"-L." wrote:

>
> Well, it is considered extremely poor etiquette (which is the title of
> the thread, afterall...). Asking your guests to pay for anything is
> poor etiquette. If you cannot afford to provide hard liquor, then
> don't. Don't insult your guests by requesting that they pay for it.

Not only is it tacky to ask guests to pay for alcohol at a party, in most places it is
illegal.

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in message >...

<snip>
>
> I see nothing wrong in having a BYOB party and it's commonly done in many
> areas, but I do agree that a cash bar at a party is poor etiquette. The
> end result is much the same but the latter method is insulting.
>
> Wayne

I agree that if it is local custom to have a BYOB party, then by all
means, do it, if you'd like to. I personally wouldn't do it, though.
I have BMOB to others' parties in the past though, because there are
so few alcoholic beverages I will drink, and many in our circle do so.
I think it is reasonable to tell the guests what will be provided on
the written invite and then verbally tell them they may bring
something different if they so choose.

IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.

-L.

On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:

> IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
>
I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
expensive. I think we should have an open bar up to a point
- then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
can take care of themselves after that.



Practice safe eating - always use condiments

sf > wrote in message >. ..
> On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
>
> > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> >
> I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> expensive.

Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have
it.

> I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> can take care of themselves after that.

Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests, and
will make for a bad situation. If you still think cash bar is ok,
search the Google archive of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is
frowned upon.

Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception?
Many people do so, and there is nothing wrong with offring a limited
alcohol selection.

-L.

On 27 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0800, (-L.) arranged random
neurons, so they looked like this:

>Well, it is considered extremely poor etiquette (which is the title of
>the thread, afterall...). Asking your guests to pay for anything is
>poor etiquette. If you cannot afford to provide hard liquor, then
>don't. Don't insult your guests by requesting that they pay for it.
>
If you're asking them to pay for anything, they're not a guest.
They're a customer, IMHO.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove "gotcha"

On 28 Dec 2003 18:19:14 -0800, (-L.) wrote:

> sf > wrote in message >. ..
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> > expensive.
>
> Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have
> it.
>
> > I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> > can take care of themselves after that.
>
> Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests,

No, it doesn't. Been there, done that more than once. If
anyone is confused (belligerent)... that person is too drunk
to continue drinking anyway.

> and
> will make for a bad situation. If you still think cash bar is ok,
> search the Google archive of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is
> frowned upon.
>
By whom? Drunken guests?

> Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception?
> Many people do so, and there is nothing wrong with offring a limited
> alcohol selection.
>
Because times are changing, that's why - strictly limiting
drinks to beer/wine/champagne isn't fashionable anymore and
I'm not offended by a cash bar, anyway. I know they have to
meet a minimum or pay up.

I'm offended if there is an obvious restriction on
drinking... I attended a really cheap reception where only
punch and cookies was served, I've been to very limited (2
bottles per table of 8) receptions, I've been to receptions
with a full bar the entire time (over the top AFAIC) and
receptions that begin with an open bar, then pare down to
beer/wine/champagne with a pay bar available if you want
more of the hard stuff.

As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
shriek "cheap".



Practice safe eating - always use condiments

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
>
> > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> >
> I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> expensive. I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> can take care of themselves after that.
>

You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.

sf > wrote in message >. ..
> On 28 Dec 2003 18:19:14 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
>
> > sf > wrote in message >. ..
> > > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> > > expensive.
> >
> > Yes, it can, and therefore if you cannot afford it, you shouldn't have
> > it.
> >
> > > I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> > > can take care of themselves after that.
> >
> > Having open bar followed by a cash bar will confuse your guests,
>
> No, it doesn't. Been there, done that more than once. If
> anyone is confused (belligerent)... that person is too drunk
> to continue drinking anyway.

No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when
they go for another drink and then are left without their purse or
money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.


>
> > and
> > will make for a bad situation. If you still think cash bar is ok,
> > search the Google archive of alt.wedding - I can assure you it is
> > frowned upon.
> >
> By whom? Drunken guests?

No, by anyone who knows anything about proper etiquette. Cash bars
are the epitome of tackiness. You don't invite someone to your
wedding and then ask them to pay for their food or drink.

