(Closed) “bouts” or no “bouts”…

posted 8 years ago in Grooms/men
Post # 3
8353 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: March 2011

We went back and forth on this a lot. We have decided no bouts. I am making pocket squares that will match the girls dresses for the guys and one for Fiance too. My Fiance will also wear a pocket square that I will make to match my gown, so he will be wearing two pocket squares.

Post # 4
6248 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: August 1900

I think it’s really a personal choice.  Sometimes boutonnieres look better, but sometimes pocket squares look better.  I def don’t think the guys will look “incomplete” without boutonnieres, as long as they have the pocket squares. 

Post # 5
913 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2009

I’m going w/o bouts!  I posted something about this too…..We are doing the pocket squares.  I posted something on Etsy’s Alchemy site and I have received a ton of bids for people wanting to make them!

Post # 6
131 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

We are also doing pocket squares and no bouts! My friend who was recently married had neither pocket squares nor bouts; the guys wore a traditional Hawaiian necklace. I think that whatever you do will be perfect – do what you want!!

Post # 7
9029 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

its personal taste, i thought i didnt like bouts because all the ones i saw were too boring n basic… now i will be having bouts but they will be unique and stylish

Post # 8
132 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

No bouts or pocket squares for us…not my style.

Post # 9
290 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

No bouts or pocket squares here, either. The only bout will be worn by my father.

Post # 10
96 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

I dislike the modern interpretation of the boutoniere. I get what you’re saying about prom.  All the sparkle and baby’s breath and jazz paired with a tuxedo that’s supposed to be the epitome of understated elegance.  I like the plain-ol’ flower, which is what I’ll be wearing. And I think it adds some “celebration” or festiveness to the tux. I’m goin’ for something like this.  No stem, no embellishments to the flower. Just the flower.  And then you can add a pocket square without the two competing for attention. I think it’s a nice, non-prom boutoniere option.


Post # 11
1995 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

either way I think is fine. nobody will wonder where they are.  except I know that our dads were really excited about getting them to match the groomsmen.  Also my grandfather and officiant got them too and they really enjoyed being included.

Post # 12
1816 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: December 2017

I don’t think they are necessary.  In fact, I have seen several wedding shoots where the groom/GMs are without and they look very classy/stylish.  Right now we are signed up to have them with our florist, but I am thinking about nixing them as well.  They seem so prom-y to me.

Post # 14
1032 posts
Bumble bee

I thought I was the only one! I am SO not a fan, but I just didn’t know what else to do! Good ideas ladies… I love wedding bee, so many smart ideas!

Post # 15
3866 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: April 2012

ummm… are they still considered bouts if they aren’t attached to the clothes?  Just wondering, cause I plan on making mine where the guys can attach them anywhere… which should be rather amusing, considering they’re gonna be in costumes! LOL!

Post # 16
759 posts
Busy bee

@Verno Inferno: that’s one of the first bouts I’ve ever really liked.  I usually don’t like the look of them.  I may reconsider now… 🙂

The topic ‘“bouts” or no “bouts”…’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors