Just for fun...

I thought I'd share something entertaining for y'all. All... what, 10 people who've read this? Lol I'm kidding, I don't care. I'd even be fine with this being more like a diary, but I digress.

So I recently moved out of my parents' house after living there for 23 years. (I know, I know, but hey, I saved A LOT of money!) As you may have guessed, I'm getting married, and my mother is doing my alterations. My wonderful mama made her own wedding dress, so I entrusted her with the task of perfecting mine. I opted out of her making the whole thing, because we've made a few dresses before, and usually we just argue over the littlest things, so I wanted to nip that in the bud and buy my own dress. I did have a small budget, and ended up with a popular David's Bridal choice, but I love it and I feel that I've made it my own. Anyway, I'd gone over for a fitting, and when I got there, my mom was napping. Not wanting to disturb her, I went into what used to be my bedroom. I was shocked to find that it was almost unrecognizable! My walls, which I'd painted turquoise when I was about 12 years old, were now baby blue. My furniture was being moved out of the room, and the carpet was being ripped out. My walk in closet was completely bare, with the exception of my wedding dress hanging on the bar. On the bed, there were various objects, including my mirror, organization items, pens, a stool... and in the middle, lay something satiny, lacy and about the color of honey butter. It was my mother's wedding dress.

Now, I'd seen it before, in pictures, and at one point, it'd hung in my closet, long before my own dress. I'd even attempted to put it on once as a young girl, and it, of course, hung off of me. It consisted of two parts: a tea-length dress with a sweetheart neckline and pearl straps, and a lacy jacket. It's from the eighties, but it doesn't have the giant Diana-esque sleeves, thank goodness. It's not my taste, but I never fail to be amazed at the fact that she made it.

Anyway, I picked it up and examined it. My first observation was that I would've been driven insane by the lace jacket. I've got a skin sensitivity thing. But I was bored and decided to try it on. All of it. jacket, dress, AND veil. Mind you, I've already resolved to nix the veil for my own wedding, as I've never cared for them, and after wedding dress shopping and having them thrust upon me, I still don't like them. I kind of liked one. Only kind of.

So I changed into my mother's wedding dress. I couldn't button the jacket, because it buttoned up the back, but I got a good idea of the full look by holding the back together. It was freaky. Mostly because the dang thing FIT. FIT! My mother, who currently has like triple D cups, was once MY SIZE. I couldn't believe it! Neither could she, when she saw me in it. She said, and I quote, "Oh, that's freaky."

And now, I give you- me, in my mother's wedding dress!

(Forgive my bad photography and the awkward look on my face.)

A bit of a rant

I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about something. That something is diamonds. Everywhere I look, they're talking about them. I'm talking about the rings, ladies and gentlemen. Now I know about diamonds and how they're forever, they're super hard, they're shiny and sparkly and a girl's best friend... But let's get real. Aren't there some women OTHER than myself who just don't get it?! I mean, they're... white. They're... plain. Sure they're worth bookoos of moolah, but what is the big deal? I like SAPPHIRES, and blue topaz! I like emeralds and tanzanite! I *love* pearls, in all shapes and colors. In short... I like some COLOR! After all, I am a white girl marrying a hispanic man whose skin is a delicious shade of brown like an iced latte. I like shades and hues of various areas of the visible part of the eletromagnetic spectrum. I find it fascinating that we see certain colors because light reflects those colors or absorbs others. So I don't get it. Why are women so content with having the same stone as everyone else?! In fact, I'm hard-pressed to find a woman who doesn't love diamonds! It drives me nutso. I've got a sapphire. It's small, has two white sapphires alongside it, and it's absolutely perfect. I chose it, and between you and me, it cost nothing compared to what it would've run me had I swapped out the stones for diamonds of the same size. I don't know the carat size and frankly I don't care. Size doesn't matter, because I've got these tiny little fingers that would look weird with some honking rock hanging off it. Plus, I'm so cheap, it's not even funny. I couldn't bear to let Brandon spend the same on my engagement ring as I did on my current car. So we picked this out together and we both walked away happy. He asked me if I was sure several times, but considering I still smile when it sparkles in the sunlight, I think we both know the answer now. Even if I did want something big, I probably would've spent much less on the ring, simply by passing on those stupid diamonds. White sapphires, cubic zircona, and mossanite all have that clear white look of diamonds without the price tag, and seriously, who's going to know? I just can't rationalize spending several thousand dollars on a ring, especially considering how much you could do with that money. An average (diamond, what else?) engagement ring supposedly costs $5000. For that amount, I could pay for about 3 months of rent, groceries, gas, cable, and cell phone bills. I could buy a used car in decent condition. I could go to Europe for a few weeks. I could plan a small wedding. I could visit several cities in the US. Of course, I'm not trying to make you feel guilty or anything. I just want to find some people who agree with me. Hello? Anyone there? Hello? I feel like the only girl in the world when it comes to these stupid rings. 

Another thing that influenced my decision was the blood diamond thing. I couldn't possibly sleep at night knowing that some poor African kid had to slave away digging for days or weeks or months to find the very diamond I had on my finger. I know there are places that claim to have conflict-free diamonds, but how can I be sure? I can't. So, no diamonds it was. 

If anyone out there has similar views, please comment, and let me know I'm not crazy or alone. If you have a non-diamond engagement ring, post a pic! I'd love to see it! 

My ring!