>
> > Why not just have beer/wine or wine/Chamagne for the entire reception?
> > Many people do so, and there is nothing wrong with offring a limited
> > alcohol selection.
> >
> Because times are changing, that's why - strictly limiting
> drinks to beer/wine/champagne isn't fashionable anymore

Wrong. It has nothing to do with "fashionability". It is about
hosting a wedding reception you can afford and being a good host.

and
> I'm not offended by a cash bar, anyway.

Well, many people think it is pretty tacky.

> I know they have to
> meet a minimum or pay up.
>
> I'm offended if there is an obvious restriction on
> drinking...

Well, then drinking is your priority, then, not being a gracious host.

-L.

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote in message >. ..
> On 27 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0800, (-L.) arranged random
> neurons, so they looked like this:
>
> >Well, it is considered extremely poor etiquette (which is the title of
> >the thread, afterall...). Asking your guests to pay for anything is
> >poor etiquette. If you cannot afford to provide hard liquor, then
> >don't. Don't insult your guests by requesting that they pay for it.
> >
> If you're asking them to pay for anything, they're not a guest.
> They're a customer, IMHO.
>

Exactly.

-L.

sf wrote:

> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
> who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
> think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
> with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
> the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
> shriek "cheap".


I suppose it isn't illegal, and some people might not mind a cash bar at
a social event, but others do, and there are social repercussions.

When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to meet
people I have something in common with. When I find myself with people
who have totally different ideas of entertaining and what constitutes a
social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want anything to do
with them in the future.

With that in mind, if I accept an invitation to lunch at a friend's home
and find when I get there (and even if I know ahead of time) that there
is Tupperware available for me to buy, even if I don't have to buy
anything and even if I still get lunch, you can bet that acquaintance is
now off my friend list. If an acquaintance would like to involve me in
his multi-level marketing business, I can't consider him a friend. We
might have something in common outside of multi-level marketing, but
we'll never discover it because I'm no longer interested.

Thus with cash bars at weddings and social functions. If I'm invited to
a social event and learn that there's an opportunity for me buy once I'm
there, I'm not going to call the police. I'm not going to say anything
at the time, but I will be cooler in the future. I'll never know if the
"hosts" (in quotes because that's not really what they are) like me and
want my company. I'll assume that we have so little in common that we
don't have much to build a friendship on.

That's hardly the end of the world. After the cash bar, the "hosts"
will know whose definition of hospitality matches theirs, and they can
continue their business relationship with those people. I'll then know
who I want to help celebrate life's great events with me. Everyone's happy.

--Lia

Julia Altshuler > wrote in
news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:

> sf wrote:
>
>> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
>> who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
>> think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
>> with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
>> the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
>> shriek "cheap".

It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the
whole time, so you, all my friends and family, are forced to intuit
when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to pony up for the
drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'

> When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to
> meet people I have something in common with. When I find myself with
> people who have totally different ideas of entertaining and what
> constitutes a social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want
> anything to do with them in the future.

Gotta agree with you. There are branches of my in-laws that rely on cash
bars, and those are the only events with cash bars that I happily
attend.

When we got married, we wanted to do an open bar, but couldn't afford
the prices that the venues we considered would charge.

So we bought all the booze ourselves and hired bartenders. (We did it on
family property so there was no conflict with bringing booze vs. paying
for the venue's booze.)

I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We
bought the wine at a winery we like, and the beer came from Costco.

We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that
we didn't have to buy any booze for our personal consumption for over a
year.

Cate

"-L." wrote:

> No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when
> they go for another drink and then are left without their purse or
> money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.

I've seen that happen, people had no idea they were expected to pay
for their drinks, so they'd order and the waiter said, that'll be
$12 ... uh ... no cash, do you take credit? No. How embarrassing.
In my opinion, more embarrassing for the host to allow such an
awkward situation. I'm not Emily Post, but you should have no
expectation (aside from fundraisers/whatever) that your guest should
be fumbling with their wallets and coughing up money. Ouch.

nancy

In article >, in
rec.food.cooking, says...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> > expensive. I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> > can take care of themselves after that.
> >
>
> You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.

