moebraze

Thanks @mimar. I'm definitely leaning towards your itinerary. "Amsterdam, train to Paris, Eurostar to London. Either Amsterdam or London make a good intro to Europe." I'll look into buying RS book "Europe Through the Back Door". Very helpful. I think this is a good first pass through Europe.

I think I've also decided to move my trip up to next May/ June versus waiting until September of 2016? Any thoughts on that idea?

Mimar

I prefer spring to fall. And either to winter or high season. Spring is best because the days are longer, more time to sightsee. And the flowers are in bloom, the trees are freshly leafed (leaved?). May is probably too late for the tulips in the Netherlands -- but maybe not?

Since you're limiting your itinerary to 3 cities, look into day trips into the countryside, to enjoy the spring and see something not-city. London walks (walks.com) has some excursions out of the city (as well as highly recommended walking tours in London). The English countryside in May is beautiful.

For day trips from Paris, this thread has a long list of good ideas from FrenchMystiqueTours: http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...omment-8471746. And it's easy to get out of Amsterdam by public transportation.

PalenQ

I too like the freshness of spring over the fading of fall and spring has longer daylight hours - at least later spring when the travel season gets into real gear - rains in spring just don't seem so daunting as rains in fall - spring you hope for things to get better - in fall you expectd them to get worse!

Spring into spring but fall is fine too - no huge crowds at museums, no excessive heat - hotels cheaper or cheaper hotels more readily available, etc.

suze

Amsterdam, London, Paris is a perfect itinerary for a two week trip. There's nothing difficult about any of those cities. Actually Amsterdam (only been there once, solo) was one of the easiest places I've ever traveled. I used a "Let's Go" guidebook specific to Amsterdam.

moebraze

Thanks @suze. I'll look into that guidebook. Everyone has been extremely helpful. Appreciate the advice and tips.

pariswat

From London or Paris do some daytrips (linke Hampton court and Senlis or Versailles).
I'd spend about 5 days days in London and 5 in Paris and 2 - 3 max in Amsterdam.
From Paris to Amsterdam, stop at Bruxelles, at least a few hours to see the 'grand place' or one day if you have time.
Enjoy your trip, enjoy palnning, there are a lot of other combinations...
You can do Berlin + Vienna + Prague for example.
Or Rome, Nice, Paris.
Barcelone, Paris, Lisbon ..
Or.. or...

janisj

I'd seriously consider reversing the order of cities so you are not flying home from London. Passenger fees are much higher out of LHR than out of either CDG or AMS.

So fly into London / train to Paris / train to A'dam / fly home -- or -- Fly into A'dam / fly to London / train to Paris / fly home. Either could save you several hundred $$

justineparis

janisj has a good point.. departure taxes are higher from London then Amsterdam or Paris.

Amsterstdam is an easy city.. a beginners city for sure.. same with London.


I think going in may or june is a good idea. love the longer days..and September is in fact still very much high season in Paris.. hotel prices high, because of trade show and fashion week season...May has some holidays in it.. but early june is great.

For all the train tickets.. book EARLY , most allow you to book 3-4 months in advance and give great discounts to those who do.

moebraze

@janisj. Thanks for the tip on booking. I'll def take that advice and fly into London train to Paris train to Amsterdam and fly home. Didn't realize flying out of London would be more expensive.

dwdvagamundo

Menachem said "why is Amsterdam not a "beginner's destination" whatever that may be. Because you only get there this year, dwdvagamundo ?"

Should have said "not a destination that a first timer to Europe should choose."

I choose destinations based on the idea that this will be my last trip to whatever continent it is that I'm going to. And with Europe, Italy is IMO that top destination.

I do realize that the Netherlands--particularly Amsterdam is hot now, touristically speaking, but it has not always been so. A couple of nites ago, I was looking at a Rick Steve's guide to France dated 2000 which my spouse recently bought at a used bookstore. It had a few pages on the Netherlands and Belgium appended. He advised to stay in Harlem and take trains into Amsterdam and advised to stay in Brugge and take trains to Brussels. He mentioned only a couple of other destinations in both countries.

suze

<not a destination that a first timer to Europe should choose.>

I don't see why not. That's simply one person's poitn of view. If they are interested in Amsterdam, then they should go there. It's a very easy city to navigate, so a good one for first timers.

