less-traveled reception venues?

weddingbunny Posted: Nov 21, 2005 08:32 PM

less-traveled reception venues?

I'm having some trouble finding a reception venue... my fiance and I had actually decided on Fox Hollow, and I took my parents there yesterday, and they really just didn't like it... Now, if fh and I say 'this is what we want, end of story' they'd certainly let us have it there, but I really want a place that at least all the major players (ie, us and our parents) can be happy with. Problem is, I feel like I've looked at all of the more popular catering halls, and I'm just not impressed... I want something with a less commercial feel, and without all the glitz and crystal chandeliers a lot of these places have... That's why I liked Fox Hollow, because it felt a little more toned down than a lot of other places... but my dad is right that it's certainly a bit commercial... Anyway.
So, does anybody know of any more unique and less popular catering halls in/near Huntington? I'd really like to stay as close here as possible, since the ceremony will be here (South Huntington) So far I've looked at Fox Hollow, Carlyle on the Green, Oheka, Cold Spring Country Club, Thatched Cottage, and Watermill. We need a place that can hold about 200 people.

(oh, and as a ps - it matters if my parents don't like the place because they're paying for it, and while in the end it is my day and I should have what I want, I am personally not comfortable with asking anybody to pay $35,000 for something they really just don't like. So, I want to at least make sure I exhaust all my possibilities.)

thanks!

edit: thanks for all the suggestions! I'm really starting to get ideas.
Just as a note... I've already ruled out the Huntington Harbor Club because I had my Bat Mitzvah there, and it certainly is beautiful, but I want to leave it with memories of my Bat Mitzvah and find somewhere else for my wedding.
thank so much though!

NYCtoSEA Posted: Nov 21, 2005 08:41 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Have you looked at the Riviera in Massapequa? I fell in love with it in part because of the LACK of crystal chandeliers and gold leaf.

You'll have to forgive me if I just suggested something really far away from where you want, I haven't lived in LI (or NY for that matter) for like 15 years - my sense of geography is about nil.

weddingbunny Posted: Nov 21, 2005 08:42 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Posted by NYCtoSEA

Have you looked at the Riviera in Massapequa? I fell in love with it in part because of the LACK of crystal chandeliers and gold leaf.

You'll have to forgive me if I just suggested something really far away from where you want, I haven't lived in LI (or NY for that matter) for like 15 years - my sense of geography is about nil.

I hadn't... Massapequa is a little far... but maybe I'll check it out anyway! I'm starting to think that finding the perfect place might be worth a slightly longer drive... Thanks!

Jen2999 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 08:47 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Chateau la mer in lindenhurst?

wendy1220 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 08:47 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

There's a place on 25A in Northport called Crestwood Caterers. I've been there for a work event and it was really nice. It looks a bit different from most catering halls so you might like it. I think the web address is www.crestwoodcaterer.com

KarAnthony Posted: Nov 21, 2005 09:03 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Posted by wendy1220

There's a place on 25A in Northport called Crestwood Caterers. I've been there for a work event and it was really nice. It looks a bit different from most catering halls so you might like it. I think the web address is www.crestwoodcaterer.com

It is nice, but I think they hold a smaller number of people less than 150 I think.

MattsBride Posted: Nov 21, 2005 09:08 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

We're having our reception at Galaxie Caterers. It is in Lindenhurst. The room we are having holds 350 I think.

september2004 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 09:10 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

i liked Louis XVI because they are not a wedding factory, however we needed a smaller venue and 100 was perfect for the space...

EJSD2006 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 09:13 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

the Irish Coffee Pub is pretty popular for wedding receptions these days. I think they're in Bay Shore or Islip. My Mom went to a bridal shower there and she says they have great food!

kris15198 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:03 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Sunset Harbour

babybug631 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:10 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Try Coindre Hall. It's very different and in Huntington.

Tjay Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:13 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

What about a cruise? They have them for weddings. I was on one and it was awesome. Very elegant. I didn't see the month you were getting married but it's an idea.

MTLom Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:23 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

North Ritz Club---syosset

MrsMichel07 Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:40 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

How about Chateau Briand???

marymoon Posted: Nov 21, 2005 10:42 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

How about North Ritz Club? it; right down the road from FH, and it does have a little glamour, but I feel that it's mostly understated and elegant, but I'm biased.

BelMal Posted: Nov 21, 2005 11:12 PM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Have you looked at Flowerfield? Is is about 10 minutes away from Watermill. One wedding at a time...very private..and best yet...it does not look like a Roman palace.
http://www.flowerfield.com/aboutus.html

weddingbunny Posted: Nov 22, 2005 12:03 AM

Re: less-traveled reception venues?

Posted by BelMal

Have you looked at Flowerfield? Is is about 10 minutes away from Watermill. One wedding at a time...very private..and best yet...it does not look like a Roman palace.
http://www.flowerfield.com/aboutus.html

I didn't look at Flowerfield, it's actually a little further away than I wanted to go... Watermill was already pushing my boundaries of distance. Thanks though!