Cash Bars - Everything you need to know in one place

NYCBruin · April 2014

classyduck said:

acove2006 said:
Two wrongs don't make a right

The etiquette of the guests is irrelevant to the question at hand.

@kmmssg, I agree that not providing drinks is rude! But the excerpt you provided does not address the scenario I'm seeking clarification on, which is essentially, a limited cash bar.

Just FYI, for my wedding, I plan on hosting an open bar. Top-shelf liquor will not be available, but that is the bit that is troubling me. I can't afford it... but how discourteous is it REALLY to not provide it, and also "forbid" my guests from paying for it, if they want it? Would it really be rude to include it as a cash "option"? I have to say, @AroundTheBlock 's argument makes sense to me, with respect to my situation.

Not offering cocktails for purchase and offering just beer and wine/signature cocktails or whatever is no different than hosting a dinner party and offering wine at the table but not inviting your guests to pay you if they would like you to break out a bottle of scotch.

Offer what you're willing/able to host and nothing more. This is not complicated.

Jen4948 · April 2014

classyduck said:

acove2006 said:
Two wrongs don't make a right

The etiquette of the guests is irrelevant to the question at hand.

@kmmssg, I agree that not providing drinks is rude! But the excerpt you provided does not address the scenario I'm seeking clarification on, which is essentially, a limited cash bar.

Just FYI, for my wedding, I plan on hosting an open bar. Top-shelf liquor will not be available, but that is the bit that is troubling me. I can't afford it... but how discourteous is it REALLY to not provide it, and also "forbid" my guests from paying for it, if they want it? Would it really be rude to include it as a cash "option"? I have to say, @AroundTheBlock 's argument makes sense to me, with respect to my situation.

The fact that your guests want it does not make it polite to make it available without paying for it yourself. It is rude to expect guests to pay for their any of their own provisions.

In fact, it is also rude for your guests to want what you're not providing for free. Polite guests accept their hosts' hospitality without running out to buy their own provisions on top of it. Two rudes don't make a polite.

classyduck · April 2014

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

LondonLisa · April 2014

classyduck said:

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

Because when you create a menu at a restaurant, you are saying: "Here, these are your options". You are not saying "Here are chicken and pork options, but if you would like lobster, that is a £10 suppliment". In the first situation, it would be rude of a guest to say "ugh, I wanted lobster!" In the second situation, it is saying, if you don't want what I am paying for buy it yourself" which is a horrible attitude to hosting.

There is a huge difference between limited bar (beer and wine only, no option to pay for other beverages) and limited cash bar (beer and wine with everything else at a cost). Just as there is a difference between saying "here is a lovely chicken dinner I cooked for you" and "Here is a lovely chicken dinner I cooked for you but I will make you something else if you pay me". Would you invite people over to your house and say "here is chicken but I will cook you a steak for £20"?! Of course not.

Here is the rule of hosting: Treat people like you would treat them to a meal in their honour at your home. Serve what you can afford and what is appropriate for the time of day (meal time vs afternoon refreshments). Would you ever charge someone for a drink in your own home?! Guests NEVER have to open their wallets.

artbyallie · April 2014

classyduck said:

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. With a limited menu, the HOSTS ARE PAYING. How do you not understand the difference between hosts paying and guests paying?

NYCBruin · April 2014

classyduck said:

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

It's very simple. There is no contradiction:

Limited menu = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for

Limited bar = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for

Limited cash bar = host only pays for some things

Only one of this things is not like the others and it's the rude one.

grumbledore · April 2014

classyduck said:

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

You can limit the bar, you just can't have your guests paying for what they want above and beyond what you are hosting.

If you can afford to host soft drinks, beer, wine and specific liquors, that's fine. That's all that should be available.

grumbledore · April 2014

Someone else stated the distinction better - the difference is that the HOSTS are paying for everything at a limited bar, and the GUESTS are paying for some things at a limited cash bar. Not cool.

crunchymamaof2 · April 2014

@jen4948 you need to trademark that...two rudes do not make a polite. Genius. Just genius.

