How do you feel about dresses who's origins are written all over them?
>When is it too much?
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
Looking at you AP.
Post your best or worst examples. Depending on how you see it.
>>8780093
This one in pink always looks super similar to AP's I think.
I don't like any branding. I can see why one would want to do it in maybe really tiny font, so that it would be easy to tell the difference between theirs and a replica, but AP always goes too far with it. They brand the shit out of everything and it's tacky. AP has to be scribbled all over their dresses, skirts, wristcuffs, berets...it's like Louis Vuitton, it suggests that items are supposed to have value because of the company that designed them and not the designs themselves. I'd rather buy three well-designed dresses from Taobao than one tacky overbranded dress from AP.
Pic related, beret could be cute but the giant blatant printing on the ribbon is obnoxious so I'd never want this in my wardrobe.
>>8780095
>>8780109
Ah yea, IW is weird like that too sometimes. This beret is literally called "Logo Ribbon Beret". Not to AP's degree, admittedly.
>>8780126
I mean really?
>>8780130
Though, I thought Little Bears Cafe was a bit clever. Besides the AP in the banner, they have "Angelic Pretty Miel of Acorn" in tiny print on the honey pots, As if they were a honey brand or something.
>>8780126
The border print is actually lovely, but all I can see is I N N O C E N T W O R L D.
>>8780130
Its a shame, I like the aesthetic of this one.
>>8780109
To be fair I think a lot of people find Louis Vuitton's monogram to be ascetically pleasing and part of the design.
>>8780093
I personally hate it. I'm not a walking billboard thanks. I avoid all clothing that has to scream its brand.
>>8780093
I really love branded accessories like pic related, they give such a SWAGILICIOUS vibe to the whole outfit. Though, it looks so boring when brands use their logo instead of the actual design for their dresses.
>>8780135
Personally this print has always reminded me of the gates in Auschwitz.
>When is it too much?
I'm usually upset if there's nothing at all. From my understanding, knockoffs can steal artwork, but logos and brand names are not such fair game and I think a lot of people forget this.
It doesn't matter if it's all over the brand like OP's picture, since the theme is an alphabet type dress or if it fits. It's if it obscures pictures, themes, or artwork, that's when it's upsetting.
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
It isn't? The difference between normal fashion and lolita brand fashion is that the tackiest brand is always superior to some plain t-shirt with a loud logo over it.
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
I don't know. It's up to them to be creative. If they do not want to do full brand names, they can do things like Baby's "B" heart symbol and initials.
>>8780109, coming back because I think this thread actually poses lots of interesting questions and I wanted to answer more fully now that I'm not 5 minutes from sleep.
>>8780148
Yes, Louis Vuitton's trademark print is actually pretty cute. If one can make a logo or insignia tasteful, that definitely makes it less tacky. Unlike Gucci, I see this logo on all their shit and all I can think of is that thing about two butts pooping back and forth forever.
Didn't answer this one last night but:
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
IMO the more carefully and thoughtfully designed something is, the more you have a right to plaster your name all over it. Any idiot can sell a hoodie or a t-shirt, so logos on those is kind of stupid. But it makes more sense when fashion innovators and trendsetters, whether Louis Vuitton or Angelic Pretty, brand their goods so people can see it's the real deal. It's tacky af when the branding is the entire design like in >>8780093 or >>8780117, but small insignias make sense in regards to determining a replica from the real-deal at a second glance.
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
I like things like what's going on in >>8780133. It's subtle but still branded and helps separate the true garment from a knockoff. Putting the brand name on a suitable little piece of the print is fine by me, pic related. It's when the brand name IS the print that it's so tacky it becomes cringeworthy.
>>8780206
I'll never unsee this now.
>>8780605
>two butts pooping back and forth forever
))<>((
>When is it too much?
When it's the only thing you see.
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
If it's the only you notice on a garment, it's too much in either case.
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
Too many.
I like it when it's done in small or cute ways. I like how Meta did it on this print.
If I'm paying that much for something I want you to know what I'm wearing.