Budget Weddings: Invites, Save the Dates, and Photography

The first thing I'm going to say may make some people upset, but I'm going to say it anyway. Stationary gets thrown away. Very few people are going to save your invites, save the dates, bridal shower invites, etc. If, after realizing this, you still MUST have those expensive embossed invites, by all means, go for it! The rest of you, read on!

Save the dates are, first and foremost, OPTIONAL! The Knot may have you believe otherwise, but here's the thing: many of your guests over a certain age will not understand what they are, and you'll find yourself explaining that it's not the invitation over and over. If you still want to do them, pick a cheap option. 

The first option is to snap a picture of the two of you holding a sign with all the information you want on it, send the picture to your local Walgreen's or CVS or Target photo center, and make 100 or so copies. Each picture will run between 15 and 30 cents a piece, so you'll only spend $15-30 for 100 save the dates! (Postage, envelopes, etc, not included) 

Another inexpensive option is to make a simple design with your names, date and location (or have a design savvy friend design one) and print off several per page (postcard size is usually perfect) at a place like Office Max or FedEx office. Color prints cost under a dollar per page, so you can spend around $45-75 for 100. 

Lastly, there's the option of VistaPrint, which personally, I find too expensive for save the dates. These run about $8 for 10, which would cost you over $80 for 100. However, this is a fairly inexpensive option for those who are not the DIY-type. 

I went with the photo option, because 1) I think some people *might* actually save it, 2) It was easily the cheapest option next to not sending any, 3) It was a lot of fun doing the photo shoot with my fiance in my parent's backyard with my youngest brother (13!) photographing us (and doing a bang-up job!). I actually made a collage of pictures, and it was so cute I'll definitely keep a copy! It was also easier to stick with my theme this way, as my wedding is taking place in an antique schoolhouse, so we're having a vintage schoolhouse theme. 

Onto invites. Vistaprint is a great option, because I'd rather spend a tad more on the invites than the save the dates. These run between $7-20 for 10, making them $70-200 for 100. Again, it's up to you. If you really love the $16 ones, get them. It's your wedding. But if you're on a budget, this is one of those areas to consider cutting costs.

Another option is to buy those simple invitation sets at Target, Walmart, etc. They're about $20 at Walmart for 50, so $40 for 100. They usually include RSVP cards, envelopes, and the invitation itself, and allow for easy customization. Printing will cost about another 50 cents to a dollar each invitation, so you'll spend about 50-100 dollars there, plus the $40 for the kits. 

My personal choice? I bought a PDF of Etsy that was designed by a wonderful Australian woman ($30) and printed them off at Office Max for a total of maybe $110, not including envelopes or stamps. Another tip: don't include a return envelope and stamp for the RSVP card. Have people RSVP by calling, or online. The Knot has some GREAT tools for this. You upload all your guests into the guest list, make a wedding website, and people can RSVP on your website! It's all free! Saves you about $1 or so per invitation, plus you have one less piece of paper to keep track of. You can even call people who haven't responded, and RSVP for them online. (Or delegate that joyful task to a willing or unwilling friend or family member)

Next stop: pictures! When looking for a wedding photographer, you need to consider a few things. One- You will save these pictures for years to come. Two- Not all amateurs are created equal. Three- This may be one of those areas you don't want to slash costs to the bare bones. My recommendation is to contact a few professionals in your area and see if they'd be willing to shoot your wedding for a base fee without a package attached. Many understand, with the economy how it is, that young couples (and in many cases, not so young couples) are trying to save money, and will be more than willing to accomodate. They may have some provisions, such as you would have to allow them the right to publish your photos or use them in their portfolio, but these are not a big deal. Our photographer agreed to shoot our wedding and give us a CD of all our pictures for $500, and he is a highly experienced professional. We can decide to print copies of these photos at Walgreen's at a lower cost, and if we can afford it later, purchase a package from him of some of our favorite shots. This option is very budget-friendly, and allows you to get quality photographs without the hefty package prices. 

If you cannot find a professional willing to do this, or their prices are still more than you can afford, check with amateurs. Be warned, however, that the less experience someone has, the more likely you are to run into problems. A very inexperienced photographer may not be able to capture all the shots that a professional can. In this case, you'll more than likely find that you get what you pay for. If you find someone who's really great that you think is a good deal, that's awesome. I don't recommend getting a family member or guest to take pictures, because then they won't get to enjoy themselves. The best advice for going with amateurs is to meet with them, ask about their experience, and take a look at their portfolio. If you're not sure, ask them to do an engagement session first. That way, you can see first-hand their techniques and abilities. Afterwards, you can decide whether to hire them for the wedding or not. 

Another topic related to photography is videography. Personally, I am not having a videographer, because they are so expensive in my area. Plus, I kind of love the way most wedding videos I've seen look- shaky, unfocused half the time, and home-video-esque. Mostly because they all have been home videos! But if you're looking into this option, expect to pay quite a bit, due to the time-consuming process of editing videos. You can also hire an amateur, as with the photographer, but again, make sure you see their work first. As with photography, it's best not to make some family member work at your wedding, but if someone offers... Take them up on it! I'll be relying on a family member to film my wedding, but I'm making it easy by saying not to worry about quality, editing, etc. I think it will be fun to watch the video later and laugh at how I can hear my grandpa grunting the whole time and how I can see my flower girl picking apart the flower petals. But again, it's your wedding, and you can do whatever you want!

My next post on weddings will be about decorations for the ceremony and reception, and flowers. 

Hope these are helpful!