@classyduck alcohol is never a required element to a party or dinner. If guests happen to not like the alcoholic options you have available they'll find something else to drink. No big deal. They'll survive a few hours without premium liquor. As long as you provide water & some type of non alcoholic drink you're good to go. Also including alcohol you can afford/want to provide is a bonus not a must.

I also don't understand this thinking. If one feels alcohol is that important that all types must be provided than that person should be budgeting for it. Not making their guests pay. It makes no sense.

Jen4948 · April 2014

acove2006 said:

@jen4948 you need to trademark that...two rudes do not make a polite. Genius. Just genius.

@classyduck alcohol is never a required element to a party or dinner. If guests happen to not like the alcoholic options you have available they'll find something else to drink. No big deal. They'll survive a few hours without premium liquor. As long as you provide water & some type of non alcoholic drink you're good to go. Also including alcohol you can afford/want to provide is a bonus not a must.

I also don't understand this thinking. If one feels alcohol is that important that all types must be provided than that person should be budgeting for it. Not making their guests pay. It makes no sense.

Thanks! I agree with you 100% about the second two paragraphs of your post.

classyduck · April 2014

NYCBruin said:

classyduck said:

So.. I apologize for rehashing here, but, I've seen recommendations on this board, in order to control costs, to coordinate with a restaurant to come up with a special menu for reception guests so that it is more affordable.

How is that different from a limited cash bar? No one seemed to think a limited menu was rude...

I promise I'm not trying to be crappy, just trying to resolve what seems to be a contradiction.

It's very simple. There is no contradiction:
Limited menu = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for
Limited bar = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for
Limited cash bar = host only pays for some things

Only one of this things is not like the others and it's the rude one.

Ok, here is how I was interpreting it:

Limited menu = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for

Limited bar = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for

Limited cash bar = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for. Some additional options are available if guests wish to pay.

Now let's apply this to a limited menu. By the definition above:

Limited menu = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for

BUT. Since we assume this is at a restaurant, we should also assume that the whole menu is in fact available to the guest if they want to pay for it, then...

Limited menu = hosts are giving guests a few choices to pick from, all of which the host is paying for. Some additional options are available if guests wish to pay.

I'm a very analytical thinker. I'm not trying to be an ass. But this is the contradiction that is just staring me in the face. You are paying for a set of options, and other options are available with cash in BOTH cases. How is one rude but not the other?

I'm very open to informative responses -- I will never deny my ignorance in these matters, and am quite open to instruction. However, please don't argue that guests would be rude to order something else. Yes, it would be rude, but that is another discussion entirely. I'm concerned with my own conformity to etiquette, not my guests'.

Cookie Pusher · April 2014

Yea, the rest of the menu is theoretically available to the guests, but it's not like you're advertising it as such. Like, you're not having the serves bring both your limited menu AND the regular menu to your guests. If you are hosting a limited menu, your guests should not be asking for something that's not on that limited menu. Unless it was a dietary restriction, I would be highly offended if someone came to a dinner I was hosting and basically said what I was hosting was not good enough for them. What are you going to do with a limited cash bar, hide all the for sale alcohol so no one knows it's there unless they ask for it? What, then, is the point? That's like having the servers walk around your wedding and with an alternate menu so your guests can add lobster tails to their meal for an extra cost. Just... no. What you're hosting is what's available.

classyduck · April 2014

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

Cookie Pusher · April 2014

Nope, it's still tacky, but fewer people may find out about it. Your hosting what you're hosting. Why on earth should your guests feel they are entitled to have things at your wedding that you aren't hosting? Why are you giving your guests the option to be rude?

pinkshorts27 · April 2014

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

No. Just don't do it. There should be no reason to.

