what would you rather have/attend?

[mimzy]

if you were on a limited budget and had over 200 guests you were trying to accomodate, what would you do? would you rather have it an amazing venue of your choice that has a great party atmosphere and have only the bar, hors d'ourves and desserts (at an after dinner hour), or would you have it at a place that you are not happy with at all (think neighborhood banquet hall) in order to serve everybody dinner and depend on crappy decorations to make it looks nice (which it won't). and why?

also, as a guest, would you feel slighted if you saw that we could spend the money to have it at a great place but chose not to spend the money on dinner for you?

 

[blueyes157]

Hands down I would choose the amazing venue. Why compromise atmosphere and environment just to have a sit down meal. Hors devors, drinks and dessert can be so classy and something a bit different... as well as plenty of food. Often, the meal itself is only so so or cold, or over done. Please please please chose the amazing venue!

 

[zoebartlett]

Hi Mimzy,

I haven''t voted but is there some way you could compromise a little so you could have both a nice dinner and a nice venue? If I were to vote right now, I''d choose the venue. I''m not crafty enough to know how to decorate a function hall and make it look more elegant.

If you were going to serve only drinks, apps. and dessert, I''d definitely have it at a time when a full meal wouldn''t be "expected."

Is there any chance you could pare down the guest list?

 

[zoebartlett]

One more thing: I''m not sure how others feel about this, but my parents (who are paying for our reception) said that they wouldn''t have only apps. (I can''t ever spell h''ors... correctly) at our wedding. They said that a lot of people would be traveling from quite some distance and it''s only polite to serve a complete meal at something you''re hosting. I personally don''t feel that way but some might.

I''d still go with the great venue if you can''t find a happy medium.

 

[sumbride]

I voted for the amazing venue because 1) it sounds like you REALLY don''t want the banquet hall and 2) dinner receptions aren''t the norm EVERYWHERE.


You can have a reception without a seated dinner. REALLY. Nobody comes and arrests you or anything. In fact, it is done quite often. It was in fact done that way at my wedding. We had heavy apps, and lots of them, and cake, but we did not serve "dinner" as in "here''s your chicken, potato and veggie". Honestly? I''d rather nibble on dips and baby lamb chops while mingling in an amazing venue then stuck at a table in a blah location, talking only to those I was seated with, eating a blah rubber chicken meal because that''s what people "expect" a wedding to be.

In case you can''t tell, I HATE plated dinners.

It''s ok to be different. In fact it should be encouraged. Remember that whole thing about "cookie cutter weddings"? Well, that''s where the plated dinner because you "have to" comes in.

You really DON''T have to.

 

[Gypsy]

Well.

I think you should shoot for a compromise.

If you don''t I would be VERY VERY CLEAR and EXPLICIT that the reception will feature ONLY Hdrvs, drinks, and cake.

Please join us for cocktail reception featuring hors d''ourves, cake and drinks to celebrate following the Ceremony.

 

[mimzy]

thanks for your input girls.

Gypsy, I would definitely be very clear on the invite about what they should expect.

I was of course looking for a compromise, but there are none to be found and there is no way to cut the guest list (believe me, we''ve tried). We only have $45 a person to spend on food and drink (not including tax and tip, i guess that''d make it 60), so even some of the mediocre places are out of our budget. the only place that i''ve found that might work is 1 1/2 hours away from everyone and in not the greatest of areas. i''m still looking though.

 

[iheartscience]

I''d do HDs, cake and drinks for sure. I''m with sumbride-I''m not a big fan of plated dinners. I''d much rather have some HDs to munch on while I have a few drinks and get my dance on in a gorgeous venue!

 

[musey]

Date: 12/18/2007 7:18:34 PM
Author:mimzy

or would you have it at a place that you are not happy with at all (think neighborhood banquet hall) in order to serve everybody dinner and depend on crappy decorations to make it looks nice (which it won't). and why?

LOL!! I guess we know what YOU want to do

I'm w/ Gypsy... if you're doing apps and drinks only, just make sure that that is completely clear to the guests. Honestly, whenever there's a cocktail hour w/ passed apps, I'm full by dinner and can't eat anymore anyway!

 

[karasue91]

I voted for amazing venue, even though my wedding is leaning toward the other side. On the other hand, it''s really hard to find an amazing venue that is in a convenient place to just have drinks, hors d''oeurves (sp?) and dessert in Calgary. Also, we have A LOT of out of town guests (I think about 85% will have to travel 3 hours or more), so we felt kind of obligated to have a full dinner and an all-night affair for everyone. Our ceremony and reception are in the same place, and the outdoor grounds are beautiful, which is where we will hopefully have our ceremony. However, the indoor facilities leave something to be desired.

