Am I correct in understanding that the star ratings on hotels in Italy are based on what services they provide? If so, what am I losing by stepping down from a 4-star to a 3-star, or a 3-star to a 2-star?

(If it makes any difference, I'm looking for hotels in Venice, Florence and Rome. I don't have any specific ones in mind yet.)

The way I understand it, the rating system is heavily influenced by a list of features/ amenities. Lifts/elevators, swimming pools, onsite restaurant, on site bar, 24 hour reception, air conditioning, etc. There is no guarantee that you will not have any complaint if you stay in a 'four star' hotel. So if you are capable of carrying your bags up two flights of stairs then a picturesque two star would do you fine. Actually the centrally located hotels tend to be older, so elevators and other amenities would have been retrofitted.

We stayed in a hotel a half block off of the main piazza once, it was a wonderful 500 year old hotel. There was no elevator nor air conditioning.
My point is that you might actually seek out a two star hotel in order to get a great, central location.

I agree with the poster above. But I also think that you lose some in terms of room quality every time you step down a star or two, especially in Italy, where even a 4-star hotel would not necessarily merit that same award elsewhere.

But we stayed in the yuckiest 3 star in Arezzo. There was a huge lobby, parking, bar, elevator and such goodies that merit the government's 3 star rating. However, it was dingy and smelly.

In that particular case, we would probably have been better off with one of the two stars that I rejected because of the star rating.

I do know about this because until recently a long time close friend in Italy was a manager of a hotel in Italy.

The stars awarded to hotels have nothing to do with the decor, the beauty of the room and furnishings etc. It depends on the service. Elevators, room service, breakfast room, bar, airconditioning etc.

And it has always been explained to me the more stores that a hotel has the higher percent a hotel pays in taxes. So some hotels that are quite lovely do not offer say room service because they do not want an extra star as that will increase the percent of taxes that they have to pay to the government.

Yes GoAway, you are correct, the hotel star ratings in Italy are based on the services not the decor etc. And as I am writing this I agree with the other posters comments, Big_Red, Tuscanlifeedit.

A 4-star can be a filthy, nasty mess with lousy service and keep its 4 stars as long as it has an elevator, a/c, a lobby in the same building, concierge, meeting rooms, restaurant, bar, and other features that go into the point system.

On the other hand, the best hotel in the country cannot be rated better than 2-stars if the check-in is in a separate area.

It's likely that a 3-star will be nicer, cleaner, better staffed than a 2-star, 4-star nicer than 3-star, etc. But there are no guarantees.

I think they have given thought to changing the point system somewhat, but I haven't heard that it's happened yet.

The above responses reinforce the recommendation that hotels should be selected after researching several sources. Don't go just by the number of stars. Don't go by the rave review of one person or one guide book.

Read several guide books (in the book store or at the library), check travel magazines, scan several websites (Fodors, Tripadvisor, etc.), ask friends and acquaintances who've been where you're planning to go. If you have a good experience at a hotel in one town, ask them if they can recommend a hotel in the other town you'll be visiting. You may begin to notice some of the same hotels mentioned many times.