What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay
for drinks, or someone mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing
the free drinks that made someone drunk and get into a fatal traffic
accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious
accident, they can sue your ass off.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC and NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail and D&H in N
Proud NRA member
addy:

Jack wrote:

> What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay
> for drinks, or someone mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing
> the free drinks that made someone drunk and get into a fatal traffic
> accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
> provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious
> accident, they can sue your ass off.

I disagree. It's not the availability or unavailability of the alcohol that
would annoy people as much as the "mixed messages" it sends to "Host" a
party yet expect the guests to pay. Or to suddenly change the "rules"
midparty from "guests" to "paying attendees" at some soiree. If a host can't
afford to serve what they want, they need to alter their desires. Serving
wine, or a wine punch... or no alcohol at all even is a better solution than
to host a "cash bar" at a hosted event.
Goomba

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:14 -0500, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> "-L." wrote:
>
> > No, if someone knew it was an open bar, they will be embarassed when
> > they go for another drink and then are left without their purse or
> > money to pay. It's recipe for disaster.
>
> I've seen that happen, people had no idea they were expected to pay
> for their drinks, so they'd order and the waiter said, that'll be
> $12 ... uh ... no cash, do you take credit? No. How embarrassing.
> In my opinion, more embarrassing for the host to allow such an
> awkward situation. I'm not Emily Post, but you should have no
> expectation (aside from fundraisers/whatever) that your guest should
> be fumbling with their wallets and coughing up money. Ouch.
>
It's up to the hosts to let their guests know what's going
to happen. I get invitations that say to the effect of
"Open bar from x to x time, beer/wine/champagne after that".
I'm not offended, I'm informed and I don't have a problem
with it.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:05:56 GMT, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
> > who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
> > think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
> > with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
> > the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
> > shriek "cheap".
>
>
> I suppose it isn't illegal, and some people might not mind a cash bar at
> a social event, but others do, and there are social repercussions.
>
> That's hardly the end of the world. After the cash bar, the "hosts"
> will know whose definition of hospitality matches theirs, and they can
> continue their business relationship with those people.
>
It's a wedding we're talking about Lia, not any other type
of social or semi-social function and I would NOT invite
people I am cultivating in business relationships to a son
or daughter's wedding. That's tacky beyond words!
>
> I'll then know
> who I want to help celebrate life's great events with me. Everyone's happy.
>
I have one expectation about socializing when I'm invited
into someone's home, but my expectations change when I'm
"invited" somewhere else. Most weddings are a just a
mini-coronation for someone's little princess, so I call the
wedding invitation a "summons".

Getting back to serving alcohol at a wedding reception:
AFAIC, they can just serve beer/wine/champagne from the bar
in the reception room and people can go out to the regular
bar for their drinks, if they wish.

Now, I can really get into being critical when it comes to
food service! That's IMPORTANT stuff. My biggest
complaints are lack of wait staff for sit down dinners and
buffet lines that should be on both sides of the tabe, but
aren't... that sort of stuff. Feed me quickly or I'll get
cranky.



Practice safe eating - always use condiments

Cate > wrote in message >...
> Julia Altshuler > wrote in
> news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
> >> who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
> >> think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
> >> with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
> >> the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
> >> shriek "cheap".
>
> It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the
> whole time, so you, all my friends and family, are forced to intuit
> when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to pony up for the
> drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'
>
> > When I socialize, whether I'm the host or the guest, I'm hoping to
> > meet people I have something in common with. When I find myself with
> > people who have totally different ideas of entertaining and what
> > constitutes a social event in the first place, I'm not likely to want
> > anything to do with them in the future.
>
> Gotta agree with you. There are branches of my in-laws that rely on cash
> bars, and those are the only events with cash bars that I happily
> attend.
>
> When we got married, we wanted to do an open bar, but couldn't afford
> the prices that the venues we considered would charge.
>
> So we bought all the booze ourselves and hired bartenders. (We did it on
> family property so there was no conflict with bringing booze vs. paying
> for the venue's booze.)
>
> I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We
> bought the wine at a winery we like, and the beer came from Costco.
>
> We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that
> we didn't have to buy any booze for our personal consumption for over a
> year.
>
> Cate

That's the thing to do. Do what you *can* afford - Honestly, I have
never been to a wedding where beer and wine and/or Champagne is served
and people complain because they can't get hard liquor. If people
*do* complain about that, they probably shouldn't have been invited in
the first place.

