purduegrad

HI, all,

I know this may be a matter only of personal preference, but I would like your input.

We are a 60ish couple, reasonably well-traveled, but not globe trotters by any means. We have been to Italy, France, Turkey, but never to the United Kingdom at all. Next spring (late April/early May) we are taking a two week "Best of Britain" tour with Rick Steves (we've done tours with them before and enjoyed them; DH refuses to rent a car and drive on the "wrong" side of the road for two weeks, so this is the only way to see England). The tour starts in Bath, goes into Wales, up to York, and ends up with about a day and a half in London. We plan to arrive a couple of days early to acclimate before the tour begins, and to see a bit more of London on our own.

Here's the question -- DH would like to go to Paris for about four days after the Britain tour (for about a total of three weeks of vacation time). We've been to Paris twice (but not for about 10 years now); DH wants to take the Chunnel, and we both love Paris. But, would we be wiser to just spend extra days in London, so we can grow to love it, too? With the Paris scenario we'd be in London about three days (on our own before the tour and then the tour's end) and the four days in Paris (minus the travel times). And, if we did spend extra days in London, should it be on the leading edge (third week of April) or at the end (second week of May) -- or is that even a consideration?

Costs of open jaw vs. RT flights and like that are not of concern.

Opinions?

Thanks very much!

TPAYT

IMO, I'd head for Paris. The Eurostar is easy and you could be there in early afternoon which would give you 3-1/2 days to enjoy and fly home from Paris. You will have a good tast of London in the beginning of your trip. Finishing it up in Paris would be my choice. BUT, I personally can't get enough of Paris.

We tested out London in June for a few days before Paris.
Would we return? Positively as we only touched the surface. But, Paris still remains our favorite and we would never give up an opportunity to return.

ziggypop

wei wei on Pariee

adrienne

I'd definitely add Paris to the trip. London is great but Paris is exceptional. I would choose the days following the second week in May for the best weather (for either choice).

StuDudley

I agree with TPAYT about only a few days in London, which only "touched the surface".

"About 3 days" in London before your tour really means 2 1/2 days, IMO. And 1 1/2 days at the end is usually about 1 day. I would just stick to London & save Paris for another trip. We go to Europe twice a year & usually spend a month each time. We rarely stay in one spot (Paris, London, Provence, Dordogne, etc) for less than 2 weeks at a time before we move on to the next spot.

I don't "buy" the idea of going to a "major" place in Europe (like London) and staying for a very short time just to see if you will want to return if you like the place. Of course you will like London - just like you liked Paris. But 3 1/2 days in London isn't nearly enough time to see what makes it "tick". We spent almost an entire day just visiting the Museum of London - and we usually don't normally go to museums. We took about a dozen "London Walks" in '09 when we were there for 2 1/2 weeks.
http://www.walks.com/london_walks_ho...e/default.aspx

Stu Dudley
Purdue, class of '69

Christina

I'd definitely go to Paris, also, since your husband wants to go and it's not far. After all, you'll be spending weeks in Great Britain, and at least 3 days in London. I'm not following your logic but thin it's the same as when people tell someone on Fodors that they shouldn't go to a city unless they have x days. I think any time in a city is worth it. Three days is a good enough chunk for London.

It doesn't always follow that spending more time in a city makes you "love" it more, you know. And so what if it did, who cares if you love London or not. But in fact, when I first went to London, I enjoyed it but not that much, it was basically just a big noisy dirty city to me. It's only after some years and trips later, and different experience, that I've come to like it more. Spending more days the first time wouldn't have done it.

Iwan2go

We liked London a lot, and have been twice, but Paris holds our heart. Paris seems to be more open than London; there aren't as many tall buildings and there are more vistas. And the food is to die for - though in 2011 the food in London was really good! So many times we have "tacked on" Paris to another trip, just because we love being there. Personal preference, I realize, but you asked.

