Ok, so I get it that no one loves a cash bar. Of course I prefer free booze to not-free booze. But I often hear people say they'd rather see no alcohol at all than a cash bar. What's that about? Really, I don't get it.
We genuinely could not afford a full open bar at our wedding. So we paid for several kinds of wine, beer and all soft drinks, but also allowed for the purchase of liquor/mixed drinks. I figured it was better to have it at least out there if someone reeeeally had to have their Jack and Coke or whatever. No? Would it have been better to not have it at all, and just have wine and beer? Was our party tacky and ruined because we had some options available for sale?
I'd prefer to have non-free stuff than nothing at all, so I wouldn't have been offended by your arrangement. But I probably would have stuck with the free stuff anyway.
I live in an area where weddings are open bar. Period. You would have trouble finding a venue that would do a cash bar. So I've never been to a cash bar wedding.
But I don't understand the snobbery about open bars, considering that there *are* plenty of areas where cash bars are normal. If I spend $60 for my drinks at your cash bar wedding, and you spend $60 for drinks at my cash bar wedding, is that so different from my venue charging me $60 more per person to have an open bar at my wedding, and charging you $60 more per person for your cash bar? It seems like it all evens out as long as you're doing what is relatively normal in your area. Either way, we're each paying $60 that $60 -- the only question is when really.
(I have the same philosophy about wedding gifts -- if I live in an area where the typical guest gives a $300 gift, and so I give $300 gifts and receive $300 gifts, the net effect to me is the same as if I lived in an area where it was normal to and I did in fact give $50 gifts and receive $50 gifts. It all evens out. So if anything, I think the system where $50 is being exchanged back and forth is way smarter and more reasonable.)
We looked into having our wedding at a winery and most of the wineries we looked into would allow you only to serve their wine -- no other alcohol. So you offered more than those weddings do
I have never been to a wedding with a cash bar, but I would ultimately prefer it to no alcohol at all.
I think serving wine and beer and having liquor available for cash seems reasonable enough and would not be offended by that.
I do agree that it would annoy me to go to a wedding where the bride and groom clearly spent a crapload of money on other things, but just couldn't be bothered to buy their guests a drink.
You should've invited less people so you could pay for drinks for those who were there!!
Just kidding. That's what I saw on the knot all the time.
I think the idea is to cuts costs elsewhere so you can afford to host your guests properly. I think that if it comes down to being able to pay for an open bar or being able to pay for chargers under the plates, skip the damn chargers.
Also, I am also fine with cash bars with no free booze if ppl are trying to be MM. I can respect that. But don't wear a $7k dress and have super nice stationary and flowers and then cheap out on food and drinks. That's what bugs me.
I would agree with this. The only kind of weddings that bother me are when it is very obvious that the couple blew their budget on crap that was only important to them and didn't give any thought to their guests.
As long as there is some free booze, I am cool with it.
I'll be honest but I especially side eye cash bars when they are at fancy weddings. I was at a reception at the Ritz with a cash bar. My glass of wine (house white) cost $17. I was super mad about that. However, if I was at some 20 year old's reception in a church annex room, I would be forgiving.
In terms of the question, I guess I prefer cash bar to no bar. I don't like either though
this is how I feel.
I went to one NJ wedding with a cash bar and it was a budget wedding.... but it was still just very out of the norm for us here. So out of the norm we STILL talk about it and the wedding was 10 years ago.
I'll be honest but I especially side eye cash bars when they are at fancy weddings. I was at a reception at the Ritz with a cash bar. My glass of wine (house white) cost $17.
On the plus side, that glass of wine was probably a hell of a lot better than the crap wine that most reception halls in these parts serve their guests
Also, I am also fine with cash bars with no free booze if ppl are trying to be MM. I can respect that. But don't wear a $7k dress and have super nice stationary and flowers and then cheap out on food and drinks. That's what bugs me.
This is how I feel. And really, this comes down to being annoyed by something because you know someone or are thinking of a specific case. In the abstract, I could care less about cash v. open bar. But when I think of people who do things like, say, have a destination wedding or a wedding where a very large percentage of guests are traveling from out of town, then I have high expectations that once I've spent a shitton of money on airfare and hotel that I will get lots of free food and liquor upon arrival.
Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me if someone prioritizes spending money on a photographer or something else over the booze.
As long as there is some free booze, I am cool with it.
I'll be honest but I especially side eye cash bars when they are at fancy weddings. I was at a reception at the Ritz with a cash bar. My glass of wine (house white) cost $17. I was super mad about that. However, if I was at some 20 year old's reception in a church annex room, I would be forgiving.
In terms of the question, I guess I prefer cash bar to no bar. I don't like either though
Agreed.
Last year I went to a wedding that was open bar to the bridal party and cash bar for everyone else. It's one thing if that's implied to the wedding party, but they had a huuuuuge sign indicating it ^o)
As long as there is some free booze, I am cool with it.
