OTT Old School

File: 1465810093058.png (66KB, 164x216px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 164x216px

Why would you post this nightmare? This is why newbies think old school=ita.

File: 1394306736038.jpg (71KB, 500x696px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x696px

Here's a coord that doesn't necessitate a labotomy after looking at it.

File: 0654___dINCRyi.jpg (81KB, 429x750px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 429x750px

>>9125830
>That lace quality
It's bad now and has always been, OP

>>9125830
Visible will never be good

>tfw been wearing lolita for five years and bf still can't tell the difference between >>9125830 and >>9125839
Not the end of the world, but I'm getting pretty tired of "They look the same anon! Stop being so snobby!" when one is adorable but the other clearly looks like garbage

File: 1467417034112.png (35KB, 140x162px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 140x162px

>>9126132
I've had friends that can't for the life of them tell the difference between the most overtly ita example of a $40 eBay "Lolita cosplay" and a gorgeous brand dress. I seriously don't get it, the differences were clear as day to me on literally day one of the fashion when I was just 14. Like, are they literally retarded?

>>9125830
This was ita then and its ita now.

>>9125832
And it's not even an old picture

File: tumblr_ntsc8miugs1uea1yfo1_500.jpg (41KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x640px

Is this thread salvageable?

File: image.jpg (156KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 375x500px

>>9127245

File: 7BC4EMj.jpg (39KB, 385x700px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 385x700px

>>9127245

File: E6tLFwK.jpg (19KB, 250x700px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 250x700px

>>9127297

File: HKd0Dm3.jpg (258KB, 540x742px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 540x742px

>>9127307

File: grNffM9.jpg (34KB, 417x593px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 417x593px

>>9127322

File: fsfTX4V.jpg (127KB, 387x535px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 387x535px

>>9127327

>>9127285
This will always be my dream old school dress

File: manamana-420x600.jpg (56KB, 420x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 420x600px

>11 image replies
>no Mana-sama

File: I2cRItc.jpg (36KB, 402x536px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 402x536px

>>9127353

File: hBJBKi7.jpg (27KB, 494x667px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 494x667px

>>9127508
>>9127425
here you go anon

File: Gn6HU9c.jpg (29KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 360x480px

>>9127510

File: NOQYVM3.jpg (96KB, 472x354px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 472x354px

>>9127512

File: eN9WRtj.jpg (267KB, 573x735px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 573x735px

>>9127513

File: 109P315-jsk.jpg (91KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 480x640px

Do dresses that aren't actually old, but old school style count as old school? Like Ginger Doll?

>>9127519
That isn't old school style, anon

File: image.jpg (99KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 480x640px

>>9127519
I don't think so. AatP's Miranda jsk >>9125839 (2008) isn't always considered old school even though it's in line with the aesthetic.
What's usually the cut off point for something to be considered old school? 2006?

>>9127519
definitely not. check out some old GLB scans if you want to get a better idea of what constitutes old school

>>9127553
i think the thin straps are what pushes this out of old school territory. otherwise it's fairly close.

>>9127553
Scratch that- just realized the first release was from 2005. Either way, the old school status has been debated with newer color ways in the rereleases.

>>9127545
I'm so confused how that's not the old school goth style?

>>9127888
If you need to ask that you need to lurk more.

>>9127889
I've been a lolita since 2005, hon. Ginger Doll is the same aesthetic as old school gothic. If you really want to contest this, explain to me how it's not.

>>9127515
I long for the days when old school threads stop being ita as fuck

>>9125830
So..."Gorgeous" lolita?

>>9127515
This is beautiful. I love old school florals.

>>9127893
for starters,
>thin shoulder straps
>gold foiled print
>chiffon ruffles

File: Nana_9.jpg (90KB, 489x767px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 489x767px

is Nana Kitade OTT oldschool-tier or just OTT nostalgia-tier?

>>9128111
Gold screen printing was a thing in 2005 and chiffon alone doesn't mean it doesn't fit the old school aesthetic. Thinner straps are also a thing on some old school dresses, just not as much as now.

