@sseamom: I never indicated that “it’s “kind” to fork over hundreds of dollars as a show of “respect” for being lucky enough to get invited to a big do.” This isn’t the Sopranos, for crying out loud,
I guess it’s a matter of interpretation, because you said, “So at least pay for the amount that the wedding party is paying for you to come to the wedding. (cover the plate). Just a thoughtful, kind way to participate in the wedding.”
To me, that sounds more greedy on the part of the hosts, since as far as I know, parties are given for reasons of celebration, not to recoup the cost of the party. And weddings are supposed to be about people getting married, like, joining together type promises etc. And maybe it’s a "thing"to cover the plate, but I think it’s a thing in a very small circle. I don’t think, either, that there’s any way to really disguise a compelled payout for being a guest as anything but a money grab. Both sides of my mother’s family came from exactly the demographic being discussed here, and not once in relation to any wedding by any of the family members did covering the plate ever come up.
Of course it’s a thing in a very small circle,since so few people have even heard of it. I grew up in NJ, the apparent land of covering the plate, and I only heard of it through CC. My premise is that this originated as a self-imposed guideline for the GUESTS to figure out how much to give.And again, in a time where wedding costs were pretty easy to figure, because wedding expenses and venues were well known. as @my-3-sons said, “Guests were trying to make sure they were being generous and that the hosts were not spending more on them than they gifted the couple.” These days, with extravagant weddings being funded by personal loans and croudsourcing, it’s a concept that probably has outlived its usefulness.
I heard the term cover the plate sometime but I can’t pinpoint where, but I think it was when we lived in a Philadelphia suburb. I thought it made sense but I never felt bound by it. Just because the people giving a wedding have a lot of money, doesn’t mean that the guests do. Besides, it’s not as if the bridal couple is going to return the gifts and give that money to the brides parents.
There were comments earlier if the mention of where a couple is registered, on the invitation, is tacky or not (I don’t mean the post where there was reference to a baby shower on the invitation!) What I’ve seen over the last few years is that when the couple sends out the save the dates, there will be a link to a newly created website and that will have a tab with a bridal registry. I for one, would much rather have that information. My pet peeve is when they register at someplace that is expensive, for items that can be bought at Amazon or another on-line store for much less. Since no one brings gifts to a wedding anymore, I don’t get the point of registering at stores that are known for high prices. The custom in our circle is to give a gift from the registry for a bridal shower and then give a check or cash with a card at the wedding.
I also agree that the new thing is to have a unique wedding - barn, museum, ocean, backyard, destination - not church and huge reception.
The websites are good, most of the time. But really…if you are using “The Knot”…please be really specific with the URL on that save the date. We have gotten two recently…"Check our website at the Knot…and their first names…like sueandbill. Well…in both cases, there were a bunch of Sue and Bill wedding that came up…none were our wedding couple because the wedding was 5 months or so away.
Yes, I found them both by typing in first and last name on the search bar.
But still…
And also…proofread your website info! Words spelled wrong, poor grammar, incorrect information…um…not good.
^On, I think, a place where D and SIL registered, there was a very specific overlap with names of a couple getting married the same day. I don’t remember the particulars, but it was bizarre-er than two “sue and bills” --like last name, too, or something like that.
They didn’t include any notice of it in invitations; it was strictly, in case anyone asks.
The thing is, back in the day “cover your plate” was referred to by the guests trying be at least as generous to the couple as the wedding hosts were to them. Not out of obligation but rather a sincere gesture of generosity. Today it is referred to by the wedding couple trying to haul in the loot to cover their “special day”. A very sad turn of intent. The wedding industry, and in many cases the focus, has really changed and not for the better in my view.
This happened to my daughter at her high school graduation party. We DID tell her cousin it happened. It turns out her account was hacked and she didn’t think about the fact that it would affect the check she wrote to our daughter. She rewrote the check, but we never pointed our D was charged a fee. You just never know.
Imo, back in the day, it was about the contribution you ‘could’ make, even small. That was the generous spirit and I like to think it came from within. Free will, based on your own reality.