The worst wedding I ever attended was held at dinner time but no meal
was served - they served hor d'ouvres, cake and punch, with wine and
beer available as well (which would have been fine). The problem was,
they had only enough provisions to serve about 1/5 of the guests.
Everybody else was left standing in line - and all of the food and
drink was gone. There wasn't even any way to get a glass of water,
which was bad because it was held outdoors and it was hot. Needless
to say, we left after a couple of hours to go get dinner.

-L.

"Jack" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, in
> rec.food.cooking, says...
> >
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> > > expensive. I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> > > can take care of themselves after that.
> > >
> >
> > You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.
>
> What would you rather deal with: someone angry because they had to pay
> for drinks, or someone mega-angry and suing your ass off for providing
> the free drinks that made someone drunk and get into a fatal traffic
> accident? The way the law is now, if someone gets drunk at a party you
> provide drinks at (especially if they are free), and gets into a serious
> accident, they can sue your ass off.

Your question doesn't have anything to do with the topic of etiquette.

On 29 Dec 2003 19:25:41 GMT, Cate
> wrote:

> Julia Altshuler > wrote in
> news:U9ZHb.693837$Fm2.598296@attbi_s04:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> As someone who has attended all types and also as someone
> >> who will someday have to foot the bill for a wedding - I
> >> think that an open bar for x hours, then beer/wine/champagne
> >> with a choice to buy hard drinks at a pay bar afterwards is
> >> the sane way to go. It gives people options and it doesn't
> >> shriek "cheap".
>
> It shrieks 'I really wanted an open bar but couldn't afford it for the
> whole time, so you, all my friends and family, are forced to intuit
> when it's time to bring your wallet/purse to the bar to pony up for the
> drinks that were free just 15 minutes ago.'

Most people who can read also know when an open bar ends,
it's information that should be included on the reception
card. Limited open bars usually stop at dinner time, for
those who don't have a clue.
>
<snip>
> I bought the hard liquor at a DC liquor store known for cheap prices. We
> bought the wine at a winery we like, and the beer came from Costco.
>
> We saved thousands, and when it was over, we had enough left over that
> we didn't have to buy any booze for our personal consumption for over a
> year.
>
We attended a very nice open bar wedding last summer where
the couple had negotiated drop dead prices per bottle over
the internet. I'm not sure if it was local and picked up or
shipped. I still need to find out the details.



Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:05:34 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 28 Dec 2003 00:45:26 -0800, (-L.) wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, the worst is a cash bar wedding. Too tacky for words.
> > >
> > I have mixed feelings about it. An open bar can be quite
> > expensive. I think we should have an open bar up to a point
> > - then switch to wine/champagne. The "hard drink" drinkers
> > can take care of themselves after that.
> >
>
> You can count on people really getting angry with that scheme.
>
I'm not going to cut off the booze, just shift the focus.

It won't be a big surprise because it will be duly noted on
the reception card: "Get drunk on the hard stuff from this
time to that... when we serve up the chow we'll cut off the
bar, so you'll be limited to guzzling unlimited amounts of
beer/wine/chamagne after that. Dancing will follow".


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

what about having an open bar and serve ONLY beer, wine, coffee and
soda?
i have seen that done successfully, MANY times!

rosie wrote:
>
> what about having an open bar and serve ONLY beer, wine, coffee and
> soda?
> i have seen that done successfully, MANY times!

That's fine with me. nancy

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:58:16 -0500, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>I disagree. It's not the availability or unavailability of the alcohol that
>would annoy people as much as the "mixed messages" it sends to "Host" a
>party yet expect the guests to pay. Or to suddenly change the "rules"
>midparty from "guests" to "paying attendees" at some soiree. If a host can't
>afford to serve what they want, they need to alter their desires. Serving
>wine, or a wine punch... or no alcohol at all even is a better solution than
>to host a "cash bar" at a hosted event.

