Like the title says. Doesn't have to be eye-searingly ugly/wtf, just ones you don't like and whyI'll start. I never liked this print which makes this item double ugly for me
>>10168758why is it covered in the star of david?
>>10168760It’s a Kagome crest, which uses the same shape but is from Shinto.
>>10168758That's one of my dream dresses, I want it in the red colorway though
I fucking hate horror garden. The print itself is beautiful, but the materials used are vile. I hate every dress ap puts out with that cheap material and the gross overlay that distracts from the print.
>>10169036I like the skirt version. but I agree, a lot of newer angelic pretty releases look pretty cheap and costumey
>>10169103>2015>olddid you join lolita yesterday? Anything after 2012 is new
Honey Cake in this particular cut and colorway. The shiny brown/gold parts on the bodice look horrible with the white trim in my opinion and it's just all around ugly af. I'd take the mint/white combo over this any day.
Pretty much everything with this print, partially because I hate it and partially because it's a snowflake magnet. Looks like tumblr threw up on it
>>10169106That’s not how it works.>>10169108God I fucking hate honeycake. The definition of a bandwagon dress.
>>10169106A piece being considered old or new is fairly subjective, it really all depends on when you started in the fashion. Someone who's been wearing lolita since the early 2000's will likely consider something like the second milky planet release new, but for someone just entering the fashion, that may be considered an "old" print since their jumping off point is much later.
>>10169125I’ve been in the fashion for a decade and consider a piece that’s been released in the last 1-2 years new. The idea that a 7 year old piece is “new” is bordering on retarded.
Meta i love you but this colorway reminds me of a slot machine
>>10169134unloading my mental shitlist
>>10169127>>10169103I was just generalising and saying that newer angelic pretty releases can look a lil costumey, not even necessarily horror garden.. can't believe I gotta repeat myself cos salty bitches wanna misconstrue shit to suit their argument
>>10169141>>10169138how could i forget
>>10169143less squabbling more ugly dresses
>>10169145my post was simple enough, i was saying i ~like~ horror garden's skirt version, you just chose to conflate the two so you could get angry about something. stay mad
>>10169142posting more for the cut but this colorway sucks too
>>10169160the infamous shrek dress
>>10169161I love this
>>10169228Taobao is a bit of a low hanging fruit, they make lots of wacky shit
someone help me, whats the one thats made out of a swirly print that looks like a disposable coffee cup
>>10169134>this colorway reminds me of a slot machineThat's something I like about it.
>>10169231Can you at least tell us which brand it was?
>>10169111I love this dress but has anyone ever worn it well?
>>10169355No, I swear every coord with it has some stupid tumblr snowflake makeup and a terrible pastel wig
>>10169142Such a cool print but the cut is garbage>>10169144Oh Jesus not the UKIP dress >>10169221A girl in my comm managed to wear this nicely
I absolutely love the cut but I wish the print weren't plates and shit. I have bought this for sure if it were flowers or cats or pretty much anything else
This colour is an abomination
>>10169036>>10169111>>10169031So many gulls hate my wardrobe...
>>10169036wtf is that collar as well? looks like something they'd put on a monster high doll.>>10169111oh god, this dress always gives me alt-left 2015 flashbacks.>>10169134i mean... at least it's a creative concept? sure?? yeah, nah.>>10169135i'd like this if there was no purple. i want a mint chocolate dress.>>10169138what on god's earth is this abomination>>10169142halloween vomit #99999999.>>10169144it's still awful.>>10169162ronald mcdonald crossplay?>>10169166it's inoffensive. reminds me of modern my little pony art.>>10169221looks like tumblr otherkin artwork. no.>>10169223I WILL NOT ALLOW ART HOES TO TAKE OVER LOLITA FASHION. IT'S THE LAST THING WE HAVE LEFT.>>10169226what is this print even meant to be of? it looks like a china plate to me.>>10169228at least if you spill your coke on it, it'll just add more detail.>>10169360why is there a random ctrl+v pot of vinegar. why.>>10169363it could be coorded nicely, i don't mind the colour too much.
>>10169384Holy shit nobody cares.
>>10169162Once I saw a girl wearing this at my workplace with her bf. That or a very similar print. Personally I think she looked pretty nice in it, though her hair was messy. She was super shy too and I really wanted to say something encouraging about her wearing lolita in public, though I can't remember if I actually did.
