community, there's a lot of wank about prints, particularly Horrockses prints (that are currently being churned out by ASOS on awful polyester items). Real Horrockses prints are very close to the lolita aesthetic, though.

>>9717902
different strokes for different folks? no one in my community wear vintage for daily wear, it's more like normie or tumblr-kei

>>9715892
>guise whitey ppl is bad ;_;
>stop liking white things plz, i'm being raped in a new shoah!
>guise remember, le white trash xD!

I hope you get terminal cancer as soon as possible. Inoperable. In the brain.

>>9718126
That’s absolutely hideous.

>>9715810
>Extra small is a size 8
This is the worst timeline

>>9715470
>>9715459
>>9715457
>>9715456

I really really love New Look fashion and I've always wanted to wear it. But I have idea where I can even find clothes like this that aren't costume quality

>>9715122
you must be a salty fat ita.

>>9724123
Draft your own patterns to make your own, or shop around for vintage patterns. Alternatively, I think several of the major pattern publishers are re-releasing some of their older vintage patterns. A few of the people I follow on Instagram seem pretty into making more vintage looking clothing.