I agree with the no alcohol solution if the host can't afford to foot
the bill. Throwing a wedding or party is expensive, but by the time
a couple buys a new dress, (can't be seen in the one you wore last
year) shoes etc. Then offers a gift, and sometimes rents a local
hotel room, it's expensive to attend. We went to a "black tie
optional" wedding last year. I didn't have a black suit that was
appropriate. Between our clothes, gift, and hotel room, we spent
over $800.00 to attend this wedding. It was a very nice wedding (as
nice as a wedding can be I guess.) After spending that kind of money
I'd have been more than ****ed or offended if I was asked to pay for
cocktails.

I've been to an early afternoon wedding that had nothing but champagne
for a toast, a small selection of appetizers, then cake and coffee.
It was over by 4:00 pm and everyone could go on their way and have
dinner on their own. And the couple got their gifts..Weddings for
many young couples are just money grabbing events anyway.

This thread and the one about the party that didn't have enough food
makes me realize how different people's views are on what's socially
acceptable.

Gar

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:32:56 GMT, sf > wrote:


>I'm not going to cut off the booze, just shift the focus.

Are you a control freak?
>
>It won't be a big surprise because it will be duly noted on
>the reception card: "Get drunk on the hard stuff from this
>time to that... when we serve up the chow we'll cut off the
>bar, so you'll be limited to guzzling unlimited amounts of
>beer/wine/chamagne after that. Dancing will follow".

I'd really like to see the way you word that on an invitation.

For the minimal amount of savings you'll see between beer/wine and
hard liquor you'll look like a nut. Some people don't like beer or
wine. A real drunk is going to get drunk no matter what is served.
I'd be surprised if at least half of wedding attendees don't want to
be there. The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
count your cash.

Gar

Gar wrote:

> I'd be surprised if at least half of wedding attendees don't want to
> be there. The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
> count your cash.

(laugh) You mean, I'm not the only person who hates weddings?

nancy

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:48:01 -0500, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>Gar wrote:
>
>> I'd be surprised if at least half of wedding attendees don't want to
>> be there. The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
>> count your cash.
>
>(laugh) You mean, I'm not the only person who hates weddings?

I'd rather go to the dentist. People like to see people they haven't
seen in years. Most I haven't seen in years because I don't like
them, and the rest I don't know. The music is too loud to talk over
to get to know strangers. The food usually poor. ETC,ETC.

The nicest wedding I've been to was outdoors. No music. Casual
attire. Beer and wine only. Lots of good conversation.

Gar

sf > wrote in
:

> Most people who can read also know when an open bar ends,
> it's information that should be included on the reception
> card.

Invitations that include rules, times, and payments for drinking are a
turnoff to me. It wouldn't be an event I'd be interested in attending.
Obviously your mileage varies.

Limited open bars usually stop at dinner time, for
> those who don't have a clue.

Your experience is far from universal.

I'm from the mid-south, and IME there, open bars don't close until the
couple wants the guests to go home. And most receptions aren't sit-down
dinners; they're what's known as 'heavy hors d'oevres' which means
entree-type food in portions that fit on small plates (think tapas
buffet). No assigned seating, and sometimes seating for only 1/2 the
guests, thus forcing people to mingle. That's what my wedding was like.

I've been to a few weddings in and around NYC, and it was entirely
different from what I was used to: Open bar with 'cocktail hour' until
dinner, then only wine or beer served by waiters with assigned seating
at a sit-down dinner, where you didn't get up again unless you wanted to
dance or had to go to the bathroom. Personally, I hate being tied to a
table.

I've also been a to potluck weddings in state parks and back yards where
there was little or no alcoholic drinks. And don't get me started on my
in-laws' Pittsburgh and Rochester NY weddings!

> We attended a very nice open bar wedding last summer where
> the couple had negotiated drop dead prices per bottle over
> the internet. I'm not sure if it was local and picked up or
> shipped. I still need to find out the details.