And if I went to a restaurant and there was a limited menu, I wouldn't order anything else. Anyone that does is being a tool. (aside from dietary restrictions)

classyduck · April 2014

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

OF COURSE it's not fine! I was being rhetorical, sorry, I assumed that was obvious, I guess not.

blueeyes90 said:

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

No. Just don't do it. There should be no reason to.

And if I went to a restaurant and there was a limited menu, I wouldn't order anything else. Anyone that does is being a tool. (aside from dietary restrictions)

Why don't people get what I'm asking? Yes, I know it would be rude of the guests. I don't care. I'm not going to be a guest in the scenario I'm asking about, I'm going to be a host.

I ask again, why is offering limited, paid options, with additional options if willing to pay, polite in one instance but not another? I don't give a crap how polite my guests are, so please don't use them as an argument.

Cookie Pusher · April 2014

Oh, we understand what you're asking. And all you're doing is trying to justify being rude. You're not being analytical, you're trying to make a case for "but my situation is special" - which it isn't. When you host, you pay for what you're willing to host and guests must accept that. Now, of course, you can't control if your guests choose to leave your event and go to a liquor store to buy alcohol that you aren't hosting, but then it's completely on them. If your guest decides that the food you are not willing to host is not good enough for them, then it's on them for being rude and asking for something that you aren't paying for. If you are so concerned about guests not being satisfied with what you are offering, then you should find a way to host it yourself.

classyduck · April 2014

Cookie Pusher said:

Oh, we understand what you're asking. And all you're doing is trying to justify being rude.
Absolutely not. I plan on hosting a totally open bar. I need no justification for that courtesy.
You're not being analytical, you're trying to make a case for "but my situation is special" - which it isn't.
Again, no. I AM being analytical. I sincerely love and appreciate the advice I get from this board, but this, so far, seems like a blatant contradiction to me. I've been proven wrong before, and I will be happy to be proven wrong again. I just want to understand what I'm missing. *truly*
When you host, you pay for what you're willing to host and guests must (must? who hires the guest police?) accept that. Now, of course, you can't control if your guests choose to leave your event and go to a liquor store to buy alcohol that you aren't hosting, but then it's completely on them. (as I've been saying.) If your guest decides that the food you are not willing to host is not good enough for them, then it's on them for being rude and asking for something that you aren't paying for. (as I've been saying) If you are so concerned about guests not being satisfied with what you are offering, then you should find a way to host it yourself. (I'm really not so concerned!)

My goodness gracious. This is pure and simple, a double standard, the way I have stated it.. Quit trying to villanize me, and just answer me plainly. If I'm flat out wrong, FINE! I'm a humble woman, and will be grateful for the correction. Just make sure it is well supported.

As I have read and interpreted these boards, a limited menu is ok, a limited cash bar is not. I fail to understand why they are different. Please inform me. Thank you!

Cookie Pusher · April 2014

No, the Wedding Police don't show up, but to not accept what the host is offering would be rude. Ugh, I need to not Knot on cold meds.

APDSS22 · April 2014

classyduck said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Oh, we understand what you're asking. And all you're doing is trying to justify being rude.
Absolutely not. I plan on hosting a totally open bar. I need no justification for that courtesy.
You're not being analytical, you're trying to make a case for "but my situation is special" - which it isn't.
Again, no. I AM being analytical. I sincerely love and appreciate the advice I get from this board, but this, so far, seems like a blatant contradiction to me. I've been proven wrong before, and I will be happy to be proven wrong again. I just want to understand what I'm missing. *truly*
When you host, you pay for what you're willing to host and guests must (must? who hires the guest police?) accept that. Now, of course, you can't control if your guests choose to leave your event and go to a liquor store to buy alcohol that you aren't hosting, but then it's completely on them. (as I've been saying.) If your guest decides that the food you are not willing to host is not good enough for them, then it's on them for being rude and asking for something that you aren't paying for. (as I've been saying) If you are so concerned about guests not being satisfied with what you are offering, then you should find a way to host it yourself. (I'm really not so concerned!)