>>8780093
>How do you feel about dresses who's origins are written all over them?
I won't touch them, visible brand is a materialistic social status symbol used to raise the visibility of the brand and something I've always looked down on, I want nothing to do with it. I also try to keep in mind what it looks like to the outside world and just the phrase 'innocent world' for example sounds a little weird or pedo-ish.
>>When is it too much?
Any hint toward the brand name is too much. If it's a leather purse with a small indiscriminate logo, fine, but I still find it bothersome. I'm not being paid to advertise, it kind of takes away from the fantasy of being an elegant upper class woman when you've got brand plastered on yourself, it's very nouveau riche and tacky, it's what low class people aspire to, branding is something worn to advertise sponsors in televized sporting events. The quality of the garment should be advertisement enough.
>>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
Exactly.
>>8780843
>the fantasy of being an elegant upper class woman
I hate to tell you this, but you're still wearing lolita in the end.
>>8780843 is totally right
That being said, as a poorfag and BTSSB fan, I'm a bit of an offender.
Brand identity is kind of a huge idea in lolita fashion. Even if the bag doesn't say BTSSB on it (or you can't see the embossing), you can still tell from the handles and lace border, or just the way the clothes look. I don't mind if they add a subtle logo to their merchandise, it's just another way to make their brand recognizable. But even wiser, they release similar items again and again so you'll know it's theirs, such as the heart bags or cross strap RHS. I like to keep my BTSSB and AP seperate for that reason. Lolita brand names don't mean shit to normalfags anyways.
I guess if there was a normalfag clothing brand that I cared about that much, I'd do the same. I don't mind being a walking billboard for a band or movie or mom and pop joint that I like, I want them to get more business.
But it's not like I'm proud to be wearing their clothes. It's not like they're super great quality high fashion, and a lot of people buy secondhand. I feel like that's kind of a poorfag/noob misconception. You can skip a few meals and buy a burando skirt, but you still don't look wealthy. Same thing with owning 1 Lacoste logo polo or a cheaper MK bag. A lot of people could buy those, they just choose not to.
Any brandwhore will tell you that they buy japanese burando because the designs and quality are better, not because they enjoy feeling high class and elitist (and if they do, you can expect them to make a huge deal about "leaving lolita" within a year)
>tl;dr logos or names as branding are alright in my book, it's the people who use it to nonverbally name-drop that ruin it.
I know it's a copy of one of Momoko's outfits, but pic related is obviously all BTSSB despite the lack of the name anywhere, which I think is a good example of branding without hugeass logos.
>>8780843
There's something comical about 4channers of all people try to sound fancy as hell
>>8780988
Dropped pic
>>8780093
Without sounding dumb a lot of the time I can't even tell which brand it's from compared to more well-known prints. I could understand the appeal though, I think they look neat
>>8780989
for real.....
Lol "it takes away from the fantasy of being an elegant upper class woman" says it all
>>8780989
* trying, sorry
>>8780130
I love this because it's like I won the Angelic Pretty pageant and was awarded this sash.
>>8780999
Lol right, I just assume most of cgl is white trash.
I don't mind, but I do get some awkward questions about what's written on my dress.
>Are you wearing that because you think you're angelic and pretty?
>>8781023
lol omg me too. Well, not only that but pretentious middle class girls who dream of being ~cultured~ and don't pass up any opportunity to let everyone know how ~classy and refined~ they are.
I'm sure it's not all true, but it makes me laugh to no end.
I personally HATE this, be it in normal clothing or lolita. I don't like feeling like an outdoor. Sometimes things like this can ruin a whole piece for me.
I don't mind small letters or small details, but pictures like OP just look ridiculous.
I think that a brand should be known for it's design and details, not for printing it's name all over their things
>When is it too much?
Whenever you can still read it when 1m away from the person
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
It isn't, at least technically. In reality, people like when normie fashion does this because they know the brands. I imagine walking around with something with "BABY" written all over looks retarded.
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
Infinite ways, I guess.
