flowers

at first, i dreamed of a bouquet that looked like this:

photo courtesy of Maura Brewer, my former VTee, on facebook

tight, composed of roses alone, and tied with ribbon. in my youth, the roses were always white, and the ribbon navy blue.

when my color ideas changed from navy blue and cream to a warmer red, brown, and yellow, i envisioned red roses and yellow calla lilies, with twigs coming out--not unlike this:

source: anna page photography

sans the white ribbon--a yellow or brown ribbon perhaps instead.

but then, i came upon more and more bouquets that looked like these:

via the fantastic melissa jill

from stephanie williams' fashion shoot
this series has really provided me a ton of inspiration

source: a great wedding by kate benson

found on elizabeth anne designs

full of beautiful variety and so fun and whimsical. i looooove it.

and then, i found this one, on martha stewart weddings:

via martha stewart weddings

I love this bouquet. it looks wintery and it has beautiful variety and is soooooo lovely. i think i picked a bouquet. i know it won't look just like this, but i can dream, right?

and...as a lovely picture that doesn't fit in bouquets, but does fit in the flowers. if i was a spring bride, there is no doubt i would be a tulip bride.

via anna page photography

kicks

now, i must say that it's true. i'm currently agonizing over a very tiny teeny tiny detail that i really shouldn't be worried about until my dress is done--or at least the fabric is purchased. but, i must be honest in the admission that i care about my shoes. a lot. especially since my dress is short, the shoes must be striking and beautiful, but not so much that the focus is on my feet the entire day. this being said, i'll walk you through some of my shoe-searchings.

first, i found these:

kate spade's "Lora" via Nordstrom, $285

and these:

Gentle Souls' "Ruper Star", also via Nordstrom, $139.90

i really like them. the style is just right, but the color is a little bold--i want to match my color scheme (red, cream, and chocolate brown), but i'm not sure i want red shoes with a short dress. also, they may be a little too informal...

also, both a little pricey. hey why not top it out at these:

Stuart Weitzman's "Crissy", via Nordstrom, $325

i liked all of these, minus the price tags. also, i'm getting married in December. and if you're not familiar with Utah, you won't know that December usually includes large amounts of snow (you know, that white fluffy stuff that is wet and cold?). this means that the shoes i pick have to be slightly reasonable, that is: not too high of heels and not too exposing--i do want to have feet at the end of my wedding day. this probably means 1. no sling-backs, 2. no sandals, and 3. no peep-toes.

so, i continued my search, finding some more un-winter-friendly shoes that i loved nonetheless.

from jcrew:

hitting home with their elegant and simple "Ginger", $198, in ivory and golden cypress

the pretty, feminine "Ella", $225, in ivory (also comes in golden cypress, but may be a little much.)

and the knotted-goodness of "Carmen", $265, in ivory (comes, excuse me, came in navy blue, until featured by the knot, when all of them were eaten up by navy-blue brides).

there seems to be a pattern here: 1. all non-winter shoes and 2. all expensive. so i kept looking:

from zappos, Gabriella Rocha's "Ginger", $65

cute, right color, but not formal enough. definitely closer to what i'm looking for, though. sturdy, reasonable heel, but not uncomfortable. so i searched for some mary janes and found these:

nina's "Seeley", $49.95

and i was soooooo excited! they're sturdy, perfect, inexpensive, and beautiful. just what i was looking for! look a little closer, though :(. these are made only for girls, not women.

so, i kept looking on nina's site, and created these:

nina, design your own, $199.95

which is when i decided that i wanted golden shoes (not to mention that gold is the color of shoes i originally saw in the photo of the perfect dress). They will still pop, but they won't be obnoxious or distracting. so i went back to the jcrew website. and these popped up:

jcrew, "Charlie" in warm maize, $228

mmmmmhmmmm. these are beautiful. and the price is hideous. but don't worry, i'm determined to drag a. to jcrew and try on a pair, just to make sure they aren't too tall.

to keep with the color theme, i decided that the color was "mustard" yellow and started to search out more "mustard" colored shoes. didn't have much luck, but did find these:

Merona's "Madalena" at Target, $19.95

not very dressy, and no heels, but still the perfect color. whether i wear them on December 19th or not, a pair is arriving on my doorstep. i'm sure i'll find a use for them :)

not shoes, but still wedding.

