Post # 1
I’m sure it’s been asked before, but I’m going to ask again.
What would you consider a ‘Small Wedding’ I think ours is relatively small, but most I’ve been to have had twice as many guests. Other people seem to think our guestlist is huge. (I won’t say how many because I don’t want to skew the vote)
So, what do you think is small?
Post # 3
I think anything under 50, maybe 60, is small. I think small can be atmospheric too. A brunch wedding with 70 people is going to feel smaller than a nighttime wedding with the same number.
Post # 4
We invited 58 and 50 came, and it was perfect. Everyone had somewhere to sit in the gazebo we’d rented, I could recognize all the faces, and it was difficult to keep up with and say hi to even that number (we ordered pizza when we got home because we hadn’t had a chance to eat, lol!). Everyone was like “Oh that’s so small!” 100 around here is still considered “small” so…
Post # 5
@MsGinkgo: Small to me would less than I would host for a party, so less than 20. Anytime you’re hosting more people than you’ve ever had to host before, it is a big deal! We had 95 and it didn’t feel small to me! HUGE!
Post # 6
I agree – I’m also thinking under 50, is small. Though someone once exclaimed that my 165-guest wedding was “small”. I guess it’s all relative! 🙂
Post # 7
@MsGinkgo: I think 35 and under is small.
Post # 8
that’s an interesting point, in my family it’s not uncommon for me to attend events with 150+ guests (I come from a family of professional artists and gallery openings – on a large scale) are a pretty common thing in my life.
Our guest list is at about 120 (we’re expecting 75) and to me, it’s small. Most of the weddings we’ve been to have had guest lists over 200. I’m actually worrying if people will have fun because out wedding is so small.
Post # 9
I LOVE small weddings! Our original plan was to have 50-75 guests (clearly we blew that number right out of the park). I think small weddings are actually more fun! But that’s just me. 🙂
Post # 10
I agree with PP about it also depends on the size of your venue and the atmosphere..I think 70 at brunch is quite normal while it may be on the smaller end at a black tie evening affair
for the purpose of the pole, I would consider less than 50 small..But thats entirely subjective. In certain areas 250 is the norm, while in others, 75 is considered large.
Post # 11
I think under 50 is small. We had 38 and I definitely consider it to have been a small wedding.
Post # 12
@MsGinkgo: under 50. And for me, 50 would be too many. But there are so many pretty venues that are small and gorgeous where 50 will fit and the crwods of 150+ will not.
Post # 13
We are expecting no more than 8 guests, so to me that’s pretty small, but by no means do I consider it what is commonly referred to as small for a wedding. I always call my wedding intimate.
Small to me for a standard wedding would be 20 or less. Although a lot of venues we looked at when we were considering 75 guests had a 50 guest minimum. So venues could consider anything under 50 to be small.
Post # 14
Under 100 is getting small to me, because I can’t imagine cutting the guest list to that. Under 50 is really small.
Post # 15
@MsGinkgo: I think under 50 is small. Our wedding had 60 guests, and some people said “OMG that is so tiny!” Others thought it was large. I wish it had been even smaller, haha. But in the grand scheme of things, I would say we had a small wedding.
Post # 16
I love small, intimate weddings. That being said, I went with the last option (-300) only because I’m going to have around 500 people on my guest list. I would love to pare down but my dad is so excited about the wedding that he wants to invite EVERYONE. Lol.