Kt, believe or not I agree about weddings although I was brought up in a different era, a Church, local posh Cafe then In laws for a while, honey moon two years later in Scarbrough and that was top end. Bottom end would be Registry Office home and spam sandwiches no honey moon. Expectations are so different these days. With a wedding coming up for Granddaughter a two day affair at County Hotel the cost has to be shared among close family so I do know it aint cheap. Loving my Granddaughter I give willingly, the last few years they have worked hard to stand still, at least it will be a lasting memory unlike a pile of bricks that will go with the next owner.
Gardens I had were hard work make do and mend plus DIY, money? Are you kidding, beg steal borrow, we had morgages and other things more needed. Gardens fed the family until the time there was spare cash, the problem being once you had the rhythm in your gardening bones spending on decking fountains and Gnomes seemed a pure waste of money and time. I am thinking my writing on here not now needed, double digging? Mulching? Planning years ahead? What is he talking about, it has to be quick easy maintinence free these days, out of my league, £25.000 on a garden, I could do a world cruise for that but then I did, we called them Troopships.
Palaisglide, I know we're going way off the original topic, but the two most costly weddings I have been to have also been the two shortest lived. One was a two day affair with pink champagne, jazz band, hog roast etc, etc and lasted under a year. The other was overseas, accommodation for the bride and groom cost nearly £4k for 2 weeks, add in reception and all the associated gubbins such as travel and accommodation for guests (admittedly not paid for by the bride and groom or their parents) and it must have cost nearer £10k. That one lasted less than 6 months. I learned later that one party had major reservations even before the day but thought they'd be able to change the other party after the event - they were wrong!
Back to the original topic and I almost sense a bit of jealousy coming through in some of the comments. Some people will splash the money on a garden, some on holidays, whilst others stash it metaphorically under the mattress and end up as the richest corpse in the graveyard. Each to their own.
Palaisglide, I know we're going way off the original topic, but the two most costly weddings I have been to have also been the two shortest lived. One was a two day affair with pink champagne, jazz band, hog roast etc, etc and lasted under a year. The other was overseas, accommodation for the bride and groom cost nearly £4k for 2 weeks, add in reception and all the associated gubbins such as travel and accommodation for guests (admittedly not paid for by the bride and groom or their parents) and it must have cost nearer £10k. That one lasted less than 6 months. I learned later that one party had major reservations even before the day but thought they'd be able to change the other party after the event - they were wrong!
Back to the original topic and I almost sense a bit of jealousy coming through in some of the comments. Some people will splash the money on a garden, some on holidays, whilst others stash it metaphorically under the mattress and end up as the richest corpse in the graveyard. Each to their own.
At the risk of staying off topic, I terylene watching an episode of QI in which Stephen Fry read out a study from some university or other that had found a direct correlation between how much people spent on a wedding and how long they stayed together- the more money you spent, the less likely and less time you would spend before divorce!
My input to the topic would be that you can't account for taste, I suppose If somebody wants to spend £25k on ruins in their garden then that's their choice. I do feel Monty's input did make it look a lot better, though.
And who is the arbiter of value for money? If I spend an amount on an item or service and I'm happy with the outcome and the price, to me that is value for money. To somebody else it's "more money than sense".
I've recently spent a lot of money having my garden changed to suit my requirements. If I'd been able to do it myself it would obviously have been a lot cheaper. The reality is that I can no longer do the work myself and, even if I could, it would have taken me months and left the garden unusable for that period. I'm content that I have the result I wanted, put money into the local economy and achieved the whole thing in an acceptable timeframe.
Totally agree with you KT53. If you can't do a job yourself, for whatever reason, finding someone to do it for you is value for money. Unless the job's badly done of course
I did my own fencing here, plus all the timber raised beds etc, and it would have cost several grand to get someone to do it for me. Several grand which was better utilised elsewhere.I had the time at that point as well, and I'm fit enough to do it. The money was used for building work - which I certainly couldn't have done. I know my limitations!