My goodness gracious. This is pure and simple, a double standard, the way I have stated it.. Quit trying to villanize me, and just answer me plainly. If I'm flat out wrong, FINE! I'm a humble woman, and will be grateful for the correction. Just make sure it is well supported.

As I have read and interpreted these boards, a limited menu is ok, a limited cash bar is not. I fail to understand why they are different. Please inform me. Thank you!

The HUGE difference in a limited menu vs. limited cash bar situation is that the limited menu should be the only option available to guests at the event. In a limited cash bar situation, all the options are right there for the guests, but only some are paid for by the hosts. Now, if a guest is at an event being hosted, leaves the event area and takes a table in the main restaurant where they order whatever they want and pay for it, that would be like a guest leaving a dry or limited hosted wedding to hit up a bar.

It's very rude to go to a limited menu event and order an off menu item, even if you pay for it. I know, because that happened at my rehearsal dinner and EVERY single guest stared at the rude one. Mostly because that kind of entitled behavior is reprehensible.

Classy duck, I know you've already said you 're hosting the alcohol at your wedding, but I feel like you're purposely being obtuse at how limited menu and limited cash bar would be different. In the first case, just like limited hosted bar, there are items the host has agreed to pay for and are available to guests. They are the only advertised options and if guests know that restaurant bar usually serves rum but only beer and wine are listed, it would be incredibly rude for the guests to demand rum and offer to pay for it.

In a limited cash bar, the host encourages guests to select items not hosted, which pushes the cost of the item onto the guests when they select those options and stratifies the guest list into who has extra cash to get what they want and who can just watch because they can't afford those unhosted items.

Even if it was a secret limited cash bar and only guests with a full time job and 401K were told of the other options, you would still be tiering your guest list into the wealthy and worthy and the less wealthy and unworthy. A situation in which 2 guests at the same hosted event have different options based on what's in their wallet, their gender, their height, their skin color, etc. should not ever occur.

Jen4948 · April 2014

@classyduck, the reason a limited cash bar is not polite is because essentially your guests are telling you that what you are offering them free of charge is inadequate, and that's an inappropriate message to send after accepting an invitation.

A polite guest does not indicate to his/her hosts that their offerings are insufficient/not good enough/not appropriate etc. but accepts them graciously. For purposes of alcohol service, that means, if they want an alcoholic drink that is not among the free offerings, they do not leave the event to look for them or order them and offer to pay for it themselves. They accept whatever food and beverages the hosts are providing and wait until after the event to eat or drink anything the hosts are not providing.

Simply Fated · April 2014

classyduck said:

Cookie Pusher said:

Oh, we understand what you're asking. And all you're doing is trying to justify being rude.
Absolutely not. I plan on hosting a totally open bar. I need no justification for that courtesy.
You're not being analytical, you're trying to make a case for "but my situation is special" - which it isn't.
Again, no. I AM being analytical. I sincerely love and appreciate the advice I get from this board, but this, so far, seems like a blatant contradiction to me. I've been proven wrong before, and I will be happy to be proven wrong again. I just want to understand what I'm missing. *truly*
When you host, you pay for what you're willing to host and guests must (must? who hires the guest police?) accept that. Now, of course, you can't control if your guests choose to leave your event and go to a liquor store to buy alcohol that you aren't hosting, but then it's completely on them. (as I've been saying.) If your guest decides that the food you are not willing to host is not good enough for them, then it's on them for being rude and asking for something that you aren't paying for. (as I've been saying) If you are so concerned about guests not being satisfied with what you are offering, then you should find a way to host it yourself. (I'm really not so concerned!)

My goodness gracious. This is pure and simple, a double standard, the way I have stated it.. Quit trying to villanize me, and just answer me plainly. If I'm flat out wrong, FINE! I'm a humble woman, and will be grateful for the correction. Just make sure it is well supported.

As I have read and interpreted these boards, a limited menu is ok, a limited cash bar is not. I fail to understand why they are different. Please inform me. Thank you!

