Comparing London's Natural History Museum to Others in the US
 

I don't know if this is feasible, but has anyone been to multiple natural history museums to be able to compare/contract them to the one in London? How much time do you need for the one in London? Some say a whole day. It is broken into zones and the Darwin Cocoon is located in one of the zones. How long does that typically take to view? What is your favorite part or section of the museum?

For instance the American Museum of Natural History in New York, has a 94ft replica of a blue whale, has many dinosaur skeletons, has an extensive rock and mineral collection, a space exhibit and a planetarium and also has a butterfly house. They house many collections and the museum is so vast, it is hard to see it all in one day. Is the blue whale skeleton in the natural history museum in London a real skeleton or also a replica? I understand the museum in London also houses a rock and mineral collection, a butterfly house, an exhibit on space. Very similar sounding to the one in NY.

The Field Museum in Chicago has one big dinosaur skeleton named Sue and has a big entry hall but quite frankly we were a bit disappointed overall. I guess we were expecting it to be the size and scale of the one in NY and it wasn't. It is a nice enough museum and certainly has a strong reputation for being one of the best in the nation but we enjoyed the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry better than the Field Museum of Natural History.

For dinosaur skeletons the place to be is the Carnegie Natural History Museum in Pittsburgh. I think it has one of the largest dinosaur collections I have seen anywhere.

The Natural History museum in Washington D.C. is equally as impressive for their collections of insects, dinosaurs. etc.

The one in San Diego by the Exhibition Center is cute but rather small and the entire museum can be seen in an hour or two.

Just curious to find out if anyone who has visited both the London museum and any of the others I mentioned above can give a bit of a comparison. Much appreciated.

Why would you even consider comparing? Each has it's own distinctive collection. Go and enjoy the day!

<< the Darwin Cocoon is located in one of the zones. How long does that typically take to view? >>

The web site says 45 minutes.

Is your question theoretical or are you trying to plan a visit to London? Your reasons for asking are not clear.

I have not been to the Natural History Museum in London, although we have been to London many times, including last year when we visited the Tate Modern and British Museum, which we had not been to in over 20 years.

The Museum of Natural History in NYC, holds a special place in the heart of every kid in NYC who had ever visited it. The first time seeing the whales, the dinosaurs and the huge stuffed animals creates a wondrous memory that few forget.

There is no doubt the London Museum is filled with spectacles and marvels, but that is just one measurement.

I never know how to answer the question, how long does a museum take. Yesterday we went to the Met Museum with a very smart and mature young woman from Spain who wanted to see the Impressionists. We spent 1 1/2 in just a handful of rooms. To the contrary, we were once in a museum in Budapest and a tour group came suntering through and without stopping the guide said, "That is the picture I was telling you about."

Yes--we are planning a trip to London in the future.

Was wondering if the London museum would require a full day like the one in NY does or a half day.

I do realize the time one spends in any particular place is subjective--one might spend an hour engrossed in one exhibit while another walks right through. However, curious to know how extensive the London collection is and how different it might be to other natural history museums. What makes that one unique over another? The Darwin center certainly appears to be a unique feature from other natural history museums we have seen.

I am interested to know which sections people enjoy the most about the London natural history museum.

I understand that the amount of time spent in a museum is very subjective but, as a comparison, we spend usually 4 hours or so in the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles. You could spend the whole day there but we have been so often we usually just pick a few displays when we go now. It is a beautiful museum. We spent only a couple hours at the Natural History Museum in London. I guess we have been spoiled by the LA museum so we weren't really that thrilled with the London Museum.

I can't give a comparison because I have been only to the Natural History Museum in London but there is one feature that the London museum has that the others don't and that's the building. It is worth visiting to see the building. There are some photographs here that show some of the features.

http://www.beenthere-donethat.org.uk...ensington.html

There is a full size replica of a Blue Whale.

The building is stunning..I agree.

Ok--so the unique part is the building itself with wonderful architecture to check out and probably the Darwin Center too. The full size replica of the Blue Whale is in the NY museum also along with many rocks and minerals so that part is not the unique part for us at least.

I read that the section on space begins with an escalator that takes you into the "planet earth" for exploration so that too sounds rather interesting.

I've only been to the London one, as it's not something I'd seek out in other cities, but I can't imagine spending an entire day there of a limited stay when there's so much else to see elsewhere which is unique to London. Three hours would be more than enough, I would think, unless you have a greater than average interest in bones and stones.

The full size replica of the Blue Whale is in the NY museum also along with many rocks and minerals so that part is not the unique part for us at least.
__________
If you think that is all to the NY Museum, then you have missed 99% of what it has to offer.

I am a huge fan of Nat'l Hist Museums and practically grew up inthe onein NYC.

My advice is - there are so many places in London that are unique to the country and the culture that I would not put this near the top of things to see and do.

It's a fine museum - and if that's your major interest - then find - go and see it.

But for the average visitor to London I would put much higher onthe list a bunch of other museums as well as other sights:

British Museum
National Gallery
National Portrait Gallery
V&A
Tate
Tate Modern
Museum of London
Tower
St Paul's
Churchill War Rooms
Plus a bunch of specialized museums

As for the Am Mus Nat'l Hist - yes what gets to kids is the dinos (this is the standard class trip for 2nd grade NYC school kids). But it has SO much more, including an incredible display on human evolution, wonderful exhibits on native american cultures and a great planetarium. And you can easily spend 2 or 3 days there if you want to include the IMAX movies.
Westminster Abby

But if you want the Real Thing (which you might not) the Natural History Museum in London has all the original stuff Darwin brought back from his voyages. Ask to see it in the Darwin Centre.

Personally I would put this bottom of the list of London's major museums in terms of interestingness. I've tried to like it, really I have, but a load of dead stuffed things in glass cases, draws and domes just doesn't do it for me. Even if Darwin did discover them. Oh, and as a child I got really annoyed when I found out some of the skellingtons were just plaster casts. Cheat! Boo hiss!

BigAl--I only mentioned those few things, the life size replica of the whale, the rocks and minerals and the dinosaurs rather than the entire collection at the NY museum just to show that both the NY museum and the London one have similarities in their offerings so they would not be unique to us. If you have never seen a life sized replica of a whale, you would be impressed the first time seeing it. Having already seen it many times, the wow factor goes away.

We have been to the NY one many times and I mentioned in previous posts you can spend days there and not cover the entire museum. They have a planetarium too at the NY one. I am looking for unique things that the London one might have such as the Darwin Center.

On our first trip to London we did cover the other museums mentioned earlier on this post but we did not get to go to the natural history museum on that trip. We focused on the unique to London museums then--British Museum, Museum of London, Tate Modern, IWM, Churchill War Rooms, National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, V&A, John Soane, and the Courtauld Gallery too. This time we would like to visit the natural history and the science museum and was wondering if there are unique sections to them.

Last year we stopped in London to see the Tate Modern and re-visit the British Museum. The Tate Modern was a disappointment. The permanent collection was not very impressive and then there was an exhibit for which there was a surcharge for the entrepreneur Damien Hirst. It was a shame that the museum allowed itself to be part of Hirst's marketing scheme.

I am huge fan of Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon but maybe one was to be found. The British Museum is filled with the spoils of a long gone empire but these remnants are more than worth a trip. And here is where I differ the OP, the significance of the Rosetta Stone is enough for me.

We also enjoyed the British Library. The pictures below are a sample from our trip to the UK. The pitcure of the woman pointing is at the Rosetta Stone.

https://plus.google.com/photos/11352...artnerid=gplp0