We went to London December 2011 for six nights, and it was a good amount of time. We took a few London walks in the morning (St Paul's, Tower), saw some plays. We especially liked the Victoria and Albert museum but wished we had been able to go in warmer weather to see gardens. You will have seen a lot of them on your RS tour, though. We went to England as our first overseas trip in April 1989 and loved Hampton Court palace as well as the usual in-town sites.

We are your age and also don't want to drive on the other side of the road (we did so in 1989 but are more cautious now). Would you please post a report of your trip when you get back? I'd love to know what RS tours you've taken and what your experience was like. I'm looking at Norway/ Sweden, Scotland, and the Basque tours especially, in addition to the UK tour you plan to go on.

I think that whatever you decide, you'll love it!

annhig

what a great choice to have purduegrad!

i think that if you've never been to Paris this is as good an opportunity as ever to give it a try and getting there from London is a doddle.

Personally I would put whatever extra time i had at the end, wherever I decided to spend it - you don't want to be repeating what you've already seen when the tour gets to London.

StuDudley

>> if you've never been to Paris this is as good an opportunity<<

They've been to Paris twice.

3 1/2 days in London & 3 1/2 days in Paris is not "adequate" time, IMO. Most first-timers want to see the "big stuff" first - which is quite often located in congested & noisy areas (Louvre/St Paul's). The "charm" of both Paris & London is revealed when you have time to "wander" through the un-congested & sometimes relatively traffic-free "outer" neighborhoods (Notting Hill/16th).

Stu Dudley

mamcalice

Hard to believe I am saying this (having recently returned from 2 weeks in my favorite city - Paris) but you are unlikely to do justice to London with only 3 or 4 days. I think only you can make the decision but I think we might stay in London - it is a wonderful city to get to know and 3 days isn't enough for that.

sanderskn

I would spend it in London. Paris and London are my two favorite cities in the world!

annhig

They've been to Paris twice>>


Stu - I missed that. in that case, London edges it - as there is so much to do, as you say.

purduegrad

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful replies.

I realize that 3-4 days is not enough time to do any city justice (not even my nearby Chicago), and we *have* been to Paris before. But we love Paris ... so I posed the question to see if those of you who know London would tell me that London was "special" enough to trump a return visit to Paris.

(Aside: on our first trip to Paris -- just 10 days after 9/11; the trip had of course been planned way before and we didn't know if we would even be able to fly -- we struck up a conversation with someone at the baggage carousel. We talked about how it was our first visit, and he said, "You'll be back." He was right.)

So, I appreciate the advice! But keep those opinions coming ... a return to Paris seems to have the edge in he voting right now.

Stu -- Go Boilers! (Class of 1981)

Iwan2go -- we have taken two RS tours. The first one was like "The Best of France" (which started in Rouen and ended in Arles in two weeks) and then eight years later we did the "Best of Rome" (a week in the city; then we went on on our own to Siena and Florence after). We find the RS tours to be a compromise (as is life, I suppose...) and not cheap, but a good value. The groups are small (24ish) and you get a nice combination of history, culture, art, and no shopping. But, you also get lots of time on your own, so if you want to shop, then go for it!

DH was impressed in Rome when we just waltzed past the long, long line at the Vatican, and we enjoyed the art historian who took us through the Vatican museums and the Borghese. We had a different historian lead us through the Coliseum and the Forum. We got to go into the kitchens of a Roman restaurant and help "cook" our pasta. We had a canoe trip down the Dordogne (paddling our own canoes). We went to market day in Sarlat (where we each had to purchase, using our French, one part of a group picnic lunch. I think I got assigned strawberries). We saw the Bayeux tapestries, and stayed one night in an inn on Mont St. Michel. Like that.

In our experience, your tour companions are usually professional people who are too busy to plan trips (we've had physicians, biochemists, Boeing engineers, university professors... like me) and the guides treat you like intelligent adults. Our guide in Rome was one of the owners of a family winery in Orvieto, and she brought splits of their wines to try, so there's a personal touch, too.

I will certainly post a trip report of this trip. You can look at my other trip reports and see how I like to post trip reports. (Stu, I was a English major way back when...)