A limited menu and a limited cash bar are two different things. Just because they have the word "limited" in it, does not mean the two things are similar, just with alcohol and food.

A limited cash bar means out of everything being offered, some things are free, others things guest pay for.
A limited menu means out of everything being offered, it's all free.

Free for the guests, I mean, Obviously not free for the hosts, since they are picking up the entire bill.

classyduck · April 2014

The HUGE difference in a limited menu vs. limited cash bar situation is that the limited menu should be the only option available to guests at the event. In a limited cash bar situation, all the options are right there for the guests, but only some are paid for by the hosts. Now, if a guest is at an event being hosted, leaves the event area and takes a table in the main restaurant where they order whatever they want and pay for it, that would be like a guest leaving a dry or limited hosted wedding to hit up a bar. It's very rude to go to a limited menu event and order an off menu item, even if you pay for it. I know, because that happened at my rehearsal dinner and EVERY single guest stared at the rude one. Mostly because that kind of entitled behavior is reprehensible. Classy duck, I know you've already said you 're hosting the alcohol at your wedding, but I feel like you're purposely being obtuse at how limited menu and limited cash bar would be different. In the first case, just like limited hosted bar, there are items the host has agreed to pay for and are available to guests. They are the only advertised options and if guests know that restaurant bar usually serves rum but only beer and wine are listed, it would be incredibly rude for the guests to demand rum and offer to pay for it. In a limited cash bar, the host encourages guests to select items not hosted, which pushes the cost of the item onto the guests when they select those options and stratifies the guest list into who has extra cash to get what they want and who can just watch because they can't afford those unhosted items. Even if it was a secret limited cash bar and only guests with a full time job and 401K were told of the other options, you would still be tiering your guest list into the wealthy and worthy and the less wealthy and unworthy. A situation in which 2 guests at the same hosted event have different options based on what's in their wallet, their gender, their height, their skin color, etc. should not ever occur.

I promise, I was not purposely being obtuse. You know, I chose my username because I feel like an absolute "duck" (awkward) in most social situations, but I'm determined to have a classy wedding. I really am just an analytic person -- I want to understand the "why" behind things. I was the kid who never bothered memorizing equations before a physics test. I could just derive them on the fly if I needed to because I understood exactly how they worked. So, if I understand why a rule of etiquette works a certain way, I am much more likely to internalize it and also apply it to other situations.

Anyway, the way you explained this has finally made sense to me. What I was getting hung up on, is that items off the "paid for" list of selections in both cases were technically available. But according to what your saying, it is the presentation of that availability that makes a difference. In the case of a limited bar, the hosts are suggesting purchasing alternate liquor as a viable option. But with a limited menu, you are NOT suggesting that your guests may choose either what you are providing or something off the regular menu. I was initially annoyed that people kept referring to guest etiquette -- I can't control if THEY are rude or not, I just wanted to be a good hostess. The etiquette of a host can't be defined by the politeness of the guests, so I was confused. But, I think the point people were trying to make is what I stated above, that the hosts endorse cash selections in one instance, but not the other.

Sorry it took so much to get that through to me, but I really do appreciate the explanation. I know it seems obvious to most of you!

Edited for clarity.

huskypuppy14 · April 2014

@classyduck I think that if there are times where the bar would refuse to remove the liquor bottles you were not hosting (like you were only hosting beer and wine) it would be fine to put a menu on the bar saying what is hosted, just like a limited food menu.

I understand what you were trying to say, it sounds like it's a double standard, but it's really not. Just like a previous person stated someone ordered something not on their limited food menu, if someone orders something not on your limited alcohol menu, they are the rude ones, not you.