I'll be honest but I especially side eye cash bars when they are at fancy weddings. I was at a reception at the Ritz with a cash bar. My glass of wine (house white) cost $17. I was super mad about that. However, if I was at some 20 year old's reception in a church annex room, I would be forgiving.
In terms of the question, I guess I prefer cash bar to no bar. I don't like either though
Agreed.
Last year I went to a wedding that was open bar to the bridal party and cash bar for everyone else. It's one thing if that's implied to the wedding party, but they had a huuuuuge sign indicating it
That's horribly tacky.
Our wedding is next weekend. We just did beer, wine and a mixed signature cocktail. I'm hoping no one gets cranky about the lack of cocktail choices.
I'll be honest but I especially side eye cash bars when they are at fancy weddings. I was at a reception at the Ritz with a cash bar. My glass of wine (house white) cost $17.
On the plus side, that glass of wine was probably a hell of a lot better than the crap wine that most reception halls in these parts serve their guests
I'd rather they save money on the wine and have Grey Goose if I'm drinking for free as a guest.
Good wine is pricey and doesn't serve a lot of people. I don't blame places with open bar trying to steer people away from it.
When you ask people to be your guest at a reception, the expectation is that as guests they won't pay for anything that the host normally provides. That includes beverages. It's not different than say, proviing crudite, cheese and crackers for free, but then having a station with hot hors douvres, an asking guests to pay cash for them.
Honestly I would never think to bring a lot of cash to wedding just in case I had to purcahse something.
Free water, coffee, soda, and beer at my reception. Anything else you had to pay for. We did not advertise a bar, but I see a lot of both types of bars at weddings here. XH and I got drinks on the house though :-) Which we weren't told of until the reception.
Eh if you can't afford it and the rest ofyour wedding isn't over the top no worries.
One wedding we went to it quickly got around that cocktail hour drinks were free but after that cash bar. Yes most of us spent the whole hour in line mingling bc we were cheap and figured we would drink while it was free.
I think that's fine. We did a Sunday morning brunch wedding and had free champagne/mimosas with non alcoholic options. We were on a budget, but the other issue was that 6 of the 60 wedding guests were known for being very sloppy drunks and I just didn't want hard liquor in the vicinity. There had been a LOT of drama (that included same six wedding guests and police officers) at my step brother's wedding six months before that was giving me nightmares.
We did wine and beer at our rehearsal dinner (which half of the guests attended) at a place that had 300 beers on the menu. Everyone seemed fine with that.
To clarify, I don't think our wedding was ruined. I loved everything about it. If I had a spare $5k+ sitting around, I would have been thrilled to host a premium open bar all night.
I guess I was really looking for someone to explain why no booze is better than not-free booze.
I only hate cash bars when there is nothing free except water and coffee. If you provide me free wine, soda or juice--I'm cool. If you charge me $7 for a soda and $14 for poor quality rum with coke, I think you're a rude host. (and those were the costs at the last wedding I went to and was at a crappy hotel, so no way was I drinking their tap water)
When you ask people to be your guest at a reception, the expectation is that as guests they won't pay for anything that the host normally provides. That includes beverages. It's not different than say, proviing crudite, cheese and crackers for free, but then having a station with hot hors douvres, an asking guests to pay cash for them.
Honestly I would never think to bring a lot of cash to wedding just in case I had to purcahse something.
But you didn't HAVE to purchase anything. I had a selection of good wine and domestic/imported beer as well as soft drinks and coffee.
But if Uncle Harlan really needed an Irish coffee that night, he could buy one. At my house at a party, I'd just say, sorry, I don't have Bailey's. Isn't it better that he could get it if he really wanted it?
Ditto V, an open bar is "just what you do" in my area. The only weddings around here that aren't open bar are the super-duper low-budget ones.
I get that people are on budgets, and I think it's totally fine to do open beer/wine/soda if that's genuinely all you can afford. Or even if you have no choice but to just offer soda and everything else is cash bar. I'd rather pay than have nothing at all.
But I give the side-eye to people who throw giant parties/weddings with stupid decorations, useless favors, designer outfits, invitations with 50 inserts, and then cry poverty when it comes to serving an open bar. Or when people waste money on meaningless shit and then cheap out on the food. Priorities, people.
On the plus side, that glass of wine was probably a hell of a lot better than the crap wine that most reception halls in these parts serve their guests
I'd rather they save money on the wine and have Grey Goose if I'm drinking for free as a guest.
Good wine is pricey and doesn't serve a lot of people. I don't blame places with open bar trying to steer people away from it.
So you think that serving wine that tastes like turpentine is their way of trying to keep people from drinking it? I figured it was just their way of cutting corners (or a sign of bad taste or low attention to detail, since there are plenty of inexpensive good wines out there). I'd prefer that they serve good wine *and* good liquor (particularly because not everyone wants to drink a particular type of liquor, and a lot of people like to drink wine with their dinner).
It is the worst when the champagne for the toasts is nasty, because you're essentially forced to drink some of that. And it often really is nasty.