>>9128130
ok but all of those things together? and 2005 just barely qualifies as old-school imo

File: wastelandstyle.gif (477KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 500x281px

>>9126171
>day one of the fashion
well that was a nice thread.

>>9127893
Then you should be embrassed for being an eternal noob. I can can see how a noon would make that mistake but you have no excuse.

>>9128135
That's your opinion. General opinion is 2005 qualifies as old school. Because if not I don't know what it is. This is my opinion, but 2006-2008 are post old school and after that is modern lolita.

>>9128414
it isn't a hard line between the styles. 2005 was definitely a transition year. you can nitpick if you want but it still isn't oldschool.

>>9128418
I'm not commenting on the dress in question at all. I think we are starting to be so distant from the years 2006-2008 the general idea of old school is a bit hard to form. It looks so outdated, but it's not quite old school. But I think this conversation would be more suited for an actual old school thread.

>>9127412
me too anon. I've given up at this point

>>9128414
>General opinion is 2005 qualifies as old school

The term old school was used then though to describe an earlier, separate style. Some people still wore things that were in that style, but there was a distinction.

>>9128502
I know it's an old term, but I believe as time passes, the term old school developes when modern lolita moves more away from it's roots. That time is already super outdated, but you are right it's already clearly lolita as older lolita might not always be as regogniseble. But the point we look back now is so much different what it was back then.

>>9128142
I'm pretty sure they meant their first day in the fashion, anon.

>>9128402
Different anon, but you guys are the ones who should be embarrassed for being eternally ita. This thread (as well as pretty much every old school thread) is full of shit that everyone knew was ita even back in the day, but you guys seem to be incapable of telling what was actually good and use "old school" as an excuse to be ita as fuck. Then the thing that you feel the need to call out on is someone pointing out a dress that, nitpick all you want, is undeniably reminiscent of old school style. I'm not saying it is or should be called old school, but if you're seriously gonna sit there and tell me that Ginger Doll has nothing major in cmmon with old school, you are too retarded and full of yourself for this fashion.

Also, on the subject of 2005, y'all need to get over yourselves, general consensus is 2005 is old school and be pretentious all you want about it, but your stance doesn't change that. Also, someone mentioned screen print being a thing in 2005, but I've seen dresses by Moitie and AP with it from 2003.

>>9128537
Ginger Doll has some elements in common with "old school" dresses, but it's not actually old school by far. The details are all very modern. Sorry that you got called out.

>>9128548
Not any of the former anons but you gotta be kidding right now. Everybody was saying it's similar to old school gothic dresses not it it old school. Even the anon above said you can'r deny the old school motifs but you don't have to call it old school.

>>9128548
I'm not the anon you were responding to, dear. Did you bother even reading my post? I straight up said it isn't old school, but you have to be really dumb to not see it was clearly designed to be reminiscent of old school gothic.

File: image.jpg (53KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x533px

>itt: no fun allowed

You god-tier lolita knowledge gulls know that you're welcome to contribute to the thread if you think the posts are so shitty, right?

File: image.jpg (68KB, 564x822px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 564x822px

>>9128673

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x412px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x412px

>>9128676

File: image.jpg (56KB, 408x900px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 408x900px

>>9128684

>>9128673
I've contributed, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with people pointing out that a lot of the stuff that gets posted here is extremely ita without dumping pics yourself. I mean the OP pic of this thread has been one of the most commonly used examples to explain ita for like a decade, I honestly question if it was bait.

>>9128692
Actual discussion (especially on topic) is great, but people who swoop in to completely salt up threads by arguing forever over anonymous laurels rustle my jimmies.

>>9128590
>>9128663
Can you even read? They said it was the same aesthetic, not just inspired by

>>9127897
Oh honey, no

File: b3e741b8dae64fe113efb8995016e924.jpg (36KB, 736x370px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 736x370px

with so few images ITT, why repost >>9128684?

also, what makes the 3 coords starting at >>9128686 OTT?