Here's what I did: Got an estimate of the liquor needed from the
caterer. Asked the liquor store what kind of discount they'd give for a
party serving x people. (Never say 'wedding', or your discount will
disappear before your eyes.) Answer: 1/3 off. When I went to pay, it was
even better than that--about 1/2 off.

I didn't buy anything I wouldn't like drinking later on (luckly I like a
wide range of beer and liquor--whee!), because I knew there would be
leftovers.

Cate

On 30 Dec 2003 16:19:22 GMT, Cate >
wrote:

>sf > wrote in
:
>
>> Most people who can read also know when an open bar ends,
>> it's information that should be included on the reception
>> card.
>
>Invitations that include rules, times, and payments for drinking are a
>turnoff to me. It wouldn't be an event I'd be interested in attending.
>Obviously your mileage varies.

I'm with you. I wouldn't go. I had a young family member who got
married a few years ago. She was asking "around" if people thought it
was OK to ask one of the more affluent family members to help pay for
a wedding. Talk about a turnoff.

>Limited open bars usually stop at dinner time, for
>> those who don't have a clue.
>
>Your experience is far from universal.

I've never seen or heard of it either. But after reading SF's posts
on and off for a few years I'm sure I wouldn't be friends with people
like her.

>I'm from the mid-south, and IME there, open bars don't close until the
>couple wants the guests to go home. And most receptions aren't sit-down
>dinners; they're what's known as 'heavy hors d'oevres' which means
>entree-type food in portions that fit on small plates (think tapas
>buffet). No assigned seating, and sometimes seating for only 1/2 the
>guests, thus forcing people to mingle. That's what my wedding was like.

I've not been to a wedding like that, but a few very high-end
Christmas party's. This year we went to a part held at the Hyatt
Lodge located in the McDonald's Campus. When I heard the "M" word I
gasped. I was assured that we wouldn't be eating McShitties food.

The party was supposed to be from 7-10 pm. Traffic was very light and
we got there a few minutes early. The bar was open, food was out,
servers were at their stations, and a chef was at her cooking station
to work her private magic for each person who wished. There were a
few hundred people there and maybe 25 chairs at low tables. The rest
of the tables were standing height and not many of them. I was the
designated driver and the token date. I met lots of people, Had fun
conversation. Heard great piano music. ETC. I've never been to a
party of strangers and had more fun. The forum you've described is
awesome.

>I've been to a few weddings in and around NYC, and it was entirely
>different from what I was used to: Open bar with 'cocktail hour' until
>dinner, then only wine or beer served by waiters with assigned seating
>at a sit-down dinner, where you didn't get up again unless you wanted to
>dance or had to go to the bathroom. Personally, I hate being tied to a
>table.

The weddings I've been to like that opened the bar up as soon as
dinner was done without any restrictions.

>I've also been a to potluck weddings in state parks and back yards where
>there was little or no alcoholic drinks.

Well,,,,,potluck? You must have known what you were in for?

>And don't get me started on my
>in-laws' Pittsburgh and Rochester NY weddings!

LOL How about a wedding that the grooms father had put a $100 cap on
the bar. The first 5 people in line got through with backups. The
rest were at a cash bar.

Gar

How did this ramble from a potluck b'day for an elder to hard-liquor
wedding receptions? In case no one has noticed, heavy drinking social
occasions, particularly when driving is involved after, is distinctly
unfashionable. I agree with whoever said guests shouldn't be
regarded as customers. For a long evening, I imagine an open bar, if
this is in the budget, could be provided for a couple of hours and
then closed up without comment or excuse. A glass or 2 of wine with
dinner should be plenty. Which sots does one not want to offend by
failing to provide a binge occasion? And who wants to clean up after
them?

Gar <> wrote in message >. ..
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:48:01 -0500, Nancy Young
>
> The nicest wedding I've been to was outdoors. No music. Casual
> attire. Beer and wine only. Lots of good conversation.
>
> Gar

Were you at my wedding?

-L.

Gar <> wrote in :

> I'm with you. I wouldn't go. I had a young family member who got
> married a few years ago. She was asking "around" if people thought it
> was OK to ask one of the more affluent family members to help pay for
> a wedding. Talk about a turnoff.