Thanks again!

purduegrad

I should have said, "... tour companions are usually professional people who are too busy and don't have the expertise to plan trips." I didn’t mean to imply that people who plan trips and "professionals" are mutually exclusive!

Iwan2go

Fabulous info on RS tours, thanks purdue! We have friends who take Tauck tours and love them, but something about RS tours seems appealing to us. We do like creature comforts, and choose nice but not 5 star hotels on our travels, so that was one thing I wasn’t sure about on the RS tours. We like to meet and chat with other people, and would fit in well with the group you describe. I think on the whole we tend to travel more like that than Tauck (and the price difference is part of the equation as well).

I was glad when you said from the get go that you realized you were asking for personal preferences in choosing between London and Paris. Both are amazing cities and warrant repeat visits. I know that I voted for Paris above, but one thing you might want to think about is the time you’d gain staying in London - no hotel change, no train, probably a day. OTOH, you’ll have been in England the whole time, though not in a great, large city.

You might also want to consider if you’ll be in France during the (frequent) May holidays: May 1st, Labor Day; May 8th, WWII Victory Day, and May 15th, Ascension - all are national holidays. In GB, May 4th is Early May Bank holiday.

nytraveler

Since you've already been to Paris twice I would give London a chance. A week there is nothing - esp if you do any walking tours or any out of town trips that are not covered on your tour. There is no way I would do a trip to London without spending a day at Hampton Court - esp if you are interested at all in the Tudors.

carolyn

My vote is for more of London, too. It's my favorite city, one I would love to stay in for a couple of months or so and just walk around in the different neighborhoods. Buy, or borrow from your library, a copy of the DK Eyewitness London Travel Guide and look at the pictures as well as reading about all the things to do. It's also a great location to do day trips to places like Hampton Court mentioned above or other places easy to reach by train that you may not get to visit with the RS group.

letsgeaux

I would go to Paris. London is wonderful, but Paris is in a class by itself. We took the Eurostar from London to Paris last year and recommend it highly. We made that journey in 1996 by bus and ferry and it took all day. It is nice to be able to depart St. Pancras Station and arrive at Gare du Nord 2 hours and 20 minutes later. I never pass up a chance to go to Paris no matter how good the alternative is.

StuDudley

My vote for a "favorite" city is Paris. My second favorite is London. Then Madrid & Rome.

However, in your case since you're already in the UK and London is nothing like any other city in the UK - just stay in London. Don't loose a day getting to Paris. Also, one of my "rules" after visitng Europe annually since '77 - don't do large cities back-to-back.

The Boilers aren't doing much in football & probably basketball this year. There is an article in the latest Sports Illustrated about "what's wrong with Indiana college basketball".

Stu Dudley

purduegrad

Well. Hmmmmm. This is hard. But as ann says, it's nice to have this hard decision!

Tonight we're leaning towards staying in London.. No loss of time commuting. Have been to Paris before.

But it's *Paris* ... But, perhaps this will boost us into another trip to France!

Iwan2go, the RS hotels are usually 2- or 3-stars, in a central location (not a chain by the airport). They have given us the names of the first and last hotels for this trip (in case we want to book extra days before or after). In Bath it's the Brooks Guest House www.brooksguesthouse.com and in London it's The Fielding Hotel thefieldinghotel.co.uk , so you can check them out.

My next task is to decide whether to just stay at the hotel in London -- we usually like to rent apartments -- and if we do switch to figure out where to switch to. I know my arrondisements very well, but only have a vague grasp of Kensington, Covent Garden, East/West Ends ... I have done a bit of looking, and do i want something near the Tower (close to everything, but all them tourists clogging up things!) or something farther afield (but close to the Tube...)

That will be my next task. I will probably ask after that, too, but that's a different thread... Although opinions are always welcome!

And, yes, Stu ... The Boilers stink this year. IU is right next to them. So the Old Oaken Bucket is just a less-stinky contest!