Comments on: After $30,000 In Wedding Debt, Good End Result

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:17:46 +0000

We did not do honeymoon or church wedding, and all told spent $35,000 on reception, dress, and all the rings. That is HK for you!

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:42:04 +0000

Then forget “normal.”

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:50:40 +0000

I just looked at my wedding category in Quicken. We were married in July 2003. The total cost of the wedding, and this is no joke, was $65,300 (not all covered by us, but I will explain). I can honestly say that we did NOT splurge for our wedding. Granted, this is in suburban Chicago, but I still find it hard to imagine that we could have done it any cheaper!

As for the “explanation” promised above: the category shows $12,400 for Photography, but we collected checks from everyone and paid the photographer all at once (we, as in the bride and groom, did not spend $12,400 on photos). Still, though, our reception was over $15,000 (at $42/plate which included drinks). This did include _all_ wedding related expenses, including the engagement and wedding rings and the honeymoon.

Also important to realize is that for most weddings, you _will_ receive gifts. I don’t think we came close to breaking even (um, not EVEN close), but with cash gifts from the wedding plus the shower gifts, I know the overall impact was not as bad as it sounds.

Being from the Chicago burbs, I honestly cannot picture how someone could pull off a “normal” wedding for less than $10,000.

By: Charity Plaster

Charity Plaster — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:58:12 +0000

I believe the national average for weddings is right around that $30,000 mark. I work with just as many $5000 budget brides as I do $50,000…. and you’re right, that is a heck of a lot of money for one night. I am amazed that some people can order up $3000 worth of chocolate covered strawberries and not even blink!

Thank God for brides, they keep me in business!

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:53:03 +0000

A slick bit of typing there above…

By: Dab

Dab — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:52:28 +0000

If you can afford to vacation year round, you can afford to pay $1200/month in food

The $40 is for one, by the way. Generally, it includes alcohol and dessert, so you could certainly save some money by eliminating that.

That said, the euro:dollar exchange rate isn’t exactly helping things.

By: jim

jim — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:13:16 +0000

Yeah I guess even for four meals (lunch and dinner for two) the $40 isn’t much… but still, $1200/mo is a lot.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:09:43 +0000

$40/day is pretty damn frugal for three meals in a restaurant.

By: Aimee

Aimee — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:08:23 +0000

Wow! I can’t even imagine having spent that much on our wedding. Of course, we decided to take our wedding money and use it for our actual marriage instead (house, bills, furniture) instead of the big wedding.

$40 a day! Like LA said, there is that Rachel Ray show and it always made me laugh because I thought it was expensive too.

By: LAMoneyGuy

LAMoneyGuy — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:29:50 +0000

What is funny is that $40 a day is accurately noted as spending too much. Rachel Ray on FoodTV, however, has a show called, “$40 a day” in which she shows you how you can eat well in any city for $40 a day. It is supposed to be some miracle of frugality. Granted, it is in the context of vacationing. Nonetheless, I find the juxtaposed viewpoints amusing.