Good lord.

> The party was supposed to be from 7-10 pm. Traffic was very light and
> we got there a few minutes early. The bar was open, food was out,
> servers were at their stations, and a chef was at her cooking station
> to work her private magic for each person who wished. There were a
> few hundred people there and maybe 25 chairs at low tables. The rest
> of the tables were standing height and not many of them. I was the
> designated driver and the token date. I met lots of people, Had fun
> conversation. Heard great piano music. ETC. I've never been to a
> party of strangers and had more fun. The forum you've described is
> awesome.

Glad you had fun. Yes, that's pretty much how my wedding was. There were
buffet tables set up in a pattern such that there was no line of people
waiting (and it was all available before the wedding party arrived), and
there were also a couple of stations apart from the main buffet that had
chefs cooking things like crabcakes to order. The only drawback to this
setup was that I forgot to eat, and of course none of the best items
made it into the doggie bag the caterer prepared for us to take away
from the reception because they were eaten up by the guests. And it was
fine by me.

There was first-come, first-serve seating at tables for half the guests,
but the seats were mostly empty (except for the older guests) the entire
time, because all my family and friends are big on dancing.

The open bar closed 15-30 minutes after we left, and that was the signal
that the guests took to pack up and go home.

>>I've also been a to potluck weddings in state parks and back yards
>>where there was little or no alcoholic drinks.
>
> Well,,,,,potluck? You must have known what you were in for?

Sure. I was just pointing out to sf, who so wanted to give me a clue
about how weddings are done in his/her part of the world, that each
wedding is different from the next.

>>And don't get me started on my
>>in-laws' Pittsburgh and Rochester NY weddings!
>
> LOL How about a wedding that the grooms father had put a $100 cap on
> the bar. The first 5 people in line got through with backups. The
> rest were at a cash bar.

Good god. I remember getting really annoyed the first time I encountered
a cash bar at a wedding. It was actually a bar with barstools and TVs
going, and this was in a reception hall that routinely hosted weddings.
The wedding party came in drunk and rowdy, beer bottles in hand, after
having done their photo duties for several *hours.*

And what is WITH people who schedule their weddings at 2pm but their
receptions not until 7pm?

Cate

(-L.) wrote in message om>...
> Well, then drinking is your priority, then, not being a gracious host.

I was thinking about this drinking thing for this event. The birthday
boy is going to be 80. That means many of the guests may be around the
same age. I'd make it a non-alcoholic event, and offer sodas and
punch, and forget the booze.

Karen

"Karen O'Mara" > wrote in message
om...
> (-L.) wrote in message
om>...
> > Well, then drinking is your priority, then, not being a gracious host.
>
> I was thinking about this drinking thing for this event. The birthday
> boy is going to be 80. That means many of the guests may be around the
> same age. I'd make it a non-alcoholic event, and offer sodas and
> punch, and forget the booze.
>
> Karen

Alcohol and medications aren't a good idea.

Gar wrote:

>
> I'm with you. I wouldn't go. I had a young family member who got
> married a few years ago. She was asking "around" if people thought it
> was OK to ask one of the more affluent family members to help pay for
> a wedding. Talk about a turnoff.

That takes nerve. We had our wedding reception at my in law's house. They
sold the house a few years later and moved into an apartment. Apparently, the
house changed hands again two or three years later. My very obnoxious niece
(who has been the subject of several rants here already) had the nerve to ask
the new owners if she could have her wedding reception there. She was
actually surprised when they rejected her request. I suppose she is too self
centred to realize that no one in their right mind would clean up their house
and vacate it to allow a complete stranger to host a party with a whole lot
of other strangers in their house.

It is an odd situation. Naturally we were happy to think that someone had
enjoyed our wedding reception so much that they would want to do the same
thing at the same place, but it would never occur to me to even think about
asking someone to allow my friends and family to use their house for a major
party even if I knew them. I could never ask a stranger for something like
that. I would be more inclined to take myself to the local psycho ward if I
started thinking like that.