<I choose destinations based on the idea that this will be my last trip to whatever continent>

Not everyone thinks like that.

AlessandraZoe

I agree with so many above:

Amsterdam is a WONDERFUL place for a first-timer American tourist.

We only went there after ten years of probably three trips a year to Europe and asked ourselves, "Why in the heck weren't we here earlier?"

Probably because so many people underrated it.

We went back!

<b>First</b>, it's a water city, giving it a unique quality that only like places Venice shares.

However Amsterdam has not fallen into "Disney World" status, as has Venice, where the locals leave so that only tourists visit (and we actually love Venice).

Amsterdam retains its local character and culture proudly.

<b>Second</b>, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's a place where the citizens can switch into English instantly. Not automatically!!! Just instantly.

<b>Third</b>, the Red Light district is worth the price of admission. Except there is no admission. New Orleans, move over.

<b>Fourth</b>, it's an art hub. When one exhausts the local museums (excellent), one can explore outlying areas with short train rides.

<b>Fifth</b>, speaking of trains, its airport, Schiphol, is less than 30 minutes away by train, and...

<b>Sixth</b>, one can go almost anywhere on the continent via either the Centraal train station or via Schiphol airport.

<b>Seventh</b>, we have not mentioned the cycling culture. That's another thread.

<b>Eighth</b>, its tram system is superb, but...

<b>Ninth</b>, you can skip the tram. So many of the key districts are totally walkable.

The things I don't like about Amsterdam?

I do not like Heineken.

As I always wish, Happy Planning, for I do believe in the axiom that travel involves three phases: planning (anticipation), experience, and memories.

Hey, there's a dissertation on this:
http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1450/

AZ

Gretchen

Geez, why NOT Amsterdam!! It's charming, great museums, good food.

PalenQ

Amsterdam is not only one of Europe's most surrealistically gorgeous cities but it has world-class museums and lots of other things no other city has - the good and the bad (cannabis sold over the counter and a legal red-light district - not everyone's cup of tea but something unique) - a fascinating city - my favorite city in Europe by far - and most folks speak really good English.

menachem

Ironically, these past few weeks, the papers filled with stories about how Amsterdam is becoming more and more like Venice, as social housing that was right in the centre of town is being sold off, thus segregating Amsterdam's inner ring. This always was a mixed area where you could rent social housing even if you were on benefits, but no longer. More and more it's becoming expensive real estate territory and the "undesirables" are being pushed to the margins. More and more the city centre is the domain of tourists, with an industry to cater for them, and this too pushes out Amsterdam inhabitants.

google translate:

http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binne...door-toeristen

Drowden

I just returned from a fabulous trip to Europe, including five days in Amsterdam. It's a perfect place for an inexperienced traveller. We stayed in an airbnb apartment. Best decision of the trip!

Have fun planning!

TC

I would personally spend the whole time in Amsterdam. Its a wonderful city. One I've traveled to many times. Its a great beginners city. So easy to navigate, great food, wonderful museums, outstanding day trips. Can't say enough good. We always stay near the Central Station for easy access to all points.

If adding another city, I would do London. Again, quite easy for a beginner to navigate. Enough to keep you quite busy for a week or more.

If you don't speak French, Paris can be a bit daunting at first. I love the city and have been many times, but just thinking of a first time visitor, it can be difficult. My husband speaks French, so we had a fairly easy time of it.

Amsterdam and London would give you a sterling start to Europe on your own.

Try guidebooks -- Access London and Eyewitness guides.

TC

dwdvagamundo: Sorry to disagree, but Italy has been my LEAST FAVORITE place in Europe. Spent three weeks touring and wouldn't go back. Unfriendly people, so-so food, less than charming B&Bs....all in all, not my cuppa. To each his own, but I wouldn't recommend it for a first or only trip to Europe.

Moebraze: If you are now planning on a spring trip, be mindful that its "tulip time" in and around Amsterdam. Amazing sights, but can be difficult to find housing, so plan early.

suze

<If you don't speak French, Paris can be a bit daunting at first>.

I disagree. It depends on your attitude and travel style. I (sadly) speak only English and have never had a language-barrier issue traveling in Amsterdam, Paris, Venice.

AlessandraZoe

I totally agree with Suze re the language stuff. Attitude says all.