For many big parties the restaurant or host will print a menu special for that party, and that will be what the hosts will pay for. If they decide to only do beer and wine, than it'll say that on the menu as well. However, if someone wants to get up and buy a vodka soda at the bar, that's on them, and there is really nothing you can do about it.

grumbledore · April 2014

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

No. The guests should order from what is being offered and hosted. Stop looking for excuses to have a cash bar, even in part. Just offer what you can pay for and that's it.

grumbledore · April 2014

classyduck said:

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

OF COURSE it's not fine! I was being rhetorical, sorry, I assumed that was obvious, I guess not.

blueeyes90 said:

classyduck said:

So if I host a limited cash bar, but just don't adverstise it, and make my guests ask about other options, I'm fine?

No. Just don't do it. There should be no reason to.

And if I went to a restaurant and there was a limited menu, I wouldn't order anything else. Anyone that does is being a tool. (aside from dietary restrictions)

Why don't people get what I'm asking? Yes, I know it would be rude of the guests. I don't care. I'm not going to be a guest in the scenario I'm asking about, I'm going to be a host.

I ask again, why is offering limited, paid options, with additional options if willing to pay, polite in one instance but not another? I don't give a crap how polite my guests are, so please don't use them as an argument.

It's not polite in either instance, that's the mistake you are making.

crunchymamaof2 · April 2014

classyduck said:

The HUGE difference in a limited menu vs. limited cash bar situation is that the limited menu should be the only option available to guests at the event. In a limited cash bar situation, all the options are right there for the guests, but only some are paid for by the hosts. Now, if a guest is at an event being hosted, leaves the event area and takes a table in the main restaurant where they order whatever they want and pay for it, that would be like a guest leaving a dry or limited hosted wedding to hit up a bar. It's very rude to go to a limited menu event and order an off menu item, even if you pay for it. I know, because that happened at my rehearsal dinner and EVERY single guest stared at the rude one. Mostly because that kind of entitled behavior is reprehensible. Classy duck, I know you've already said you 're hosting the alcohol at your wedding, but I feel like you're purposely being obtuse at how limited menu and limited cash bar would be different. In the first case, just like limited hosted bar, there are items the host has agreed to pay for and are available to guests. They are the only advertised options and if guests know that restaurant bar usually serves rum but only beer and wine are listed, it would be incredibly rude for the guests to demand rum and offer to pay for it. In a limited cash bar, the host encourages guests to select items not hosted, which pushes the cost of the item onto the guests when they select those options and stratifies the guest list into who has extra cash to get what they want and who can just watch because they can't afford those unhosted items. Even if it was a secret limited cash bar and only guests with a full time job and 401K were told of the other options, you would still be tiering your guest list into the wealthy and worthy and the less wealthy and unworthy. A situation in which 2 guests at the same hosted event have different options based on what's in their wallet, their gender, their height, their skin color, etc. should not ever occur.
I promise, I was not purposely being obtuse. You know, I chose my username because I feel like an absolute "duck" (awkward) in most social situations, but I'm determined to have a classy wedding. I really am just an analytic person -- I want to understand the "why" behind things. I was the kid who never bothered memorizing equations before a physics test. I could just derive them on the fly if I needed to because I understood exactly how they worked. So, if I understand why a rule of etiquette works a certain way, I am much more likely to internalize it and also apply it to other situations.

Anyway, the way you explained this has finally made sense to me. What I was getting hung up on, is that items off the "paid for" list of selections in both cases were technically available. But according to what your saying, it is the presentation of that availability that makes a difference. In the case of a limited bar, the hosts are suggesting purchasing alternate liquor as a viable option. But with a limited menu, you are NOT suggesting that your guests may choose either what you are providing or something off the regular menu. I was initially annoyed that people kept referring to guest etiquette -- I can't control if THEY are rude or not, I just wanted to be a good hostess. The etiquette of a host can't be defined by the politeness of the guests, so I was confused. But, I think the point people were trying to make is what I stated above, that the hosts endorse cash selections in one instance, but not the other.

Sorry it took so much to get that through to me, but I really do appreciate the explanation. I know it seems obvious to most of you!

Edited for clarity.

