Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wedding gift giving has changed over the years:

early 20s: I never consulted a registry and just had to get a unique gift for the couple. I took the gift to the reception and deposited it on the gift table.

after I got married: I only bought from a couple's registry and I had it delivered a few weeks before the wedding. I skipped the gift wrapping.

Now: I bring a card to the reception. Inside the card is a check.

Surely it should also depend on the recipient. If one is giving a gift to a couple who has a substantial income, and who one does not have a close relationship with, a check for $50 or $100 would be insignificant and almost cheap. Something with the same value in a registry would seem more appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:Very fascinating topic (well, mostly the reactions to it) and I think it is a great example of a situation that is completely normal and acceptable in some cultures and not at all in some others. Everything is relative

I lived many years in a place with predominantly Asian population where going to a wedding was very simple - nobody had to write anything on the invitations it was a "shared unwritten expectation": as I guest you didn't have to find "where are they registered"/didn't have to spend your time buying/wrapping/bringing or sending bulky presents you just had to write a check put in an envelope - and, voila, you are done!
As a guest I always appreciated the simplicity of the process (although it was not a part of my original culture) and now being back here I wish it was an acceptable practice as well - nowdays people (especially in the US!) don't need more STUFF but everyone always can use some money And yes, of course, if you want to give something extra special that the newlyweds would treasure for the rest of their lives - nobody will say no (although you can never be certain that what is "extra special" to you is also extra special to them). I vividly remember one Japanese wedding where the "presents table" was a mix of white envelopes and a sea of blue (Tiffany blue, that is) - I don't think the couple was unhappy about it.

The problem here is the "cross-cultural" aspect of the invitation: the couple wanted to communicate somehow what they expected to those who come from a different culture than they do (they actually tried to be polite by indicated what they did NOT want, rather what they wanted, but it still does not work...) I guess the same all "When in Rome" rule applies here... Too bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Generally, the polite thing to do is to have gifts delivered to the address on the invitation either before or after the wedding. It is difficult to transport gifts on the actual day of the wedding.

China settings and silver frames or candlesticks are not shower gifts, they are traditionally considered wedding gifts.

Wedding gifts have meaning and will remind you of the giver for the rest of you life. We have items that were given to us by family and friends who have since passed away: I like being reminded of people I love when I see those things. Cash, a gift card, or a check could never have the same effect.

I agree.

I received literally nothing of meaning to me. I could not tell you, unless I dug out my old thank you list, who purchased the wine glasses and place setting of china. Or who gave us the ugly-assed crucifix that went straight to Goodwill. Whereas the cash we received enabled us to purchase a lovely antique on our honeymoon that brings me joy every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As "tacky' as giving cash is, I have never seen anyone who was not delighted to get it as a gift.

For the kajilionty-seventh time: it isn't the giving of cash that is offensive, it's writing on the damn invite that that is the only acceptable gift.

+1

Yep, this is what seems to get overlooked repeatedly.

No, I think it overlooked here, we got it, don't worry
And to be fair - the "no boxed gifts" phrase only says what kind of gifts they DON'T want but it does not explicitly say that they expect cash or ANY gifts for that matter... What is implied is a different story - but they actually never ask for anything... Having a registry (and yes, we got that you "should not include anything about the registry when sending out wedding invitations", don't have to repeat this either) is much more of actually "asking for gifts" than that no phrase is.

I'm not defending the "no" couple - but the problem is here is entirely cultural in nature and they just don't realize how that phrase is perceived by many American invitees. If they knew I bet they would never do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't get married until late 20's and early 30's these days. They neither need nor want a toaster. I will never understand why a registry is acceptable but stating you want cash isn't. We did a registry with about 5 items on it. Most people got the idea, and the dinosaurs gave us some weird gift they decided we should have.

Exactly. I didn't want to do a registry at all, preferring not to dictate I'm any way want I wanted. I don't understand how asking for 12 place settings of china at $125 is any more tacky than asking for cash. Either way, there is a expectation that you will spend money on me. If we had been smart we would have returned all the shit we didn't need and hardly ever use for the cash anyway.

And yes, the foot high Thomas Kincaid sculpture we received was super special.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As "tacky' as giving cash is, I have never seen anyone who was not delighted to get it as a gift.

For the kajilionty-seventh time: it isn't the giving of cash that is offensive, it's writing on the damn invite that that is the only acceptable gift.

+1

Yep, this is what seems to get overlooked repeatedly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Generally, the polite thing to do is to have gifts delivered to the address on the invitation either before or after the wedding. It is difficult to transport gifts on the actual day of the wedding.

China settings and silver frames or candlesticks are not shower gifts, they are traditionally considered wedding gifts.

Wedding gifts have meaning and will remind you of the giver for the rest of you life. We have items that were given to us by family and friends who have since passed away: I like being reminded of people I love when I see those things. Cash, a gift card, or a check could never have the same effect.

I agree.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people don't get that a registry was intended to help the couple set up a home. It was not to be a gift grab. If you are older and don't need anything then you say no gifts. You invite people to your wedding who you want to be there, not so that it is a quid pro quo in money exchange

Anonymous wrote:People don't get married until late 20's and early 30's these days. They neither need nor want a toaster. I will never understand why a registry is acceptable but stating you want cash isn't. We did a registry with about 5 items on it. Most people got the idea, and the dinosaurs gave us some weird gift they decided we should have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could ask around to find out their china pattern and get them a setting or two. A silver picture frame is nice for a wedding portrait and will last forever. You really can't go wrong with very traditional gifts when you're not sure what the couple wants.

Just stop! Gifts are for showers. Why do you need to give a couple more clutter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As "tacky' as giving cash is, I have never seen anyone who was not delighted to get it as a gift.

For the kajilionty-seventh time: it isn't the giving of cash that is offensive, it's writing on the damn invite that that is the only acceptable gift.