Buffet or Sit down at a wedding

[aprilgail]

Buffets and the kind where you pick up the spoon and get your own serving! That was one of the reasons we picked the hall we did, I wanted our guests to have as much or as little as they liked without having to feel embarrassment in telling the server they wanted a bigger scoop of something.

That is my least favorite kind, I don't like a bunch of people touching the things I am scooping my food with- I would rather have a server wearing gloves handling the food, even if it's just to scoop it.

 

[Christine]

That is my least favorite kind, I don't like a bunch of people touching the things I am scooping my food with- I would rather have a server wearing gloves handling the food, even if it's just to scoop it.

Agreed!

 

[Marchand63]

MA here - always sit down

 

[JaneBanks]

If you're at a wedding with a sit down dinner and the food is boring and bland, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is sit down. It has everything to do with the couple choosing a venue/catering company that has boring and bland food.

Also, not every sit down wedding requires you to choose your food 3 months in advance, mine didn't.

 

[Christine]

If you're at a wedding with a sit down dinner and the food is boring and bland, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is sit down. It has everything to do with the couple choosing a venue/catering company that has boring and bland food.

Also, not every sit down wedding requires you to choose your food 3 months in advance, mine didn't.

From my (very limited) experience, I think when planning a reception, a buffet is a better value so, oftentimes, the food on a wedding reception buffet can be much better than what you get from a sit-down dinner. Seems to be an upcharge for the service of a sit-down versus buffet. I guess it can vary though.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Sit down, platted. I've been to a few buffet weddings where there was not enough food for everyone. Some people load up and stack high like they're at Golden Corral instead of a wedding. Nothing like being in the wedding party, eating almost nothing all day, and finding that the buffet has been cleaned out before I even get a chance to eat.

The plus to buffets, the selection.

I’ve never seen the wedding party be the last to eat.

 

[starry_solo]

From my (very limited) experience, I think when planning a reception, a buffet is a better value so, oftentimes, the food on a wedding reception buffet can be much better than what you get from a sit-down dinner. Seems to be an upcharge for the service of a sit-down versus buffet. I guess it can vary though.

The upcharge is because staff is plating and serving the food.

 

[soccerdad72]

If you're at a wedding with a sit down dinner and the food is boring and bland, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is sit down. It has everything to do with the couple choosing a venue/catering company that has boring and bland food.

Some of it is just the inevitable problem of mass-produced food. At a wedding with 100-200 guests (or more), two things seem to always happen: 1.) the food is pretty basic, so as to "appeal" to a wide palate and 2.) it's either not served very hot (if plated) or it's over cooked (if sitting on a buffet). While a better catered can often do better than others, unfortunately, that's often the problem with any event with a large number of people.

 

[design_mom]

From my (very limited) experience, I think when planning a reception, a buffet is a better value so, oftentimes, the food on a wedding reception buffet can be much better than what you get from a sit-down dinner. Seems to be an upcharge for the service of a sit-down versus buffet. I guess it can vary though.

My experience when we were planning our wedding (albeit many years ago now) was that for venues that had both buffet and plated options, they were comparable in price. For buffet, you got more food/food options for your dollar. For sit down, the guests got less food/food options, but you were paying for more wait staff, and for the plating, etc. Neither one was really a "cheaper choice." They were going to get your $XX per person either way, it was just a question of whether you wanted to spend it on food or service.

 

[Minnesota!]

I prefer buffet. Plated has always been a disappointment - congealed sauces, rubbery meat, etc. Buffet everything is kept hot until the very minute you get it to your plate.

 

[cedricandsophie]

Sit down dinner is much classier with passed h’ordeuves during cocktails. I’ve only been to a couple buffet dinner receptions. Chaotic and messy.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Some of it is just the inevitable problem of mass-produced food. At a wedding with 100-200 guests (or more), two things seem to always happen: 1.) the food is pretty basic, so as to "appeal" to a wide palate and 2.) it's either not served very hot (if plated) or it's over cooked (if sitting on a buffet). While a better catered can often do better than others, unfortunately, that's often the problem with any event with a large number of people.

Yes, the reason plated food is boring and/or bland is because Grandma can’t eat spicy food, and Jimmy has a nut allergy, and and and, etc. This is why I prefer a buffet - more variety. Now, if the buffet is as limited in options as a typical sit-down meal, there’s no benefit.

 

[cabanafrau]

The reality is not all that many venues are capable of plating and serving a few hundred separate plates in a very timely manner. That's a very serious time crunch for both a kitchen staff and a wait staff in a very tight window of time, so it adds significantly to the cost to do it right.

 

[mjkacmom]

That is my least favorite kind, I don't like a bunch of people touching the things I am scooping my food with- I would rather have a server wearing gloves handling the food, even if it's just to scoop it.

Agree, I’d much rather have a server dishing it out, much faster, too.

 

[asta]

Almost all of the weddings I have been to are buffet style. Around here there is very little price difference between plated or buffet style. The venues have pretty much figured out how to even up the pricing on both options. I was surprised that a mixed drink bar cost the same as a bar with beer and wine. You have to pay extra for water and soft drinks with the latter so no savings there.

And by the way, I was married in 80s and almost all weddings were cake, punch and mints in the church fellowship hall. I don’t know when things became such a production.

 

[jodifla]

We had a daytime wedding, and did a buffet for about 110. Everybody ate pretty quickly, and people told me they loved the food and appreciated being able to go back for seconds.

 

[Cheetie]

I’ve been to one buffet reception and that was in Kentucky, probably thirty years ago. Hors d’oeuvres only.

Beyond that, with the exception of two or three weddings that were family style, all of the wedding I’ve attended were plated. Buffet isn’t an option at most of the venues around here.

 

[Mrs. Ciz]

Sit down dinner is much classier with passed h’ordeuves during cocktails.

I agree with this. I've also been to equally elegant weddings that had a buffet style cocktail hour followed by a sit down plated dinner. Unfortunately, I had to choose buffet for my wedding. DH was a college football player and half the team was invited to our wedding. Those big guys were used to eating meals at the training table. One little plate of food in conjunction with the open bar would have spelled disaster. I needed those boys to eat their fill. Thus the buffet, which was preceded by a cocktail hour with hors d’oeuvres.

ETA: I got married in Virginia. Most of the wedding I have attended in Virginia have been cocktail & hors d’oeuvres receptions - no main meal.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

what do you prefer

Here in CT it has been a long time since a buffet was offered!

Generally, if I'm serving a full formal meal, I'd go with sit down. Either pre ordered or family style. Either one. If not, buffet.

 

[MamaLema]

I prefer sit down dinners.