On May 29, 11:42*pm, Goomba > wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
> > Unless said "guests" pony'ed up for the bill. That's becoming a common
> > theme too. Paying for your plate at the reception.
>
> > Submit a check with your acceptance notice. <g>
>
> Tacky, tacky, tacky. About as tacky as pot luck reception, IMO.
>
> If you can't afford to host a big reception, you should host one you
> *can* afford. Cake and punch with plentiful well wishes is all that is
> necessary and can be done quite tastefully.
> * Weddings are also family reunions, college chum reunions and
> occasionally business pay-back events. Some families are celebrating a
> happy event with all their friends and neighbors and aren't putting a
> dollar value on it. As long as a couple and their family can afford it,
> more power to 'em, I say!

I hate being a guest at a wedding that is nothing at all like the
bridal couple. It all feels so phony and stuffy. Jeans and flannel
shirt people should not have a black tie wedding reception. I'm not
saying get married in jeans and flannel shirts, of course. But the
wedding reception should be reflective of the bride and groom's style.
Which means, within their financial means, as well. I disagree about
"pot luck" being tacky... there are ways to do it so it's not. For
example, not every guest need bring a dish. You can plan a buffet
menu and members of the family or bridal party can make a dish. That's
their wedding gift to you. This is how it was done in the 40's and
50's. Sometimes, it was sandwiches and cake in the church basement,
from what I hear. Sounds much more fun and personal than some of the
modern weddings I've been to over the years.