>
>
> >Limited open bars usually stop at dinner time, for
> >> those who don't have a clue.
> >
> >Your experience is far from universal.
>
> I've never seen or heard of it either. But after reading SF's posts
> on and off for a few years I'm sure I wouldn't be friends with people
> like her.
>
> >I'm from the mid-south, and IME there, open bars don't close until the
> >couple wants the guests to go home. And most receptions aren't sit-down
> >dinners; they're what's known as 'heavy hors d'oevres' which means
> >entree-type food in portions that fit on small plates (think tapas
> >buffet). No assigned seating, and sometimes seating for only 1/2 the
> >guests, thus forcing people to mingle. That's what my wedding was like.
>
> I've not been to a wedding like that, but a few very high-end
> Christmas party's. This year we went to a part held at the Hyatt
> Lodge located in the McDonald's Campus. When I heard the "M" word I
> gasped. I was assured that we wouldn't be eating McShitties food.
>
> The party was supposed to be from 7-10 pm. Traffic was very light and
> we got there a few minutes early. The bar was open, food was out,
> servers were at their stations, and a chef was at her cooking station
> to work her private magic for each person who wished. There were a
> few hundred people there and maybe 25 chairs at low tables. The rest
> of the tables were standing height and not many of them. I was the
> designated driver and the token date. I met lots of people, Had fun
> conversation. Heard great piano music. ETC. I've never been to a
> party of strangers and had more fun. The forum you've described is
> awesome.
>
> >I've been to a few weddings in and around NYC, and it was entirely
> >different from what I was used to: Open bar with 'cocktail hour' until
> >dinner, then only wine or beer served by waiters with assigned seating
> >at a sit-down dinner, where you didn't get up again unless you wanted to
> >dance or had to go to the bathroom. Personally, I hate being tied to a
> >table.
>
> The weddings I've been to like that opened the bar up as soon as
> dinner was done without any restrictions.
>
> >I've also been a to potluck weddings in state parks and back yards where
> >there was little or no alcoholic drinks.
>
> Well,,,,,potluck? You must have known what you were in for?
>
> >And don't get me started on my
> >in-laws' Pittsburgh and Rochester NY weddings!
>
> LOL How about a wedding that the grooms father had put a $100 cap on
> the bar. The first 5 people in line got through with backups. The
> rest were at a cash bar.
>
> Gar

Dave Smith > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> My very obnoxious niece (who has been the subject of several
> rants here already)
[snip]

Has a doppelganger here on the Left Coast of the US. I met her over the
holiday when we attended some friends' holiday bash. The entire
characterization you've presented was in living color for four [LONG] hours.

I sympathize with you and your inability to deal with her.

The doppelganger has a Titanium Cranium and Teflon armored skin. Nothing
phased her. It was like watching an adult 2-yo when she was told no.

The Ranger

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:08:58 -0600, Gar <> wrote:

>
> I've never seen or heard of it either. But after reading SF's posts
> on and off for a few years I'm sure I wouldn't be friends with people
> like her.
>

We finally agree on something! I wouldn't consider
befriending anyone like you either.



Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:48:01 -0500, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> Gar wrote:
>
> > I'd be surprised if at least half of wedding attendees don't want to
> > be there. The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
> > count your cash.
>
> (laugh) You mean, I'm not the only person who hates weddings?
>
I don't like them either.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:21:17 -0600, Gar <> wrote:

> The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
> count your cash.
>
HUH? I guess you have no idea what a cash bar is. People
pay for their own drinks and the cash goes to establishment
providing the booze - usually a hotel.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

sf wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:21:17 -0600, Gar <> wrote:
>
> > The least you can do is make them comfortable until you
> > count your cash.
> >
> HUH? I guess you have no idea what a cash bar is. People
> pay for their own drinks and the cash goes to establishment
> providing the booze - usually a hotel.
>

I took "cash" to mean the gifts received.
Goomba

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:48:35 -0800, "The Ranger"
> wrote:
>
> The doppelganger has a Titanium Cranium and Teflon armored skin. Nothing
> phased her. It was like watching an adult 2-yo when she was told no.
>
You must be talking about my soon to be ex-daughter-in-law!


Practice safe eating - always use condiments