I have an amazing group of friends, did I mention? My dear, dear friend Gaelin is a very talented artist, and when I asked her if she would help me do an invitation suite for the wedding, she was not only obliging, but so excited. After just one take, this is what she came up with:

What a beautiful concept on both of the images! I am particularly fond of the swirly one with roses. I think we will print them on a very ivory paper with brown ink for the text (to match the swirly branches). My problem is, I have no knowledge of things printing (ink choice, who to get them printed by, paper, etc.), so I'm hoping Gaelin knows more about that than I do!

hair, per request of Patti.

so, i came across this hairstyle on the blog of the fabulous jennifer skog. i knew i wanted it as soon as i saw it. behold, the perfect hairstyle:

from the back:
from the front (please ignore random other people. i don't know them...)

found on this post

i probably won't have a flower in it (definitely not my style), but i want a veil...i think i'll just stick it underneath the 'do.

isn't it magnificent?

finding the perfect dress

well, that title is a little funny for my situation because luckily, i don't actually have to find the perfect dress. a dear family friend has offered to make a gown for me. she is an excellent seamstress, and i know all i'll have to do is show her a picture of what i want and she'll whip it up.

now, the real question is...what do i want? when i decided on cupcakes instead of a traditional wedding cake, i immediately took the formality notch down a few levels. i also am not a fan of big, poofy cinderella dresses. another thing that accentuates the simplicity of my ideas is my ring--no center stone, just a simple row of diamonds. when i started my "dress" search for ideas of what i wanted, here is what i came up with.

first dress i loved, courtesy of Stephanie Williams, a photographer who did a killer vintage shoot that can be found here: part 1 part 2



and another dress from the same shoot that is beautiful and simple. i looove the detail on the bodice.
p.s. amazing lighting on this next image, no?



so, using these ideas, i went to brides.com to continue my search and found these beauties. (note, only a smattering of my favorites...i had so many more, but narrowed it down to these, for you.)





and finally this one.

which i immediately fell in love with. i will admit that part of me loves the dress because of the beautiful photograph in which it appears, but i also LOVE the dress--lacy, vintage, modest, etc. etc. the caption describes this dress as an "Alençon lace tea-length dress with a scalloped hemline..., $4,600, by Ulla-Maija Couture, ulla-maija.com". so i scoured ulla-maija.com to see if i could indeed find this beautiful dress or something even like it. to no avail. i found one similar on a blog that lifted an image from your dream dress,

but everything else i found was brides that LOVED this dress and couldn't find anything like it anywhere! so, i emailed the picture to my seamstress, and this was her reply:

"OHH pretty dress. We can totally make something like this...we can do the dress for much, much cheaper!!"

lucky me! thanks, steph!

planning away...

i'm doing some good research on photographers, because while i am not on a huge budget, i'm guessing that photography will be my splurge, and perhaps my biggest expense. I want to get the best bang for my buck and have a fabulous photographer. Here are my top three choices, and a favorite sample photo from each.

what do you think??

rachel thurston
http://rachelthurston.blogspot.com/
probably most expensive of the lot, but also good. $350 traveling fees to utah.
pricing is here http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12217f853e64443f&mt=application%2Fpdf
shoots a mix of film/digital

allison cox
http://blog.allisoncphotography.com
simple, but also fun. seems to match the couple and convey their style in the photos.
pricing is here http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1217b0bf9c492db7&mt=application%2Fpdf .
I think that she is probably the most bang for your buck, including an engagement session and prints from both sessions.
extra cash for electronic files of the photos, though.
shoots mix of film/digital

duston todd
http://dustontodd.blogspot.com/
a little bit trendier and artsier, but could be more classy and traditional if asked, i'm sure.
pricing here: http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1217e0d11c0994f6&mt=application%2Fpdf .
i think that he probably has a fun personality and would be fun to work with.
also good bang for buck--includes a print of every image. shoots exclusively on film (= not photoshopped look).
includes engagement and bridal session.