>>10169111the saddest thing about this dress is that it looks even worse in person. usually i give shit like this the benefit of the doubt and figure they must look nicer irl but this one looks even more cheap and tacky
>>10169360The plates are fine but whatever that brown stuff is (vinegar?) ruins it
>>10169360i love that print (and also the cut) but i don't see myself wearing anything that nice desu, i mostly just wear casual
I dislike any print with angels or cherubs. They completely ruin any cute print for me. Often I will find a cute floral print I want to buy but there are stupid naked babies flying around in it when you look closely. Why do people like them?
>>10169384>what is this print even meant to be of?i think it was supposed to be an aquarium
>>10169430This. Especially pic related I don't get the hype
>>10169427I'm pretty sure they're different tea pots
>>10169429I feel the same way about Mary and Jesus. It just makes me cringe. Cecelia Cross is such a beautiful dress and I don't mint the crosses at all but Mary just kills it for me
>>10169433Are you kidding? Those aren't cherubs, they're like seraphs or something. The kind of angels that are weird eldritch wingbeasts. There aren't any naked babies on that print, not even a baby Jesus.
>>10169433i actually like this one ngl
>>10169447it's very popular so
>>10169384shut the fuck up dude
>>10169433>>10169435lol my entire wardrobeadding on, i was in LOVE with the print for the release but they screwed the pooch on all three cuts
>>10169430but....how can you hate such cuteness?
>>10169563what print is that?
I hate the green lettering.
>>10169608innocent world's angel land
>>10169103Anon what are you talking about, it was only released like last yea->>10169106>2015Wait what the fuck>>10169482I feel this way about so many of Baby and AatP’s releases over the last few years. So many nice prints ruined by ugly cuts, and even if both cut and print are cute they’ll ruin it with that poly chiffon that makes all darker colours look washed out and the print look muddled. Plus it’s the kind of fabric that’s easily permanently damaged by alterations and even pins/brooches so where I might normally have removed a superfluous ribbon or two to make the piece more wearable for me, I’m now afraid to touch them in any way.
>>10169641Do you mean their shantung stuff?
aatp wizarding platform there are some other prints they've done like this too, where it just looks so muddy and gross, i'm shocked people bought this
>>10169231AATP tea time something and so on? Has a scruffy doily trim?
>>10169660What the fuck lmao this is so ugly
>>10169660People bought it because harry potter.
>>10169654The ones I'm talking about are listed as chiffon, powdery chiffon, vintage satin or simply polyester.
>>10169660I think it went on sale
>>10169704How to ruin a cute cut with shit material and a tacky print.
>>10169106Let me correct myself. In the grand scheme of lolita history, anything that was released after 2012 is relatively new, 2008-2011 is a bit older and is the renaissance era of lolita, and old school is >2007
>>10169714The material is actually really nice though
>>10169730>say something stupid>people point out it’s stupid>backtrack to try and make it less stupid.Sure Jan. You totally meant “relatively new.” Which is still retarded, btw
>>10169730if it’s older than 5 years old it’s really reaching to try and call it relatively new, especially given the life of the fashion. if we were talking about goth then that would be more reasonable, but we arent
>>10169731The image is not doing it any favours then.
>>10169231UGH I FKING FOUND IT ofc its bodyline but seriously the WORST fabric ever. this is some joann's bad handmade tier.
>>10169757Shit that is well bad.
>>10169166continuing my shitlist, this McMeta piece
>>10169734can you all stfu and post shit you don't like like the fucking thread says
>>10169771Stop trying to police what other people post holy shit
>>10169763This looks like those meme fast food cosplays
>>10169763Yeeeesh. If I got my hands on this I’d probably end up taking it apart to reuse the lace.
>>10169763I think I thought this was a CLAMP collaboration for the longest time. But when I searched the other day it looks like their only collab was the btssb cardcaptor dress. I thought there was a collab with another brand, I’m so confused
>>10169363you take that back you fucking monster
>>10169924iirc isnt it creamy mami?>>10169930also, with you on this. love this color. but yeah it only works for certain complexions.
I've never seen Vampire Requiem look good on anyone, in any colourway. This cut, as well as the skirt, both tend to look awful and unflattering. They also seem to be ita magnets for some reason.
