Migraine today, ugh. I’d planned to post after doing some work, and then work never happened because I was in bed with an ice pack strapped to my forehead. Now I’m up with a fresher ice pack strapped to my forehead and still none too happy. Thanks, brain.

In lieu of a longer post, here is a picture of loveliness from Amsale. I love the way the fabric falls and the ultra skinny, ultra long straps. I love the little bit of sparkly mesh that peeks out just above the bum. But goodness help me, that loose flap of fabric just beneath it does so remind me of these:

I’ve never been too keen on those weddingish disposable cameras some brides and grooms leave for guests to muck around with. Last I checked, the pictures those things take turn out universally awful. Some people, not realizing why there are white and silver Kodaks littered around, snag them when they grab the centerpieces and linens and leftover chocolate strawberries as they make their exits.

But I do know a handful of people for whom disposable cameras saved the day (i.e. their wedding day) when photographers bailed, cameras broke, and conditions were simply not photographically favorable.

Kodak sells its flowery wedding disposables in 10-pack increments for $79.50, which doesn’t seem like a lot until you factor in the developing costs for 300 photos of Aunt Margo’s cleavage (as taken by your perverted third cousin), the reception hall floor, and half faces snapped by the children in attendance. How can you tell it was the kids? Each photo was shot at an extreme upward angle.

Kodak claims to have a digital option, but don’t be fooled. The Kodak Plus Digital One-Time-Use Camera is a regular disposable camera filled with film. What makes it “digital” is that they automatically give you a CD of your prints when you get your prints. If you opt to have your prints developed by Kodak rather than by the drug store, that is. Um, right.

If you want to stock your reception tables with real digital cameras for guests to play with, try YouShoot. They’ll send you a case full of cameras and a stack of instruction sheets that let guests know how to use the cameras plus how they can view the pics online after the wedding. Then you send them back, and YouShoot puts them up on a personal web site for you. Order prints directly from the company or download them for free. Guests can also upload their own photos to your YouShoot site so everyone’s snapshots see the light of day.

I think it’s a sharp idea. The cost is comparable to disposables plus developing, the site is registration free, and the resultant pics are less likely to be crap. Too bad YouShoot can’t guarantee that they’ll erase Aunt Margo’s cleavage before putting your photographs online.

That’s right–they’re all part of what you get when you combine weddings and Halloween! We’ve all seen (and some of us have even attended) the Halloween themed weddings where everyone comes in costume. The bride and groom usually dress up as something appropriately dark, like Dracula and his sexy she-vampire or Frankenstein’s monster and the bride of Frankenstein’s monster. Why is it that the lady characters always get shafted where actual identity is concerned? Do these creatures have names?

Anyway, as fun as it is to put a little Halloween in your wedding, October is the month to put a little wedding in your Halloween…that is, if the costume companies have anything to say about it. Me, I plan to dress up as a Rockette because I have kickline experience and saved all my costumes. I still fit into them, making “dancer” the de facto, go to costume every year. If you plan to dress up and don’t have a costume all ready to go, here are some extremely silly ideas thematically related to this blog.

Here’s one that’s new to me, the dead groom, as shown here with his dead bride:

If that’s not commercial enough for you, there’s always the official deluxe licensed and collectible Corpse Bride costume:
(more…)

We all want what we want when we want it, but I think there should be limits. For example, ask yourself what the appropriate level of financial compensation would be if your florist gave you pastel flowers rather than darker colored flowers. If you said $400,000, you have a friend in lawyer Elana Glatt. She’s suing the proverbial pants off of Posy Floral Design in Manhattan, according to the NYT, alleging that her $60,000 wedding was ruined when the florist substituted pastel pink and green hydrangeas for dark rust and green hydrangeas in the centerpieces.

[The florist] said that he and his wife had done their best to match the color of the hydrangeas with a picture Ms. Glatt had given them, but explained to her that because of the vagaries of nature and the lighting at the reception, the colors might not look exactly the same.