I had a bit of a hard time letting go of the idea that the reception might be a little less than I desired. FI has a huge family and tons of friends, which is the reason we are having a semi-large wedding rather than the small one I always wanted. But, his family is paying for the majority of the wedding, so it was really up to them. However, really I am just excited to marry FI so I''m willing to over look the fact that it''s not going to be the PERFECT wedding I had imagined...

 

[Elmorton]

Last year, I attended three weddings -

One was later in the evening, appetizers only, in a gorgeous venue. I ate a sandwich before the ceremony and was pleasantly surprised by the display of food. It was a gorgeous reception in every way, and a beautiful location.

The wedding I attended prior to that one had the same number of guests (around 300) but was at a banquet hall bearing the name of a local highway (first bad sign). The food was beyond lousy and our table complained the whole time.

The third was also an appetizer wedding, but the venue arranged the food in only one area, they tried to do passed hors, but would only get halfway through the room each time before the tray was empty. My table loved the apps and tried almost everything - but my parents who were sitting on the opposite side of the room said there was literally no food by the time they got across/through the line. Also a little strange was that there were appetizer foods, but dinner sized plates and some entree items (pasta) so I think people just didn''t know what serving size to take!

My vote is the appetizer reception, but I would just make sure that it is arranged well. Also, if there is a concern about out-of-town guests, perhaps have someone (an aunt or something) help you coordinate somewhere that everyone could meet for dinner prior to the weddding. OR offer out-of-town guests some extra munchies in a conference room at the hotel (although, this could get pretty pricey pretty quickly).

 

[AceP]

this is a tough one. if i were local, i'd definitely prefer the swank/interesting venue, with heavy apps. but as an out of town guest, i might feel differently. do you have a lot of people traveling long distances?

anyway, i'm having a destination wedding, and my mom insisted that we feed everyone dinner the night before, lunch the day of (in addition to dinner reception) and brunch the next day - as a courtesy since they're coming from so far. so perhaps this is a generational divide?

ETA: I also think brunch receptions are lovely (morning sunlight and mimosas are a romantic combination), if that's an option for you.

 

[Gypsy]

I also think that if the timing is AFTER normal dinner hours it would help. Something that starts at 8:00pm would be easier to deal with. Or something that starts at 3:00 and ends at 6:00 so that it's like a happy hour reception.

I would also do a wedding website and post your menu to make it even MORE explicit to you OOT guests.


ETA; I'm doing a brunch reception. And that TOTALLY gets my vote. Cost effective and it leaves the rest of the day free for travel. You can limit alcohol to champage, wine and beer without any comment at all (mimosas) and throw in some vodka for screw drivers or Bloody Marys. I will be doing the ceremony at 10:30 or 11:00. 11:30 or 12:00 for the brunch to start. And 2:30 to 3:00 for the whole shindig to end. And A LOVELY send off with bird seed and flower petals.

 

[bee*]

I agree with Gypsy. If I was having a cocktail hour, I would have it in the evening or just for a few hours in the afternoon. I would probably go for the amazing venue but I would keep looking for a compromise if one can be made.

 

[D2B]

well, from my viewpoint, if all your guests are local then go for the amazing venue, with plenty of warning to expect no food and to eat up at home

. Just make sure to have heaps of nibbles.

However, if guests have made the effort to travel great distance, will spend time and money to attend, have to fork out for hotel rooms, food expenses in general by being away from home, petrol, airfares etc and get a present, then I think it is not being very considerate of your guests not too feed them a good meal. Buffet / sit down whatever - just lots of good filling food.

we were at a wedding a few years ago, travelled a long way, along with many others, and were only served little nibbles, at the end of the reception, as we left , you could hear others talking about were on earth they could find a restaurant or take away as they an us were hungry. It didnt feel good, you could see all the expensive little niceties they had spent money on to make it look good, and the basics of hospitality were missing. It is funny all these years later out of all the weddings we have been to, we still refer to that one as the ''hungry wedding'', and as for the great beach location etc , that hasnt mattered, as we as guests didnt really feel valued. It is not about spending heaps on exensive food, basic food, well cooked will suffice.

