Buffets at weddings

[catnapper]

Hubby's daughter is planning her wedding and hubby and I were discussing buffet vs. sit down dinner. I wanted to know what you all thought.

They are having 110 people. They changed their venues several times so that they can actually afford to host people. They are having it at a lovely place where a family friend had theirs. Nice secluded woodsy place.

She is definitely not listening to what we have to say (parents.... like we never got married :rolleyes: or been to any weddings :rolleyes: )

ANYWHOOOOOoooooo... hubby and I got into the debate just between ourselves. What is better for so many people? Buffet or sit-down?

This is more of an open discussion because I can't share opinions with a girl who isn't asking for them :p I'm simply curious.

Hubby wanteed me to add that there is approx $20 less per person to go buffet. With a larger variety of food (yeah, like you can't tell which way his belly is talking)

[pomtzu]

Sit down is nice for a smaller group, so I would favor a buffet for 110.

When my son remarried several years ago - it was a smallish gathering at the Sheraton (maybe 40 total), and the head table was served as a sit down, and the rest of the guests partook buffet style. That worked out quite well, and if anyone at the head table was still hungry, they were free to raid the buffet too of course. ;)

[happylabs]

I like a sit-down meal for a wedding. However, I think my son and his fiance are having a buffet.

It is the bride's day so she should be able to "have it her way". :p :D

[Pembroke_Corgi]

As a vegetarian, I'd prefer the buffet style. I've been to a sit-down dinner wedding and was worried I wouldn't get anything to eat (actually the bride had requested a vegetarian meal for me but I didn't get served it until I asked for it!). Plus if it's a large wedding it seems more economical and everyone can take what they like with less waste.

[kuhio98]

I prefer buffet also. Bobcat is a picky-picky-picky eater. (Seriously, food can't touch and no sauces on the plate -- unless he put it there. :rolleyes:) So having a variety of options is wonderful.

If they decide buffet -- and have 110 people -- recommend they don't set up the buffet against a wall so that folks have to go by single file. If they pull it out some, people can form a line on each side -- much better for guests.

[Husky_mom]

hmmm.. I´d say sit down.. that way you can measure the portions (small).. it´s a sampling to keep people "alive" not a feast.. unlike a buffet where some might gobble up..

at my wedding, very very simple, all we had was sampler snacks.. canapes and such.. cheese.. homemade "fancy" cookies and cake.. awesome cake.. lol..

[moosmom]

From one "Mother of the Bride" to another, my daughter is having a sitdown buffet. It's not like the traditional buffet, where people stand in line waiting to be served. It's individual buffets served at each table. Amy is having about 70 people.

I cannot WAIT till this wedding over!!!! Good luck, girl. Call me. We can compare notes!!;)

[cassiesmom]

I've got a good and a bad buffet story. At a good friend's wedding, the caterer sent soooooo much food! After the dinner the caterer's staff removed the food to the kitchen of the church hall where the reception was held. After the guests left we packed it up with the gifts. There was so much left, and my friend was having such a good time, that she and her husband changed their honeymoon reservations and had the wedding party and their families over for leftovers and gift opening the day after the wedding. The only thing I picked up for the "day after" was drinks- coffee and tea, soft drinks and some wine and beer.

Buffet horror story. My mom and dad were recently at a wedding where there were "stations" for the different foods on the buffet. A couple of them ran out of food before all of the guests had been served. There were long lines at each station. But I think a good caterer would be careful about putting out the food in such a way that they wouldn't run out with guests still waiting to be served.

[Nomilynn]

I always prefer a buffet style. The only times I've had a sit down style, I didn't eat everything I was served because I didn't like it, and then ended up feeling hungry and stopped on the way home to get drive through. Buffets are great because you can eat what you like and have seconds. Also dessert buffets are good because I don't actually like a lot of desserts, so it would be a wasted plate on me; I usually go for the fresh fruit and cheese for dessert.

[Laura's Babies]

I prefer buffets for several reasons. Number one is I want to SEE the food before I select what I want... and I simply prefer to select what I eat myself.. I probably only eat half of what a normal person eats anyway.

I don't know anyone that had a sit down wedding dinner here, everybody does the buffet type around here.

[wolf_Q]

We had a very limited budget, couldn't afford a sit down meal. We did buffet style, serve yourself, with tables and chairs so people could sit down and eat. Actually the food all came from Sam's club and Corby's aunts catered it. Turned out awesome, wouldn't have changed a thing. :) That was around 100 people, that's as many as we could invite to the actual wedding as that's all the area would allow. We left out all the extra food for all the reception guests and brought out cakes for the reception guests also.

[Medusa]

You're probably going to get so many differing opinions that you'll be sorry you asked. LOL However, I prefer a sit down dinner. You can more accurately calculate how much money will be spent on food, there are no long lines and people know ahead of time what they're getting b/c they make their choice and return the card w/their RSVP. It isn't just the bride's day, though; the groom should be considered as well. (Said like the mother of a son. ;) )

[Marigold2]

If they pay for it themselves they get to decide. If you are paying you should have a budget set and go by that.

[catnapper]

If they pay for it themselves they get to decide. If you are paying you should have a budget set and go by that.

They are paying themselves. Our gift is to babysit Cameron while they honeymoon.

[Karen]

I have been to both kinds of weddings, the sit-down type seem to be far more formal, and take longer. The buffet type reception makes for more mingling and conversation with people who might not be at your table, which can be a plus.

[kitten645]

I like the idea of the head table being sit down and guests being buffet. As the bride, I wouldn't want to be serving myself food in my gown. Of course, I can't sit thru a meal without "wearing' something that didn't make the whole trip to my mouth! I love buffets as an everyday meal. You get to pick and choose what and how much you want. I'd think it would also be a huge thing off the "to do" list. Co-ordinating who wants what and there's always some fool that didn't mention he was vegan, lactose intolerant and glutten free!
:rolleyes:

[K9karen]

If I'm remembering correctly, most of the sit downs had entree choices listed on the RSVP form. And there were appetizer stations prior to the main meal. I love that, but have a tendency to over eat on "finger food". I like buffet dinners too but I hate waiting in line (can't stand long with my bad spine). Actually, I always have such an awesome time at weddings, feeding my face, having a few refreshing cocktails and socializing, I don't care. Whatever makes the bride & groom happy, makes me happy.

[Twisterdog]

I agree with other here: sit down is more formal, and works well with small groups. I think it gives the reception a more classy feel. However ... 110 people? No, I think buffet would be far better for that many. We had about 100 people at our wedding and did buffet. It worked well. Some people just aren't that hungry, would rather mingle and talk (or drink), and buffets facilitate that far better than sitting at a table for an hour or more, waiting for all the courses of a sit-down meal.

[finn's mom]

I think with that many people, a buffet style would be the best way to go.