Glatt also alleges that the hydrangeas were wilted, brown, and displayed in dusty vases. Well, all right, wilted flowers don’t make for pretty centerpieces, but is that worth $400,000 in damages? The orchids and roses provided by the florist apparently looked cheap, leading to distress and embarrassment. And let’s not forget those irksome pastels!

“The use of predominantly pastel centerpieces had a significant impact on the look of the room and was entirely inconsistent with the vision the plaintiffs had bargained for,” Ms. Glatt, a lawyer who practices under the name Elana Elbogen, said in the lawsuit, which she filed on behalf of herself, her husband and her mother-in-law, Tobi Glatt, who paid for the flowers.

Glatt did request a $4,000 refund to recoup some of the $27,435.14 her MIL spent on the flowers, but the florist, incensed by the request, ignored it.

Your thoughts?

Raise your hand if you have a bridesmaid dress hanging in your closet? Raise both hands if you haven’t touched it in ages and probably won’t ever wear it again. I’m lucky…all of the dresses I’ve worn in other people’s weddings have seen a fair amount of use later on down the line. It’s a good thing, too, as I am not terribly crafty where clothing is concerned unless said craft involves jury rigging a one-time use garment.

If you’re craftier than I am (God help you if you’re less crafty) and you happen to have a very basic bridesmaid dress hanging in the back of your closet, Bridesmaid Revisited, an article that first appeared in Martha Stewart’s Blueprint, aims to help you alter said frock so it’s once again worthy of its allotted closet real estate.

Here is the skirt portion of the dress above after Martha’s people got their crafty little hands on it:

Check out the article for four more ways to spruce up an old bridesmaid dress with paints, lace, fringe, and other stuff you may or may not have lying about your domicile. Have any of you guys ever turned a blah dress into something worthy of oohs and ahhs? Show us your before and after pics…no sock monkeys, please.

I hate sock monkeys. I hate them with a burning passion. In fact, I don’t know what I’d do if I attended a formal event (like, for example, a wedding) and saw some young gal draped in red-mouthed screaming monkey heads. I say young gal because I simple can’t imagine anyone who has reached a certain stage in her life being attracted to such a strange creation.

Buuuuuut I know there are people out there gaga for all things sock monkey. Why, I don’t know. If you just happen to be one of the aforementioned young gals and obsessed with red-mouthed screaming monkey head paraphernalia, you might be interested to know that this $1,500 dress is a custom-designed, couture piece custom fit to each buyer by Rebecca Yaker. Yaker, for all her devotion to the cult of the sock monkey, does make absolutely freaking fantastic diaper bags that are so appealing precisely because they look nothing like your average diaper bag.

In conclusion, say no to red-mouthed screaming monkey formalwear (especially if you’re attending any of my parties) and yes to totally sweet diaper bags when the time comes.

In meandering the internet looking for items of interest to our fine readers here at Manolo for the Brides, I came across a rather wonderful site with all sorts of lovely books online. It just so happens that one of the books archived there is the 1922 edition of Emily Post, and the section on weddings contains a great many gems of wisdom, as well as proof of two widely diverging theories: there’s nothing new under the sun, and the past is a foreign country.

As illustration of the second of these fine theories, I offer up this passage on compiling a guest list for a wedding:

In the cities where a Social Register or other Visiting Book is published, people of social prominence find it easiest to read it through, marking “XX” in front of the names to be asked to the house, and another mark, such as a dash, in front of those to be asked to the church only, or to have announcements sent them. Other names which do not appear in the printed list may be written as “thought of” at the top or bottom of pages. In country places and smaller cities, or where a published list is not available, or of sufficient use, the best assistant is the telephone book.

Who can fail to be simultaneously amused, charmed, and deeply alarmed by the concept of starting with the city phone book when compiling a guest list for a wedding? Clearly this is a very different world from the one we live in today.