#282: FOTB.

remember when steve martin pictured himself manning the grill (whilst donning a chef's hat, at that) in his backyard with picnic tables, streamers and balloons and kids running around everywhere...

the wedding ultimately ended up being much more of a schmancy affair, at $250/head. (a little trivia: i'm very familiar with the actual house they used in the movie; my piano teacher lived 2 blocks away from it!)

so that begs the question...does going budget-friendly automatically mean having to go casual like a simple cake and punch affair. or, if not casual, limiting your offerings to just champagne and dessert. or, if not limiting your offerings, paring down your list to 25 people.

fact: when you're going 'budget', you have to give hard-knuckled consideration to and from the get-go decide where you're willing to compromise and where you're...just really not.

i think i've been fairly consistent in saying that i'm ok letting go of: the $5000 dress, the flowers that are going to wilt within days, the huge bridal party, the extensive guest list, the fancy paper, and the extras (favors, bathroom baskets, OOT bags, etc).

but i'm also getting more stubborn with the there-are-no-compromises-here items: good food (meaning a complete meal. not just apps or desserts. this is top priority.), style, pizzazz, amazing photography, and a blow out party (aka major drinkage for all!).

knowing this, bf said to me the other night: "$10,000 isn't possible when a decent chicken dinner for a wedding costs $70/pp. i think you have to consider spending more than $10,000. how about setting the limit at $20,000?"

i'm a capricorn which means i don't handle defeat well. and i'm stubborn as hell. which means i'll just have to find a way. i just have to.