The way it evolved to somehow ‘matching’ what they spend on you is what strikes me as odd- whether they expect it outright or you feel obligated. Now, it’s some artificial rule, telling you that you “should” be able to afford what they spent on you, their choices. Or you’re not “generous.”
And lots of them run up the tab, not out of generosity to you, wanting you to have some special experience, but for them, they want all the whistles and bells.
I don’t think “covering the plate” or tipping practices can be attributed to particular nationalities. My MIL is from NY. She married an Italian-American whose grandparents and their siblings immigrated to NYC as adults. She attended many family weddings (the grandparents had a combined 19 siblings so there were lots of cousins). She’s never heard of “covering the plate.” Most of the family members I know tip well too. The low income families tend to visit less expensive places, but seem to tip a higher percentage than some of the higher income families. It depends on the individual.
The hosts aren’t being generous at all if guests are buying their own dinner. How do these hosts determine what sort of event to have? Do they choose per plate costs based on what the lower income families on their guest list may be able to afford?
I can believe some people use what they guess is the price per plate as a guide for a gift, but I don’t think the generosity of the hosts is at all related to the generosity of the guests. Each should do what they can comfortably afford. If couples can’t host as expensive of a wedding as they want without the financial assistance of their guests, they can’t afford it.
And if the hosts look down on someone who gives less, shame on them.
^^^Absolutely! I really think the concept was a lot more innocent and well intentioned when conceived. Even though I heard the term growing up, my family did not keep tabs or have any expectation of “recouping” their expenses. I only heard it in terms of giving, not receiving. My wedding costs far exceeded our cash gift total and nobody gave that a thought.
Unfortunately, when conceived, it was to help. Now it’s seen as an equation. Even “at least as generous to the couple as the wedding hosts were to them” is about underwriting costs someone else chose. That’s part of why I mentioned charity fundraisers-- the more elaborate the party, the more people can be expected to give at a certain level. It’s how it is. There’s a per seat or per table charge. Costs more to attend at the Ritz or someone’s mansion, with a 20 piece orchestra and caviar, than the spaghetti dinner somewhere. But weddings?
It still leaves us with the other side of the coin- the kids who throw a modest wedding. If it’s not a sit down (and plenty of hors d’ouerves and champagne weddings can be lovely, plenty of punch and cake receptions can be wonderful celebrations,) do people feel less “generous?” After all, their parents spent less.
It’s just a guideline. It’s not a hard-and-fast rule.
In my family’s experience, no. The gift was the same whether the wedding was at a VFW or a fancy hotel ballroom. The giver tried to gift an amount, within their means, that they felt they would have spent on an evening out. This may or may not have been the case in other families/social circles.
The same for everyone, though? I’m going to break the bank for nieces/nephews in a way I certainly won’t for, say, coworkers I’m friendly with.
And even with relatives…I’m not an even Steven gift giver. We had two family weddings last year…one for a couple who collectively earns $80,000 a year, and never had an apartment before. The other for a couple who earn in the $400,000 a year range, and own a co-op. Different needs…different gifts…totally.
Right. I can look at one couple and think - they have very little; an extra $50-100 I spend will mean nothing to me, but wil really mean a lot in terms of what I can get them.
Of course, there were different gifts depending on the relationship and circumstances. Immediate family (nieces, nephews), extended family, friends, etc. This was just a general starting guideline. No hard and fast rules in my experience. I also think this was the concept used more for gifts to more extended family members and friends. The media and gossip grapevine has made this into more than it really is/was, although different social circles may have a different experience. I’m sure there are some Sopranos type families out there.
We all give the same to our niece and nephews - birthdays, graduations, and now weddings.
As far as cover the plate, I know people who give more if more people from their family are attending the wedding. I think it is no different than when I am invited out for someone’s birthday/anniversary celebration, if they are paying for the event I would bring a nicer present vs me paying for my own dinner and drinks. Of course, if someone is spending 100K for a 100 people wedding ($1k/person), I am not going to give $1K.