Weird with no boutonnieres?

We are planning on using pocket squares instead to add a little color.

Just use a colorful pocket square (assuming they're wearing jackets).

Lol gotta love our FH with no opinions.

Nope. Pocket squares are not uncommon. You can had these instead if the men are wearing jackets.

I didn't want to use any flowers. We substituted them for pocket squares.

Ours will probably wear bright bowties and no flowers.

We did succulents for the men. They looked great!!

I don't think I'll be doing them either. My guys are going to be wearing suspenders and bowties - no jackets so I don't really know where they would go. Plus it's less things I have to pay for.

We're doing lapel pins for the guys

We are just doing pocket squares as well...no boutonnieres!

My fiancé is making fish lures instead of flowers. He ties flies so he gets to make them and he is a huge fisherman and so are all his groomsmen so it turns out perfect

Nope! Not weird. Totally skippable.

You're fine without them. The DOC who came with our venue neglected to tell my husband and his groomsmen that the boutonnieres were in the bridal suite when they arrived, so they took most of their pictures without them, and we really didn't miss them. It's also a little more modern looking without them, I think. Pocket square is good enough

I had one but my two guys didn't. It looked fine. I wasn't going to have one at all, but someone insisted.

@VMDIZZLE where did you get your vest?!

We are skipping them. Pocket squares instead.

Honestly, no one will miss them, but it does lend itself to a more casual wedding. How about pocket squares- something that they could actually wear again after the wedding?

I'm on the fence about this as well.

Just use pocket squares for replacements. The jackets come off 5 minutes into the reception and no one will notice they don't have bouts

@loveyoumoore that is such an awesome idea! I love that your fiancé is also making them.