Save the Date Etiquette?

RosesAreRed13

So I've read some posts about STD etiquette and I wanted to dive a little deeper.  I saw if the couple is still trying to work on narrowing down their guest list, it is ok to not send all STDs out for a few reasons.  One, being STDs are not required to begin with.  The other being they should go to VIPs and close family members, etc.  People who you absolutely need there.  That way you will have time to decide exactly who you can remove from the guest list without breaking etiquette.

I feel like this has the potential to look like a B List situation, so I want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.  So lets use this as an example.  We send STDs to 30 of our closest friends and hold off on the rest.  But these friends are all in the same group of friends, so obviously there will be talk of receiving STDs.  If we then decide to invite the rest of the friends who didn't get a STD, won't it look like they are B listed when they receive an invitation? Trying to understand all of this so I appreciate the help!

jacques27

Might it look like that? Possibly. But if all their invitations go out at the same time, that's not b-listing.  B-listing is where you send out one batch of invites with an early RSVP date so that as declines come in and make room for others, you can send additional invites out.  Save the dates are just the promise of a forthcoming invitation.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of save the dates anyway unless you choose a holiday weekend or only for those who would need to book travel arrangements.  True VIPs should be consulted with in person before booking the date if it's that important they be there.  For anyone else, the 8-ish weeks lead time an invitation gives is more than enough notice.

laurad75

I would say no, it won't look like you b-listed.  It would only look that way if you send the invitations at different times.  You do have the option to not send them at all. 

I wish I didn't send STD to all of my guests.  I probably would have cut several of them down the line after I really thought about it but now I don't have the option.  

MnHGirl

Since my husband and I got married in the summer in a heavy vacation town, we sent out STD to family and friends that we knew we would for sure be inviting so that they could start looking into lodging options (we also had blocked rooms at a local hotel as well). 

We sent out invites about 7-8 weeks ahead of time to everyone and never heard any backlash from those that didn't get a STD postcard. 

thisismynickname2

I can understand how you may perceive that. But, even in a friend group, everyone inherently knows (I hope) who's "closer". In my DH's circle, if I recall correctly we only sent STDs to the bridal party and some people who traveled. Even if some of the other invitees saw the STD on someone's fridge, I'd figure they know well enough that those particular folks are DH's best friends. 

And then yes, we sent all the invites at the exact same time and that was it. 

SP29

Not a B list because you would still send all your invitations out at the same time. 

There is no response for a STD- it is purely information. Thus there is no way to invite more pending a decline from other guests. 

ThxSugar

Our wedding will require some travel for nearly all of our guests. We sent StDs to parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, and first cousins. We also sent them to some dear friends who would require a plane ticket. Anyone local will just get an invite 6-8 weeks a head of time. 
Not B-listing, they are on the guest list, they just don't require as much notice to plan travel arrangements.

londinium215

jacques27 said:

But if all their invitations go out at the same time, that's not b-listing.  B-listing is where you send out one batch of invites with an early RSVP date so that as declines come in and make room for others, you can send additional invites out.  

This makes me so relieved. I was so worried that it might look like a few of our last minute additions to our guest list looked like B-listers, as they hadn't received Save the Dates, but we haven't sent out invitations yet - our plan is to do one batch of invitations that we send out next weekend and that's it.

The last minute additions are all local - we just weren't 100% sure whether or not we wanted to invite them, so we didn't send them a Save the Date. 

SP29

Knottie1453305971 said:

jacques27 said:

But if all their invitations go out at the same time, that's not b-listing.  B-listing is where you send out one batch of invites with an early RSVP date so that as declines come in and make room for others, you can send additional invites out.  

This makes me so relieved. I was so worried that it might look like a few of our last minute additions to our guest list looked like B-listers, as they hadn't received Save the Dates, but we haven't sent out invitations yet - our plan is to do one batch of invitations that we send out next weekend and that's it.

The last minute additions are all local - we just weren't 100% sure whether or not we wanted to invite them, so we didn't send them a Save the Date. 

This is fine- and recommended. STDs not required, and they are purely informative, so not every guest needs one. Best sent to VIPs, and IF you have OOT guests or a destination wedding. Even then, not required. Word of mouth is also appropriate. 

There have been some posts on here about B&Gs who sent a STD to every guest, invited to their max capacity, and then closer to the wedding date realized they had made some new friends they wanted to invite. This lead the poster to ask if there was a way to politely B-list so these new friends could be invited (there isn't). Perfectly fine to leave yourself some room before invites go out.

The not fine is inviting more guests based on the decline of others. On that vein, say you send a guest a STD and they tell you they can't come. You would still send them an invitation and count them as part of your guests list (not invite someone else in their place), because situations change and the invitation is what requests a response.