>>8781031
This is one thing that has always kind of bothered me about lolita comms- everyone wants to act all dainty and polite and it's all so obviously just that- an act. You aren't Snow White, why are you pretending like that? If people wanted it to be treated like an alternative fashion and not a costume, I think dropping the disney princess routines would go a long way in helping achieve that.
Act just like your stupid normal self- just look cute while doing it.
>>8781031
This is exactly my image of a lot of /cgl/.
>>8781031
You can tell this by the number of museum and afternoon tea meetups. Which they all inevitably call high tea, even though high tea was what the servants ate back in the ~classy victorian~ period. It's on the same level as aspirational white trash Francophiles.
>>8780093
>When is it too much?
Most of the time, in my eyes/for my wardrobe. There are tons of dresses and items I'd love to buy, but the prominent branding puts me off. This beret is brilliant aside from the words, for example: >>8780126. Or any Moitie with "Elegant Gothic Lolita Aristocrat Vampire Romance"
>How is it any different than normie fashion where the brand name is smeared over the torso?
I feel the same way about normal fashion and tend not to wear clothes with words/brands prominently displayed.
>How many ways can a brand fit their logo on a print?
Too many ways, damn it.
>>8780206
Someone PLEASE slap the "arbeit macht frei" sign on a vertically striped dress.
I really hate my favorite ribbon jsk from baby for this reason. The text is totally obtrusive and obnoxious, it hurts the look of the design
At least with the romantic letter or whatever that meta print is, the design has aesthetic appeal with the cute, graphic design
>>8781098
Museum meets I can understand. Some people enjoy visiting museums. The same could be said about afternoon tea I guess but museums actually have interesting things to look at and learn about.
>>8781198
Is it more prominent irl? It grew on me after a while but the branding does put me off a bit
>>8780796
Ok I give up. I can't find Waldo on this print. I give props to meta's cleverness. Is it in the music sheets?
>>8781290
Welp found it. In the shape of music notes along the blue wave
>>8780796
I really love how crafty Meta are in putting their brand name and logo in their prints.I own pic related, can't post pictures at the moment, but apart from the swan logo some of the book spines also say Metamorphose on them.
>>8781194
Kek. It'll be the new Iron Gate print.
>>8781065
>act all dainty and polite
The first is because you're wearing expensive clothes. I mean, you wouldn't eat crassly in a cocktail dress either, would you? Or drag your feet in expensive heels? The second is because some people are just polite in all aspects of their lives. Why the hell would you be rude with strangers you just met? Why the hell would you be rude with friends? People should be polite, I don't see why you should aspire not to be.
>>8781377
Ooh and on the telescope too if I'm looking at it right
I think it's tacky, but it bothers me most when BTSSB does it, and all you see is BABY BABY BABY slapped all over the dress, it's awful.
I like how meta does it subtly with the swans or just a small signature on the brand artwork. Leur Getter does it like that as well.
>>8781385
Yeah, forgot about it being there as well. So technically, the brand name and logo are all over the design but it's so subtle that it adds interest to the print.
>>8781387
>BABY BABY BABY
I loathe this, "Baby" and "Innocent World" on childish clothes like lolita just rub me the wrong way.
I have two brand prints that display the brand names, my meta one is done quite tastefully, but the ap one is an all over print and I feel like they just slapped their logo on (that said I thought drained cherry was not an original print until I saw the logo there).
>>8781384
There are also some of us who come into the fashion just like that, and it has nothing to do with the clothes how we behave.
Honestly, I love it unless it's too prominent. To normalfags 'Angelic Pretty' is just some cute phrase, to other lolitas it's like some secret code and to some itas who know about that brand it's a signal that I'm a brandwhore. I always feel like an AP fangirl and I'm loving it. AP-billboard? Anytime.
I actually adore it and it can make me loves pieces, like Favourite Ribbon or OPs picture. The one case where it rubs me the wrong way though is when btssb puts "baby" on things.