>>10169036At least it’s not Holy Lantern.
I wanted to love this but after seeing it in person I realized how cheap it actually looks.
>>10169734>sure JanChriiiist. I don't even agree with the other anon who started this shit cause I got horror garden when it came out but God you sound fucking useless when you spout memes like this.
>>10169704If it didn't have that stripe look and it was made of cotton or something, I think this would've been something people sought after.
>>10170018nayrt but i have no respect for people who unironically still use that meme. it's probably the most normie sounding bullshit, and they're usually the people screaming things are "normie"
>>10169641Wait damn It was really 2015? Fuck...
>>10170015I have seen this in person and I thought it looked okay and I am not a huge fan of the ALL THE RUFFLES ON ONE DRESS look.
>>10170046You proved my point, anon.
>>10169940Oo Jia made a replica of this print. Probably responsible for about 90% of the itas right there.I saw some decent coords way back when the dress was first released. They've been drowned out by the itas wearing replicas, though.
Not the ugliest print but there's a bit too much happening for my liking.
I know meta is pretty common fare for these sorts of threads but baby has released some seriously ugly stuff
This one looks like children's dress up clothing even close up
>>10170547I love this print in other cuts. This one always looks so off though.
>>10170547>>10170565I love that print and the cut, it's so flattering on me
>>10170565Personally I'm not a fan of cheerful lemon, especially in the blue (I find the pink more tolerable but I still don't really like it), but the plastic lemon jewelry and hairpin that go with it are fucking cute. The fact that the jsk 1 has a little more going on on top than just the sad little bow that the salopette has helps it look less "off" imo. I do agree that I don't like the cut of that salopette, the shorter skirt length and dropped waist don't look quite right with that print
>>10170551heheh how could you not post the WORSE colorway lmao
>>10170686i wish baby would stop with the bow overload
>>10170693Missed your opportunity to say BOWverload
>>10169924>>10169935This is absolutely no help, but it is a collaboration, just not with CLAMP or Creamy Mami. I can't for the life of me remember with who but I think it was either a musician or an artist.
>>10169774Are you new? Being a retard and getting off topic isn’t how this place is supposed to work. Stop reeing about other people “policing” you every time someone tells you to stfu
>>10170547This looks cute to me, although I never think that cut feels very "lolita".
>>10169774>hurr stop telling me to not derail the thread and act like a tard!anyways AP put this out in 2017 for about $400 yet every colorway looks like milanoo-tier garbage, especially the red and the white
>>10170764ivory colorway. thought it was white, my bad
>>10170745Maybe because it's not actually a jsk and is actually a salopette?
>>10170764Adding an image to your post doesn’t really change the fact you’re being a hypocrite with off topic shitposting too.
Jetj is very hit or miss
end of jetj spam
>>10170783I'm adding this to my wishlist >>10170796What's wrong with this?
>>10170805I don't like the cut at all. The print is mostly fine, but I think they should have toned down the red guy a little because he jumps out too much
I feel like collabs are kinda low hanging fruit but there's a lot of fugly ones out there
>>10170850>>10170855I usually hate collabs, especially Disney ones but these are ok to me.
>>10170783But its got a friend on it!!!!
>>10171112Please tell me that this isn't reference to Portlandia.
>>10170782>>10170786I love the spooky Victorian scrapbook feel of jetj prints. My issue is the cuts are often unflattering or just kind of silly, like the random chiffon flaps on >>10170796. But these 2 are nice cuts and prints.
>>10170867I thought for sure they were gonna continue with the trend of picking the really bad ones that were sold through the Disney store rather than veer off into some of the halfway decent collabs.Word has it this particular Alice series is so bad the fabric is see-through on several items, here the tights with the seams that they didn't even bother to design for non-matching seams
>>10170549I've seen it look cute on other girls, but the materials close up are really costume tier.
>>10170812>posts the back of a dress
>>10170782I think this would work better if the print was smaller
>>10170796>>10170783Me likey. Can someone id this pls
>>10169161and this is actually the nice cut. It's even worse in the OP version
>>10171171The front isn't much better,
>>10171226La bibliothèque OP and La Lettre d'un Poète OP, respectively, both JetJ>>10171156I would like this photo so much more if they didn't use those heels... I really don't think think thin heels belong in lolita
This thing has always looked gross to me and I'm not quite sure why. I'm normally fond of baked sweets prints too.