>Mana unrelated, just contribootin

>>9128871
Those last three aren't part of my dump, but I think that the red riding hood might be borderline ott. The color is loud and the design elements are a little crazy as well.

>>9127897
Is this bait or do you not understand what oldschool was

File: _20160804_143203.jpg (222KB, 957x1251px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 957x1251px

Should I get this? Not crazy about the green x red but it's so cute

File: image.jpg (45KB, 250x344px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 250x344px

>>9128685

File: image.jpg (45KB, 250x326px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 250x326px

>>9129016

File: image.jpg (87KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x340px

>>9129022

>>9129008
Anon no, that's hideous.

File: oldschool6.png (2MB, 1095x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1095x1600px

I love old school lolita. I really do. I would love to integrate some old school pieces into my wardrove (I'm leaning more towards a gothic, toned down classic, and classic with sweet hints).
The thing is, my comm is really small (I live in the middle of nowhere) and they don't dress very well (arround 10 girls, some of them between ita stage and beginner, 3 of them are okay tier) so they're really judgamental of some oldschool pieces, specially if they're black and white.
They still think b&w=ita, regardless of the quality of the dress and lace. I just feel way too risky and that they would immediatly start talking behind my back. But I just love well done black and white old school.
What should I do?

>>9129182
Additional information:
I tried to get into the comm some years ago but decided to be a loner lolita instead. I became friends with one of them though (I didn't knew she was a lolita) and would like to get invested in the comm sometime.
Also there was this ita girl who never wore a wig or any good petticoat so dunno if they judged her for her appearance more than the oldschool dress.

>>9129182
Who cares what they think, honestly? If they think that any and all b/w coords are automatically ita then it's obvious they have no idea what they're talking about, so why do you care for their opinion? Wear what you like and be proud of it.

>>9129182
ask the regular oldschool thread unless you want OTT advice here

>>9127297
where the hell do I get a crown like that.
>>9128434
2006-2008 is definitely a much different scene but I think a different term would be needed to represent it since old school is usually associated with the days of simple patterns and not OTT sweet.
>>9128135
Eh, personally I would consider some pieces from 2005/06 old school depending on their look.

>>9131765
That's Meta? Wow they've really changed

>>9129287
OTT oldschool is not a thing. Why the fuck does this thread even exist

File: tumblr_nwf3ydYU3h1uea1yfo1_400.jpg (31KB, 287x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 287x600px

>>9136316
No one is claiming it's its own substyle, but you'd have to be an idiot not to see that the coords posted here are more ott than say, pic related. So yes, it is a thing, what it is not is a substyle.

>>9136408
That picture isn't related at all

File: miss-the-point.png (4KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 400x400px

>>9136933

>>9136408
Most everything posted ITT is so simple. Wearing a big, velveteen meta set with plain socks, a plain bag, and chunky shoes is not OTT. OTT refers to piling on shit like people do with scepters, crowns, peignoirs, echarpé, a million flowers and bows, tons of jewelry, etc. Wearing one fancy bonnet or a small crown like they used to is not OTT. Your thread is dumb and you don't seem like you were around back in the day or understand oldschool at all. You seem like a tryhard con lolita

>>9136973
Never been to a con but okay friend, stay buttmad I don't actually care that much

>>9131763
This is my new dream dress

>>9128673
>>9127508
>>9128686
These make my heart sing

>>9127297
I love this dress so much... What are the chances of ever finding it?

>>9143473
I've never seen it for sale, so I wish you luck! Unless someone has any release info, then it was likely just a sample piece, as many of the oldschool OTT dresses AP had in magazine spreads were.

>>9128673
But that's not OTT

The closest thing to OTT old school would be a Mana shoot

>>9128135
10 years from now 2016 will be considered old school

>>9143757
NGL I'm kind of excited for a "retro" OTT sweet revival.

>>9143762
Same, cant wait for two tone twin pigtails to be a thing again

>>9143762
>>9143776
OTT sweet was the most popular style when I got into lolita. I look forward to it coming back.
They may be tacky but I'll never give up my pink and brown pigtails