I absolutely despise logo prints- so things like handbags with logo insignia prints, or like OP's image. I really dislike any text/verbage in my prints in general like Moitie's wording, but that's where it goes into unbearably tacky territory for me. But very small logos inserted into the print, or something like logo charms in accessories- things like that don't bother me. I think I have a couple AATP prints as well where the text is well enough incorporated into the illustration style that even though it's a bit large, it's not too loud. But I think that is about my limit.
What I especially prefer is when brands that have a non-text logo, like Meta's swans, or the Vivienne Westwood orb to brand their items. Then it's much more decorative than in your face branding (it helps that I like the look of those particular logos).
>>8780605
>Unlike Gucci, I see this logo on all their shit and all I can think of is that thing about two butts pooping back and forth forever.
I laughed so loudly that I frightened my roommate, thank you anon. Can never unsee.
Honestly I love it when the brand name is slapped all over the dress, and when you can see the brand name on every item. It even makes a dress more appealing to me, but only if it is my favourite brand (Angelic Pretty and Btssb). I'm not a brand whore and I don't buy brand just to show off, but I just adore their designs to death and I guess I can show my love for them through wearing items with their name on them.
>>8780796
Yess. I love Melody Note for the same reason.
>>8780109
I actually really like the look of the branding on this beret. It would look terribly plain otherwise.
>55 replies in and nobody's posted the Quintessential Brandwhore Dress
Step it up
>>8782241
Ok so I'm glad someone brought up the chocolate dresses because I am going a bit nuts over this. Did AP not have a chocolate series where their logo was within the chocolates like a Hershey bar would do? Because I thought it was clever and I can't find which collection it was. Pictured is Melty Royal Chocolate. And it just looks like a missed opportunity.
>>8782283
Baby's Hexenhaus has that
>>8782283
kuma kumya sweet chocolate
I know the branding is really trashy looking, but I really really like how Favorite Ribbon looks.
>>8782283
they did it in the royal chocolate series
>>8780138
I love when they do this to no end, I'm just obsessed with type! I don't care at what it says, I just love the aesthetic of letters in general.
>>8782369
Hexenhaus was my original dream dress. I'd never felt that way about specific dresses before it and I'm so happy to own the ribbon jsk in pink. It's hands down my favorite dress in my wardrobe.
>>8781098
I don't see anything wrong with either of those things. I loved going to museums long before I started wearing lolita, and I'll go in or out of lolita regardless. Afternoon tea makes sense too. It's a multi-course meal, so you have more time to chat, and it's fun to try other peoples' tea or little bite-size foods. Both are good group activities that are easy to plan. Now if someone organized a meet at a horseracing track or an opera, that might be more ~*~high class ladies desu~*~ and I'd see your point. But both museums and tea make perfect sense.
>>8782462
The point anon was making is that so many people wrongfully call afternoon tea ~high tea~ for no reason other than that it sounds fancy.
Museums are not just for the pseudo-intellectual though, they're really fun.
![TCC-Afternoon-High-Tea-Ads[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iMWfDy9.jpg "TCC-Afternoon-High-Tea-Ads[1].jpg")
>>8781098
>>8782462
If it makes a difference to either of you, around here we have some cafes perpetrating the whole thing -- as in, the buffet/meal set is actually called high tea.
So naturally, when the photos get uploaded to wherever, it's going to say "we had afternoon high tea at xyz place", because that's exactly what what they ate. Not that they went to have "high tea", rather that they ate this exact set/buffet, and you can find it on the menu as the "afternoon high tea" set/buffet.
I don't know about girls who call any tea high tea, though, maybe those are the genuinely pretentious ones.
>>8781098
>>8782679
I like getting up in arms over semantics as much as the next gull, but there is no winning here. It is literally a lunch/dinner/supper debate and what composes each meal type is relative. I'd say, let people say high tea or afternoon tea. But then in the same respect, I would have to admit it also best to let people put on whatever airs and in turn deck themselves out in branding.
...I hope I make sense. I know none of these subjects are mutually exclusive. I might be reaching