>>10170808>>10170810>>10170812>>10170814>>10170817>>10170850>>10170852>>10170855Wow Baby does collabs so much better than AP. With AP they just look either cheap or like kids dresses. Baby goes all out on the design and materials.
>>10171291>Baby goes all out on the design and materialsYou should see >>10170850 in person, it's so ugly.
>>10171296One bad one out of 8 is not so bad. I'm a huge AP fag but even I can see Baby is superior in this regard.
>>10170808Speaking of terrible collabs, this abomination.Also every print by AtePie, I don't know how anyone would think they look good.
>>10171291>>10171581The rule is, if you buy it from the Disney store -- disneystore.jp, then it's gonna be cheap (literally cheap, like $100 dresses, not $250), and nasty fast fashion. You just can't halve the price tag of a lolita dress, put both Disney and burando tags on it, print it in full colour, and still expect something other than cheap, fast fashion disposable plastic dresses.If you buy it from the burando store (eg- angelicpretty-onlineshop or babyssb), then the dress will be more expensive due to paying for Disney licensing, but the quality will be on par with their usual releases and it won't suck quite as hard.Anon for some reason posted all of AP's dresses from disneystore.jp (ie the cheap stuff) and then all the btssb/aatp dresses from babyssb (ie the expensive stuff).
>>10171793>Anon for some reason posted all of AP's dresses from disneystore.jp (ie the cheap stuff) and then all the btssb/aatp dresses from babyssb (ie the expensive stuff).To encourage more bias against AP probably.
>>10172127i just went thru the collaboration tag on lolibrary since collabs regardless of brand are ugly most of the time you brainletthe baby collabs are equally as bad imo
>>10172353>brainletGo back to whatever board you came from. Jesus that was obvious.
>>10171793you can pry all the AP & Baby X Disney collabs out of my cold dead hands
I really hate some of baby's 2008-2010 prints despite loving AP's prints from their era and liking baby's newer stuff.They're not even "bad" i just don't like them and i have no clue why. I especially hate this print in the blue colorway
>>10172395adult women who are obsessed with disney have the same potent, autistic energy as neckbeard manchild
>>10169111Literally looks like something you can get from aliexpress for 17$
>>10172446it's mainly just the Alice in wonderland prints / not so much the aristocats one lol
>>10169440To be fair, I think all actual angels described in the Bible are more eldritch. Naked babies was a Roman thing
>>10170766This dress reminds me of Christine Daae’s Point of No Return dress in the musical, I find it pretty. But holy crap is the red terrible.
>>10172450As do almost all AP galaxy/space/sky prints.
>>10172460Naked babies are an Italian thing called putti iirc.
>>10172474Ayrt, I agree. Space theme was a mistake
>>10172474>>10172783Why do gulls hate galaxy stuff so much?
>>10169433Popular collaboration for the time, they are seraphim, it’s stained glass, there are lots of colors in it for visual interest but it’s not too busy because the theme is tight and the detail is good. It’s still a very focused and coherent theme. I still love mine but I have a different cut and colourway.
>>10170549The rich sissies are drooling over this
>>10169730I’ve been wearing the fashion 10 years. ‘New’ to me means ‘released within the past season’ same as any fashion timing. So right now, nothing older than spring 2019 is ‘new’. Of course I love some older things too, my oldest dress is 15 now, hard to believe, but I don’t pretend that thinking of years-old stuff as ‘oh all those ~new~ things’ gives me any clout as some kind of oldbie. Diligent noobs can collect all kinds of old stuff, real old-timers who are still in the fashion may eagerly follow every new release of one or more brands. We are all different and in our own lane.
>>10170803I still really like this one and also their blue carousel dress. But yes, I think some jetj with odd clip-art is wak.
>>10173302There is some JetJ stuff I genuinely like (stuff like legwear and phone cases mostly), although honestly I think I'm biased against JetJ because I prefer solid pieces and JetJ's signature of course is their collage prints. That being said, here's a non-print piece they put out in 2016 that I think was a real miss
>>10171114Idk what that is
>>10170551You could make a delicious bacon cheeseburger coord with this.