It's irrelevant whether the cost of something is a fiver or five thousand. It's the end result of the expenditure that matters.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Posts
Kt, believe or not I agree about weddings although I was brought up in a different era, a Church, local posh Cafe then In laws for a while, honey moon two years later in Scarbrough and that was top end. Bottom end would be Registry Office home and spam sandwiches no honey moon. Expectations are so different these days. With a wedding coming up for Granddaughter a two day affair at County Hotel the cost has to be shared among close family so I do know it aint cheap. Loving my Granddaughter I give willingly, the last few years they have worked hard to stand still, at least it will be a lasting memory unlike a pile of bricks that will go with the next owner.
Gardens I had were hard work make do and mend plus DIY, money? Are you kidding, beg steal borrow, we had morgages and other things more needed. Gardens fed the family until the time there was spare cash, the problem being once you had the rhythm in your gardening bones spending on decking fountains and Gnomes seemed a pure waste of money and time. I am thinking my writing on here not now needed, double digging? Mulching? Planning years ahead? What is he talking about, it has to be quick easy maintinence free these days, out of my league, £25.000 on a garden, I could do a world cruise for that but then I did, we called them Troopships.
Frank.
To be honest the saying" a fool and their money are soon parted " ridiculous amount of money .
Palaisglide, I know we're going way off the original topic, but the two most costly weddings I have been to have also been the two shortest lived. One was a two day affair with pink champagne, jazz band, hog roast etc, etc and lasted under a year. The other was overseas, accommodation for the bride and groom cost nearly £4k for 2 weeks, add in reception and all the associated gubbins such as travel and accommodation for guests (admittedly not paid for by the bride and groom or their parents) and it must have cost nearer £10k. That one lasted less than 6 months. I learned later that one party had major reservations even before the day but thought they'd be able to change the other party after the event - they were wrong!
Back to the original topic and I almost sense a bit of jealousy coming through in some of the comments. Some people will splash the money on a garden, some on holidays, whilst others stash it metaphorically under the mattress and end up as the richest corpse in the graveyard. Each to their own.
At the risk of staying off topic, I terylene watching an episode of QI in which Stephen Fry read out a study from some university or other that had found a direct correlation between how much people spent on a wedding and how long they stayed together- the more money you spent, the less likely and less time you would spend before divorce!
My input to the topic would be that you can't account for taste, I suppose
If somebody wants to spend £25k on ruins in their garden then that's their choice. I do feel Monty's input did make it look a lot better, though.
In my opinion a garden has to develop over time you move plants that you find are not happy were you put them or your not happy were they are ,
Palaisglide I am always looking for bargains for the garden I am always shovelling the horse muck up when the pass the house ,
If you go back to many make over gardens that have been on these shows many have just gone to pot .
Kt53 not jealous just been brought up with value for money I dont think some parks have that type of money in their budget for a year .
And who is the arbiter of value for money? If I spend an amount on an item or service and I'm happy with the outcome and the price, to me that is value for money. To somebody else it's "more money than sense".
I've recently spent a lot of money having my garden changed to suit my requirements. If I'd been able to do it myself it would obviously have been a lot cheaper. The reality is that I can no longer do the work myself and, even if I could, it would have taken me months and left the garden unusable for that period. I'm content that I have the result I wanted, put money into the local economy and achieved the whole thing in an acceptable timeframe.
Totally agree with you KT53. If you can't do a job yourself, for whatever reason, finding someone to do it for you is value for money. Unless the job's badly done of course
I did my own fencing here, plus all the timber raised beds etc, and it would have cost several grand to get someone to do it for me. Several grand which was better utilised elsewhere.I had the time at that point as well, and I'm fit enough to do it. The money was used for building work - which I certainly couldn't have done. I know my limitations!
It's irrelevant whether the cost of something is a fiver or five thousand. It's the end result of the expenditure that matters.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...