(Disclaimer: - if the couple hadnt spent so much money on all the little bit and pieces, and truly couldnt have afforded the food, and had cut back on the other stuff, I dont think the others and myself would have felt funny about it - but you can tell when all the money has gone into the designer gown, handprinted luxury invitations, classic cars, etc etc and not the basics)

Good luck, hope it didnt come accross as too harsh, just feeding back our experiences IYKWIM

Previous posters comments about the timming of the wedding is important as well. If it goes into dinner time or starts at dinner time, well people will be hungry.

My feedback could also have a cultural bias, as I am outside of the US, so mayby our expectations of weddings are different. I have only been to one wedding, were guests were not fully fed, be it buffet or sit down style.

 

[bee*]

Date: 12/20/2007 4:25:23 AM
Author: D2B


My feedback could also have a cultural bias, as I am outside of the US, so mayby our expectations of weddings are different. I have only been to one wedding, were guests were not fully fed, be it buffet or sit down style.

I''m the same-I couldn''t imagine not feeding people a big dinner in Ireland-they''d go mad!

You brought up some good points about people travelling though.

 

[gwendolyn]

Like D2B, I am a bit concerned about people travelling for your wedding and not getting a full meal. Also, I have been to one wedding that had the opposite problem of yours: the dinner was served very late (10pm) because (for some reason) the ceremony was late (at 7pm) AND there was a weird break in-between. Anyway, the reason I bring that up is because no one was really sure what was going on so we were a bit grouchy, thinking we were expected to feed ourselves during the break, when in fact they had a full dinner which was just served very late (which not that many people ate, unfortunately, because I'm sure it cost a ton).

So, yeah. Point is, even if you think the time will make it super-ultra-mega-clear, unless you say "dinner will not be served" on the invites, you might have people thinking you'll eat late, like what the folks at the wedding I went to did.

ETA: It sounds like you really, REALLY don't want to do the not-so-nice venue, so definitely stick with the expensive venue and make it work for you.

 

[mimzy]

thanks for your replies girls

i only have a handful of people that would come in from out of town (i think maybe 5 or 6), so I could certainly arrange for something for them (and they are all family, so i'm sure they would be with my parents anyhow).

we'll see how it goes. as of right now it turns out the sweet venue is still out of our price range because their bar is so expensive. I found a place that is about an hour away from most people that wouldn't be so bad and is totally in our price range for a nice dinner (and has no ugly carpeting or mirrored walls to be found). I think it's a decent compromise and i could be happy with it - and if people dont' want to drive then they dont' have to come!

now just to find a place to have a ceremony and pick a date.....

 

[zoebartlett]

I was just going to suggest looking for a place that might be a little further away, even if it means that most people will have to travel to attend the wedding. Let us know how it goes if you visit this new place. Would you feel comfortable posting pictures of each place you''re considering?

 

[Gypsy]

You know I was thinking that the alcohol for a cocktail reception was going to be a killer at a place where the food is pricey, but didn''t want to say anything. I''m sorry it''s not going to work out, but at the same time... I think that hospitality and making your guests feel valued are important, so I hope this other venue works out beautifully for you!

 

[mimzy]

zoe - no problem!
the place that i REALLY wanted it at was the royal oak music theatre. most of the pictures are really small, but i''ll see what i can do. the place we are looking at now is the lafayette grande which is in pontiac....it''s a much cleaner, simple look, which is probably preferable to most (not so much me and my FI though!)


gypsy - the venue i wanted isn''t normally a banquet venue, it''s a concert hall, so they don''t have onsite catering or anything. it''s too expensive because the rental fee is 5k, and the bar is $30 a person....which i''m guessing they do because that''s all they make their money on. if it was just for those two things it would be okay, but to pay to bring in chairs and tables and linens...it''s just too much

i''ll try to post some pics.

 

[zoebartlett]

Ouch! Yeah, I can now understand why it''s so expensive to have it at the venue you wanted it at. Having to bring everything in would cost a pretty penny, I can imagine. I''m assuming even llimiting it to beer, wine, and soda (or something simlar) wouldn''t make too much of a difference. I''m sorry it won''t work out at the concert hall but I''m looking forward to hearing about the new place you''re considering.

 

[mimzy]

the ROMT

this place is amazing with the lighting and high ceilings and the mix of modern/edge and classic architecture (the lobby and ceilings are very ornate, can''t really tell from the picture!). the dance floor is also the (only slightly elevated) stage, which i thought everyone would love.......but alas, a girl can only dream.