Limited bar and limited menu are the same things, just food vs. alcohol. These both mean that a limited portion of the menu is offered to guests and is completely paid for by the hosts. Unless a guest went looking or specifically asked a server they wouldn't know other options were available for them to purchase (usually at least). A limited cash bar is when a limited portion of the menu is offered and paid for but anything beyond that the guests have to pay for. This option is typically advertised.

so limited bars and menus are always fine. Limited cash bars never are.

APDSS22 · April 2014

classyduck said:

The HUGE difference in a limited menu vs. limited cash bar situation is that the limited menu should be the only option available to guests at the event. In a limited cash bar situation, all the options are right there for the guests, but only some are paid for by the hosts. Now, if a guest is at an event being hosted, leaves the event area and takes a table in the main restaurant where they order whatever they want and pay for it, that would be like a guest leaving a dry or limited hosted wedding to hit up a bar. It's very rude to go to a limited menu event and order an off menu item, even if you pay for it. I know, because that happened at my rehearsal dinner and EVERY single guest stared at the rude one. Mostly because that kind of entitled behavior is reprehensible. Classy duck, I know you've already said you 're hosting the alcohol at your wedding, but I feel like you're purposely being obtuse at how limited menu and limited cash bar would be different. In the first case, just like limited hosted bar, there are items the host has agreed to pay for and are available to guests. They are the only advertised options and if guests know that restaurant bar usually serves rum but only beer and wine are listed, it would be incredibly rude for the guests to demand rum and offer to pay for it. In a limited cash bar, the host encourages guests to select items not hosted, which pushes the cost of the item onto the guests when they select those options and stratifies the guest list into who has extra cash to get what they want and who can just watch because they can't afford those unhosted items. Even if it was a secret limited cash bar and only guests with a full time job and 401K were told of the other options, you would still be tiering your guest list into the wealthy and worthy and the less wealthy and unworthy. A situation in which 2 guests at the same hosted event have different options based on what's in their wallet, their gender, their height, their skin color, etc. should not ever occur.
I promise, I was not purposely being obtuse. You know, I chose my username because I feel like an absolute "duck" (awkward) in most social situations, but I'm determined to have a classy wedding. I really am just an analytic person -- I want to understand the "why" behind things. I was the kid who never bothered memorizing equations before a physics test. I could just derive them on the fly if I needed to because I understood exactly how they worked. So, if I understand why a rule of etiquette works a certain way, I am much more likely to internalize it and also apply it to other situations.

Anyway, the way you explained this has finally made sense to me. What I was getting hung up on, is that items off the "paid for" list of selections in both cases were technically available. But according to what your saying, it is the presentation of that availability that makes a difference. In the case of a limited bar, the hosts are suggesting purchasing alternate liquor as a viable option. But with a limited menu, you are NOT suggesting that your guests may choose either what you are providing or something off the regular menu. I was initially annoyed that people kept referring to guest etiquette -- I can't control if THEY are rude or not, I just wanted to be a good hostess. The etiquette of a host can't be defined by the politeness of the guests, so I was confused. But, I think the point people were trying to make is what I stated above, that the hosts endorse cash selections in one instance, but not the other.

Sorry it took so much to get that through to me, but I really do appreciate the explanation. I know it seems obvious to most of you!

Edited for clarity.

I'm glad that made sense to you, I really was trying to lay it out logically the way I've figured it out. I apologize if you weren't trying to be obtuse since I said that, I just thought Cookie said pretty much the same thing I was and you were purposely not picking up on the differences between limited cash bar and limited menu in order to argue. I'm glad that was not the case! Also, ducks are cool. I myself prefer penguins but all wobbly birds are pretty neat.

perdonami · April 2014

Admittedly, I stopped reading the comments after pg. 18. Also, I was not raised properly and have poor manners. I strive to correct my manners and so I have been lurking this forum.

