>>10776666
>>10776671
I'll start by saying that this is definitely not the worst dress in the thread and there's parts of it that I like. The issues are notably that the rosettes and pearl beads look very craft-store, the green beads are out of place, I'd expect the ribbons to fray, the lace insets are poor quality, the main fabric looks shiny and scratchy and thin (particularly in other photos I've seen of this dress), the lace on the inside of the bonnet is rather sorry-looking and it looks like they may have used that same lace on the top of the bodice.
The issue with affordable lolita is when they try to look extravagant, there's a higher risk that it'll look awkward due to the quality of the materials and construction. It makes some of us lose our suspension of disbelief, of the fantasy of lolita, of owning a genuine garment to wear out and about. It becomes more fake, make-believe, a costume. Costumes are designed to be seen on a stage or in a photo and worn only a couple of times. There's not a priority of comfort or longevity or realism because that's not what it's for. They're often have weird OTT designs, are using cheap fabric & trimmings, are unlined, have messy seams inside, have tension issues, are scratchy or constricting, with accessories held on by a couple loose stitches. Example of tension issues: pic related is something from Alois Wang I pulled off LM, so not a promotional pic. Notice the puckering in the princess seams and around the hem?
Also unvetted brands are concerning because it's all too common that the product you get is going to be much more hastily constructed than the ones in the pictures, if they even use the same materials or pattern at all. If you're buying willy-nilly off Taobao you also risk them using a picture from another designer and them just guessing at it, so who knows what you'll get.
I will concede that if your priorities lie in a place where costumey is fine for you, the whole point is irrelevant.