Curious what everyone recommends for hotels our last nights in Bangkok. Our very last night, we are staying at the Oriental, which leaves 2 nights prior to decide. Prices are similar for the Royal Orchid Sheraton, Marriott and Shangri La. We are leaning towards Shangri La since it seems more authentic to Thailand.. Thanks!

i have to get in before gloria....the sh-la is not really very thai---it is asian in flovor but not really thai...

the sheraton could be in india, london, ny, or iowa....very little thai infleunce...

the marriott buildings are of a thai style...the decorations around the hotel are all very thai....the rooms are semi-thai: wood floors, thai silk decorations; thai pictures on walls; western furniture; thai sculpture on top of tv cabinet, western bath....lovely orchids in the room every day...

the marriott would of course be my choice and it is the cheapest i believe...the pool is the best for relaxing after a busy trip....easy cab ride to peninsula---8 minutes...

The shangrila is a huge hotel -- there is nothing thai about it. It would be my last choice. Are you changing hotels to save money?

The Shangri La is Asian owned in contrast to Sheraton and Marriott which are US owned so I guess in that sense it is more 'authentic' to Asia in those terms (i.e. who gets your money! - but not to Thailand in particular.

Decor wise, it is nicely decorated but its style is not particularly thai, as Bob says. We have stayed at the Shangri La frequently as we have got good deals from Trailfinders in the UK for stays there and have always found it very convenient located and the service perfect (if anonymous?). If you are planning on being out of the hotel a lot - sightseeing, shopping - then I think it is a good choice as it is next to the express boat stop and the skytrain so will keep your travelling times to a minimum. The Marriott is cheaper however and looks beautiful - we are staying there for 4 nights on our next stay on Bob's recommendation. However, you do have to add in a little bit of extra time to your journeys as you get a Marriott boat which I think takes 15 mins to the express boat stop/skytrain station, although this boat trips sounds v pleasant in itself I think.

i seem to have created a hysterically laughing smiling face - not quite sure how i did that!

Let's get our facts straight. The Marriott is in fact owned by a Thai citizen. It is managed by a US company. The Shangri-La is owned by a publicly trade company out of Hong Kong, the majority owners are the Kwok family, a Malaysian Chinese family. The Peninsula is also traded out of Hong Kong and is owed by Hong Kong hotels. Hard to say which is more "Asian", I would say none of them as they are all based on US-business models.

As most of you know I don't understand the desire to change hotels. Never have and probablly never will. I hate packing and unpacking too much. I definitely don't understand it for three nights. Personally I'd pick one hotel and stay there the whole time.

Bella Blue, I am still giggling over your smiley face! I think you get that when you put two parenthesis together.

Cicerone - I stand corrected!

Jacqui - Cicerone has highlighted the ownership of the Peninsula which you didn't mention. Have you thought about that as an alternative? Then you can put in your tuppence worth on the Pensinsula v Oriental debate!

I agree with Gloria that in normal circumstances that I wouldn't change hotels for 1 night only either. But if my pennies could only stretch to 1 night at the Oriental and I was super keen to stay there I might do.

thank you for all the feedback! Gloria--yes we are switching hotels because we can't afford the Oriental for 3 nights, but do want to experience it, so are splurging our last night before returning to the U.S. You would faint if you heard the rest of our trip...we will stay in 5 hotels over the course of 11 days (also going to phuket and phi phi).
Anyway, by the sounds of it, Marriott is the nicest/most reasonable, but a little out of the way, and the Sheraton is bland but the most convenient. Thanks again!

just to clarify about marriott ownership....the company that owns it and and manages several other thai hotels is called royal garden resorts, which is publically traded in thailand....their principal is an american living in thailand for over 30 years...some of the other hotels are the 4 seasons bangkok and chiang mai, jw marriott phuket, anantaras in meny places in thailand, marriott hua hin and pattaya and others....they also control swensons ice cream in thailand, some fast food chains, pepsi, and some other franchises....the marriott designation is for convenience and all the privledges that go along with that...

so i would call them american owned perhpas, but with thai roots...not sure how the actual legal part works...there must be significant thai ownership there someplace....i think i was told the king's companies are also involved as they are with many thai enterprises..

Can't get more Thai than the Four Seasons with its majestic lobby. I'd pick another part of town to try out since you'll be on the river at first anyway. Why pick another river hotel? Happy Travels!

Jacqui-- you're right. Royal Orchid wins for convenience and Marriott for charm and a resort feel. So I'd say it depends on how you plan to use the hotel.

gloria...i think shangri-la is the most convenient of the river hotels with the skytrain right next door...sheraton is the least convenient of the main river hotels and also the menam and montien...

Bob-- you're right about the convenience of the shangrila -- I just dislike the hotel so much I forget the good points. I guess I feel about it the way you do about the ROS -- you couldn't pay me to stay at it. I've been there three times and each time had an unpleasant experience with the staff which is something that virtually never happens to me anywhere else in thailand. Plus I find it overwhelmingly large, sterile, cold. Yuck!!!! I'd much rather stay at either the ROS or the Marriott.

gloria, i assume you mean you'd much rather stay at the Shangri La or the Marriott? Interesting about ROS, I was under the impression it was the most convenient, and thought the Sky Train was right there.
While I'm here, am I correct in assuming the Oriental will be a wonderful experience and worth the $$ and tranfering there our last night? thanks.

Jacqui-- no I would not stay at the shangrila. I loathe the hotel. The fact that it's near a skytrain is comeplety irrelevant to me.

I love the Oriental and think it is worth every penny and more. I skimp on other things and other hotels to stay there and have no desire to stay anywhere else. However, I personally would not move for one night. But as I said I hate changing hotels.

I guess if I were you I would stay at less expensive hotels in other places and stay at the Oriental for the full three days when in Bangkok. You get a lot more for your money at the Oriental than you do at the expensive hotels in other parts of the country.

thanks for the details. wow shangri la is definitely out. I think we will stick with our 2nites at a more "reasonable" hotel and one night at the oriental, only b/c skimping still won't really allow us to stay 3 nights at the oriental..at $312 a night, it would make the rest of our trip unpleasant to stay within budget
Anyway, we're pretty good with moving from place to place. One quick ques, how is the Oriental with late check outs? Our flight will not be until 1am the following night !

I always get a late check out but I have no idea how they will be with first timers who only stay one night. In general though they are better than other hotels so do ask. Depends on how full the hotel is I suspect. However, you should have no problem having a very early check in so I would get there as early in the morning as possible. I also have a 1AM flight home. Even if you have to check out on time or at 4PM you can find plenty to do at the hotel and can always change in their bathrooms if you need to.