 

[mimzy]

the lafayette grande. i like that it is a blank slate so that we dont' have to worry about decorations clashing with the interior design. and the food/bar is really reasonable. there are more pictures on the website (lafayettegrande.com) and i'll take more when we go visit on saturday. it's hard to tell from the picture but there is a second floor type balcony that most of the tables will go on.

 

[dtnyc]

While the first place does look awesome- the 2nd option looks very nice as well. Perhaps not as "different" and exciting, but if it''s more reasonable and you are able to give your guests more, then it''s probably a better option overall. And it is very lovely.

While it''s great to be different, it sounds like you would be paying through the nose just to barely be able to offer your guests anything.
I agree w/ the previous posters that while you don''t have to give people a "meal" you should feed them something. Also I have been to weddings where I have noticed that the couple has indulged themselves with something while sacrificing something for their guests.
an example:
I went to a wedding where the couple (who I am v. close to) chose to have an expensive photographer & band at their daytime wedding, but they cut cost by having wine served with the meal, so their guests had to get up to refill their glasses during the meal. Then they wondered why people weren''t dancing more (to the expensive band)- probably because they drank water throughout the meal and weren''t "loose" enough at 2pm in the afternoon to tear up the dance floor.

 

[mimzy]

Date: 12/20/2007 12:21:41 PM
Author: dtnyc
While the first place does look awesome- the 2nd option looks very nice as well. Perhaps not as ''different'' and exciting, but if it''s more reasonable and you are able to give your guests more, then it''s probably a better option overall. And it is very lovely.


While it''s great to be different, it sounds like you would be paying through the nose just to barely be able to offer your guests anything.

I agree w/ the previous posters that while you don''t have to give people a ''meal'' you should feed them something. Also I have been to weddings where I have noticed that the couple has indulged themselves with something while sacrificing something for their guests.

an example:

I went to a wedding where the couple (who I am v. close to) chose to have an expensive photographer & band at their daytime wedding, but they cut cost by having wine served with the meal, so their guests had to get up to refill their glasses during the meal. Then they wondered why people weren''t dancing more (to the expensive band)- probably because they drank water throughout the meal and weren''t ''loose'' enough at 2pm in the afternoon to tear up the dance floor.

i wouldn''t think of not offering our guests anything to eat at all! The idea has already been pretty much nixed because it is just too pricey. we were just excited about it because it''s somewhere we go for shows and it would be "totally us", but it just isn''t going to work.

but it''s okay, and you''re right the other place is "lovely" , and it is certainly better for us than a country club or something.

 

[Gypsy]

Oh honey. The Laffayette is very nice!!!

I love that it''s such an elegant blank slate.

The grand something add on for 14 a person is very reasonable too and includes an open hour for a nice number of hours, plus the food prices are really reasonable.

Overall, I think it''s a great compromise. I hope you have a great impression of it in person!

 

[mimzy]

thanks gypsy!

we won''t do the whole add on because our budget really is $45 a person and we can''t go over that, but we will probably upgrade to a premium bar and i think we''ll get a late nite snack with the incentive package. FI and i dont'' drink at all, but my dad probably wouldn''t stand for call brands, as most people in my family are (big) drinkers....and i just love the idea of having coney dogs at my wedding! (even though i think i''ve only had one in my whole life....and personally prefer regular hot dogs

)

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 12/20/2007 2:04:36 PM
Author: mimzy
thanks gypsy!

we won''t do the whole add on because our budget really is $45 a person and we can''t go over that, but we will probably upgrade to a premium bar and i think we''ll get a late nite snack with the incentive package. FI and i dont'' drink at all, but my dad probably wouldn''t stand for call brands, as most people in my family are (big) drinkers....and i just love the idea of having coney dogs at my wedding! (even though i think i''ve only had one in my whole life....and personally prefer regular hot dogs

)

That sounds fabulous! I''m so glad you are getting excited about this.

I think one of the biggest problems that face brides when they are wedding planning is matching their dreams and desires to their budget. It''s a huge challenge, and it takes a smart and strong woman to take a hard look at the difference between expectations and reality, they decide not only to do the responsible thing... but also to be enthusiastic about it. So have really impressed me with your maturity about this. I totally get wanting the dream. But I admire you for adjusting that dream to include a compromise that works within your budget.

 

[mimzy]

thanks gypsy, that means a lot. i am adjusting to it, and i''m trying to do it quickly because i really want the fun part to start!