Digbydog

We plan to visit Lascaux II to get an idea of cave drawings as they looked originally. We'd also like to visit one cave with original paintings. We are most interested in the paintings, rather than cave formations, as we have visited many great caves in the US.

Which would you visit if you only had time for one? People on this forum seem to love Font de Gaume, but Michelin only gives it one star. Michelin gives Pech-Merle three stars.

Nikki

Font de Gaume. Which also has the advantage of being quite near Lascaux. It is a much more intimate cave with more interesting art that you view right up next to the cave walls. Smaller groups, because the number of visitors is limited due to size and preservation issues.

This isn't to say that Pech Merle isn't interesting also, and we went to both.

kansas

I completely agree with Nikki. Not even a close call in my mind. We visited both caves in September 2011. You can click on my name and see my trip report.

I know you will have a great trip! It is a wonderful area. We are going back in 2013.

Promise to write a trip report!

StCirq

I agree, too. Besides, it's about 5 hours round trip from the Périgord Noir to Peche-Merle, and Font-de-Gaume is right there.

Carlux

Pech (not Peche) Merle is an interesting cave, but not particularly for the paintings. Those at Font de Gaume are much more prominent. And it's not an easy drive from the Dordogne to Pech Merle, so choose Font de Gaume. But write early for reservations. There are fewer and fewer available every year, although they do offer last minute tickets on the same day. If you know you want to go, order tickets at least 6 months in advance.

Digbydog

Thanks to everyone for your replies. It's nice to have unanimity! I wonder why Michelin rates Pech-Merle so much higher. The location of the caves is not an issue, as we plan to be near both areas.

Digbydog

Kansas--I will look forward to your trip report. Hope it's before we leave in June.

Nikki

Digbydog, this is Kansas's trip report:

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...rlat-paris.cfm

And here is mine, although it is from several years ago and covers a much larger area than the Dordogne. Just scroll down past the London part and you will find the visits to the Dordogne and to Pech Merle:

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...rip-report.cfm

StuDudley

>>It's nice to have unanimity! I wonder why Michelin rates Pech-Merle so much higher.<<

We've visited both caves twice and prefer Pech Merle - by far. There is a greater variety of "stuff" at Pech Merle (handprints, footprints, paintings, stalactites & mites). I got a tad bored at Font de Gaume.

Stu Dudley

kansas

Thanks, Nikki! I was just going to pull up my report for Digby.

I thought you were going on your trip this fall Digby. Enjoy your planning which is lots of fun, too.

Stu, a good part of the enjoyment factor must be the enthusiasm of the guide. We felt a real connection with Monsieur Jean Marie at Font de Guame.

StuDudley

>> We felt a real connection with Monsieur Jean Marie at Font de Guame.<<

And how does the OP guarantee that they get Monsieur Jean Marie??

Stu Dudley

kansas

Regarding the tour guide...the point I was trying to make was that we were more fortunate at Font de Gaume than Peche Merle. It is the luck of the draw. I just hope that whichever cave the Digbys select, they encounter a guide who can convey a sense of awe at the experience.

Digbydog

Drat, Stu! I was hoping everyone would keep saying the same thing. The handprints and footprints do sound enticing, but we have seen plenty of stalactites and stalagmites at other caves. The paintings are what I really want to see.

Nikki--thanks for the links to the trip reports. I have been reading reports like crazy but haven't read yours yet.

Kansas--I think I usually have a better time planning than the actual trip, which is crazy.

anna_roz

Font de Gaume was a let down for us. The guide spent the first 10 minutes trying to convince those with the slightest of claustrophobia to leave now. After that, the tour lasted another 10 minutes and was limited to one narrow, dark corridor with faded drawings on each side.

Peche Merle was pretty awesome. Lascaux II far exceeded our expectations.

StCirq

I have been to Font-de-Gaume at least 20 times - it's right down the road from my house in France. It has never been a disappointment - how could it be? It boasts some of the most amazing chromatic paintings from 15,000+ years ago ever! If you don't know what you are seeing or are dependent on a guide (and admittedly, not all of them speak English - I've had to translate several times for groups, for which the guide was very grateful and appreciative), I guess it might be a "let down
" in terms of customer service or something. But how on earth can something as amazing as the paintings of people related to use yet 20,000 years ago be a "let down?" Seriously. It's not Disney, you know, it's REAL. What could possibly be a "let down?" even if you didn't enjoy the guide?

anna_roz

StCirq, it was a letdown for us. We expected drawings to be clearer and a longer experience after reading so many gushing comments. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what you found so fascinating about it and I do understand the difference between Disney and real drawings, just to put your mind at ease. The drawings were faded and barely visible and the tour guide, while certainly gracious, was not informative. We did reserve an English tour. People who walked in and out with us commented that it was a disappointment. We enjoyed other caves more. As simple as that.

StCirq

<<The drawings were faded>>

That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read on the internet.

330east

They are both great. It was a privilege to be allowed to see the "works" of our ancestors and one has a sense of awe in the caves. I guess Fond de Gaume is better. A little better.

Carlux

'<<The drawings were faded>>

That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read on the internet.'

Well, yes, but I know what the poster means. When people ask us 'which cave is better?' or don't want to see Lascaux, because it's 'fake'(not our opinion) one of the things we point out is that at Lascaux, a true copy or the original, you can see and appreciate the paintings as soon as you go in. The guide turns on the lights and it's 'wow' right from the start.

At Font de Gaume it's more difficult to see some of the paintings until the guide outlines them with his/her pointer. You know they are original, but the cave has been open to the air for a fairly long time, and there is damage. As long as you understand that, you can appreciate Font de Gaume.

Digbydog

Any thought as to whether it is better to see Lascaux before Font de Gaume or vice versa? I am wondering whether it might be easier to "see" the paintings at Font de Gaume after seeing the copies at Lascaux.