less expensive than roses

I love the look of a table top clear square vase with roses only as the centerpiece and rose pedals scattered around it. but I was quoted $80 per centerpiece. Does anyone know what flowers would be inexpensive yet still look good in this type of centerpiece? does anyone have pics of your centerpieces for more ideas?

Re: less expensive than roses

What about tulips? I'm not sure about the price but I imagine they would be less than roses.
$80 sounds expensive for what you're asking. Have you tried getting a quote form another florist. I'm sure National Wholesale Wedding Flowers charges less tha that. Go on their webpage or give them a call. I went to see their work but I did not book with them. HOwever they do offer many affordable packages.

Re: less expensive than roses

tulips are definately going to be more than roses...especially in late June- this is offseason for them.

Re: less expensive than roses

how about carnations? i know they are perceived as a cheap flower, but when you bunch alot of them together, they look amazing!

• 

Re: less expensive than roses

Roses are actually usually the least expensive or one of the least expensive flowers I believe

Re: less expensive than roses

carnations are definitely less expensive but not as 'nice'. i don't think that pic of green flowers is carnations.

Re: less expensive than roses

I say don't switch the flower... switch the florist!

I'm using Flower Michele... ALMOST exactly what you described, but with some hydrangea in between three different colored roses... $60 per centerpiece. I was going to do all roses, but I fell in LOVE with how hydrangea looks in cp's. Try John at Flower Michele.

Re: less expensive than roses

I am having the exact same centerpiece. 2 dozen roses in a square glass thing with rose petals and votives spread out on the table. I was quoted 65 from burtons.

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by TaraJohn

I am having the exact same centerpiece. 2 dozen roses in a square glass thing with rose petals and votives spread out on the table. I was quoted 65 from burtons.

---

I was just going to rec. them also....

If you love your set on your florist though, maybe you can use roses mixed with other flowers.

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by beautyq115

Roses are actually usually the least expensive or one of the least expensive flowers I believe

---

I think so too, your florist is overpricing.

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by lcherian

how about carnations? i know they are perceived as a cheap flower, but when you bunch alot of them together, they look amazing!

---

the carnations actually look really good. thanks

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by TaraJohn

I am having the exact same centerpiece. 2 dozen roses in a square glass thing with rose petals and votives spread out on the table. I was quoted 65 from burtons.

---

WOW!!! i might actually be able to get what i want.

thanks for your help

Re: less expensive than roses

You could also try with all my heart weddings, they offered me a great price (and I would tell you if I could only find my contract)

www.withallmyheartweddings.com

she was only $4 more than National for everything

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by sarahradio5

I say don't switch the flower... switch the florist!

I'm using Flower Michele... ALMOST exactly what you described, but with some hydrangea in between three different colored roses... $60 per centerpiece. I was going to do all roses, but I fell in LOVE with how hydrangea looks in cp's. Try John at Flower Michele.

---

I agree!!! Get a few quotes. Try signature florist or masters and co.

Re: less expensive than roses

I was just flower shopping with FMIL and there is a type of flower, I can't remember the professional name but the florists called them 'Paper roses' they are real flowers, not silk or any other material, but they look almost exactly like roses and are supposed to me much less expensiive.

Re: less expensive than roses

I agree with the girls, keep looking at other florists, sounds like you are being over charged!

Re: less expensive than roses

look somewhere else....and try bargaining....we booked our florist yesterday and we wiggled about $70 off the price...which doesn't sound like much, but since we aren't doing CPs, they were technically losing money on us in the floral world....they were fine with it mind you, but any florist will tell you that's the biggest part of doing a wedding....I have no idea what our florist would've charged for CPs since we didn't ask, but if other florists are charging in the $60 range, you should definitely check out someone else.

Re: less expensive than roses

---

Posted by daisy44lc

You could also try with all my heart weddings, they offered me a great price (and I would tell you if I could only find my contract)

www.withallmyheartweddings.com

she was only $4 more than National for everything

---

they are actually the ones who quoted me $80

Re: less expensive than roses

that sounds way to much,
how big was the container and appx how many roses were in it? let me know that info and ill give you an idea of what t should be

thoose are really easy you could do them yourself!
(trust me im a florist!)


L

Re: less expensive than roses

I would try a different florist before switching flowers - I'm doing peonies and roses hand tied in square vases for around $50/centerpiece and peonies are far more expensive than roses.