One event that I went to has stuck out in my mind as I read through most of the comments here on this thread. My fiance's parents hosted an 85th birthday party for his grandfather at the local Elks Lodge of which he was fond of during his youth. The meal was paid for and everyone was courteous but when I realized that none of the guests had water I was a little perturbed. I went to the bar to fetch a drink and asked the bartender if it was an open bar. He explained no and poured me some waters. The bartender than began to politely flirt with me and asked me what I had come to the bar to get (a diet coke) and he poured me one for free. I graciously thanked him and provided a tip.

Later back at the table, my fiance asked me how I got the beverage and I quietly explained to him that the bartender flirted with me and gave me the drink on the house. My fiance announced this to the dinner table of which his parents, the hosts, were also sitting. I was needless to say absolutely mortified. I felt how rude I was to go out of my way to go to the bar to ask about drinks and how rude it was to put me, a guest, in that position.

I will always think fondly of his family, especially my FMIL, but that cash bar left such a sour taste in my mouth. I didn't even want alcohol, just a soft drink, which looking back on was not really a big deal and I should have politely refused the soft drink and graciously accepted the waters and head back to the table. Better yet, an open bar or at the very least have water for guests at the table.

When I began planning my wedding, the first thought that came through my mind was that I needed good food and I wanted to serve all you can drink. Oh, and that my cake would be out of this world (four layers, each layer is a different flavor in order to please all my guests) which I made sure to budget for. I needed these things because I love to host and I am a known foodie and to not provide good food/drink would not be appropriate. Not just because of etiquette rules, but because I want my guests to feel special. I want my guests to have a good time to the best of my ability. Wouldn't every bride have this desire?

As a result, I will be serving unlimited wines, beers, mineral water, coffee, tea and other fun soft drinks during the entire reception. To do this, I had to waive hard liquor and can you imagine how awful I felt when my aunt told me, "that's fine, I'll just go downstairs and pay for my cocktails." To which my FMIL asked, "What's wrong with just having wine?" There was an option for a partial cash bar where guests could order some types of mixed drinks but I was against that. If we offer it, it needs to be free for our guests and we just can't afford hard liquor. I am possibly considering serving a signature cocktail in an attempt to find a solution to the hard liquor situation, but I need to call our venue and see what that may cost.

Sure, some of my guests are concerned about having hard liquor available to them but I will not advertise it. In fact, I don't want them to leave the reception site at all and wander to get hard liquor but of course I won't stop them. And yes, my aunt and my two brothers will speak unkindly about me behind my back for not making hard liquor available (which does hurt my feelings). My only hope is that the majority of my guests will appreciate that everything offered at my reception is for them, that there is something that will please each guests palate and not to worry about it but instead have fun. The best thing my guests can give me is to just enjoy themselves. Oh, and to tell me how they loved the cake.

perdonami · April 2014

moemacWed30594 said:

jdluvr06 said:

I really don't care either way about the cash bar thing, however I do get irritated when I see some posters say they wouldn't go to a wedding they knew had a cash bar and then turn around and say other posters are petty because they would leave a dry wedding early. Isn't it the same pettiness that drives a person to be offended by a cash bar as people who get bored at a dry reception?

I have been to both a dry wedding and cash bar and I was the most bored at a cash bar. The dry wedding was fun. We had lots of good food, and non-alcoholic drinks. We all sat around and talked and had a good time.

The cash bar, on the other hand, worst wedding ever. I've already talked about that wedding here, so suffice to say that everything but soda was cash bar (including water). We were on a boat with no ATM so if you didn't bring any cash, you were out of luck. They ran out of everything (including the food) and as soon as we docked, we went out to dinner (even though the wedding had included "dinner"). To this day, I have never told my cousin what a terrible time we had. So bad in fact, that I thought about jumping off the boat and swimming to shore earlier in the night.

See this is my greatest fear and am doing everything I can to avoid it. Thank the heavens for this board.

Cash Bars - Everything you need to know in one place

Re: Cash Bars - Everything you need to know in one place

Choose Another Board

Search Boards