strange break there -- wasn't exactly where the paragraph should have gone, but I think you can follow it...

We are often finding posters who use discreet phrases about what they want to spend, and their discretion or embarrassment over naming a particular price covers the range: "reasonable", "cheap",
"moderate", etc.

I think it's possible that rather than saying 'out loud' "I can spend up to $1000 per day", or whatever their highest price is in their own minds, they simply are coy like the others and use yet another euphemistic phrase: "money is no object."

Would we think it any more tactful if they said "I want only the best hotels in the city" or, "I want only 5-star hotels" or "I have as much money as I could possibly need for hotels"? If they gave no indication of budget at all, we'd be critical that they weren't defining their price.

As has come up on other threads, we don't know the details of people's financial circumstances, AND, it's none of our business. They may be millionaires, they may have been saving up for this trip, they may have had an inheritance, they may have just gotten a job promotion, they may have just had their last child leave the nest, they may have been scrimping and saving for years.
I don't think a high budget is inherently more objectionable, or less worthy of help, than a low budget.

I agree Elaine. If fact some people that can afford a 5 start hotel for one reason or another have never been outside the US and consequently probably need more advice and help than say Marilyn, who has travelled from a very young age (lucky woman!).
I have known people that didn't go to Europe until their mid 60's, when they retired and didn't have a clue as to where to go, what hotels, sightseeing etc. But when they finally went they were able to go without worrying about their travel budget.

I know people that could stay anywhere they wanted but prefer and are very happy with 3 star lodgings and people that owe so much on their credit cards (they have told me the amounts) that have to have the very best of everything (which is why no doubt they have the credit card balances they have).

If I could I would be no doubt travelling consequently. But I do not have to have a 5 star hotel. But I sure want a good area, a clean room and bath, a comfortable bed etc. Imagine that is probably like a majority of us.

And probably like a lot of us even if "money were no object" there is still a limit as to what I spend on something. I always chuckle when I read about $700.00 white Tshirts.

May all of us have enough to follow our dreams, to have some wonderful trips and also be financially sound. Cheers.

I'm with you, LoveItaly. I used to patronise 5* hotels when someone else (my employer) was paying the bill, but I have no interest in shelling out my own money for a whole lot of stuff that I don't need - big glitzy foyers (I just want to check in), uniformed flunkeys (I can still open a door and wheel my own luggage without damage to health or ego), conference facilities (finished with all that, thank God), restaurants and room service (there are usually plenty of better places to eat than the hotel), etc. A clean, comfortable 3* with efficient and polite staff and working plumbing is fine with me.

In fact, I'm quite prepared to try a private room in a hostel which meets the above criteria. I'm told you meet a nicer class of person there anyway.

Hello Neil, I think that what you enjoy is what I enjoy. Have not stayed at a hostel but if I were younger I would give it a try, except I probably wouldn't come to think of it as I do want my own ensuite bathroom.

Neil, one thing I love in my hotel room is a coffemaker and coffee. I really love to have my coffee when I first wake up. I can live without it until I am showered, dressed etc. but a few cups of coffee before all that is bliss for me. Take care!

Ah, well, LoveItaly, coffee is one of the five essential food groups, isn't it? Often we've had to resort to carrying around a jar of instant coffee - any caffeine will do in a pinch. This brings a lot of Australians and New Zealanders undone, as they're used to having at least a supply of instant coffee and a fridge in even the cheapest motels. And during our last trip, to China, it was a case of stocking up at the nearest convenience store or going in search of a Starbucks.

Even in the US the only hotels we found with a coffee maker were the pricier ones we used, although some of the others provided a thin liquid they claimed was coffee in an urn in the foyer. A gallon or so of that was usually enough to give me my morning fix, but it was hell on the bladder.

I don't know if any hostels offer an en suite bathroom, but I do agree that that's desirable. We once stayed in an unserviced place in Boston where one bathroom was shared by three guest rooms, but that wasn't a problem, as one of the rooms was vacant and the other was occupied by an English couple .

There isn't anyone in the world for whom money is no object, although a lot of people like to create that impression about themselves.

Anyway, the amount you spend on a hotel should be a function of how much time you plan to spend inside the hotel room and how much money you are spending on the trip overall. The more of your trip you plan to spend sitting in your room and admiring it, the greater the percentage of your total trip budget you should dedicate to hotel costs.

Overall budget counts, too. Five percent of a $10,000 budget is more than five percent of a $1000 budget.

If you plan only to see the sights on a trip, without power shopping, your major expenses will be accommodation and meals (plus airfare, of course). If you are going on a trip specifically to shop, or for other purposes that involve major expenditures, the expense of accommodation may pale in comparison. All of this influences how much you should be willing or plan to pay.

When seeking advice being concise and direct is more effective than making “inferences” about what you want and/or need. This is an advice forum, not the Junior League, but frequent posters here seem to demand that one sugarcoat true meaning in the name of etiquette. So you would say looking for a “splurge” in Paris instead of saying “willing to pay up to 750 Euro” (or “Money is no Object” instead of an actual dollar amount). Which is going to get you better advice? I used words like “fine” and “exclusive” in a post once because those were the most precise words available to me in my native language (ENGLISH), and was thoroughly admonished. While I would never discuss money with my girlfriends or talk about how lucky I was to get past a discriminating door witch, I wouldn’t hesitate to discuss it with my travel agent or concierge, and when seeking or giving advice in an anonymous ADVICE forum, such as this, I think it should be encouraged.

MaddieAstrid, I agree that specific requests are best if one is hoping to draw specific answers. However, this isn't invariably the case. Even though, as Elaine points out, people properly should answer factual questions with factual answers, many respondents can't seem to resist giving advice as to what is the 'correct' VALUE of purchase that a tourist should seek. It may well be a matter of statistical fact that the average tourist spends eight hours a day in a hotel room, but it isn't a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion, as to the value those eight hours represent to a given person. Nor is it even particularly relevant to indicate what oneself spends on a hotel room, as if oneself is some kind of magical standard of good value. For that matter, as my earlier post indicated, getting value might not even be a goal of the person at all, but rather an escape experience, and such an experience has nothing to do with practical considerations like good value.

Another difficulty is that if someone knows enough about a market to know that a given sum will be sufficient to secure for them a hotel of a certain quality range in a given geographical area, they are less likely to be asking for advice about the hotel market in the first place. That, to me, is what 'money is no object' means - that someone wishes to keep as a constant a certain quality, or perhaps a certain experience, while being willing to accept price as a variable. Until I read this thread, I never thought it could be interpreted as a brag, as in, "I am so rich, I don't care about money."

As I read my last post it occurred to me that I've forgotten to account for the human tendency to wish to conform. Although people should not have to justify why they might wish to depart from the norm, or at least depart from the norms believed to prevail amongst a certain group (like this board), in practice people often feel strongly compelled to make such justification, as in describing why their personal circumstances render a departure from the norm justified. ("It's a special occasion", or "A member of my family has special physical needs...&quot In return, the people advising them often feel the strong need to establish a 'norm', even though a 'norm' is often pretty meaningless (like 'average' height is meaningless, given the variation between sexes and races with respect to height.)

Conformity, I must remember, has its uses. It's just that it can also be so darn irritating from time to time.

I am certainly not in the position to say "money is no object" but when I travel I will stay in the best hotel affordable for me. To me the difference in a 3* and 5* is lightyears, as evident in our last trip to Amalfi and Tuscany. If you can afford it why not I say? Some people can afford it but can't seem to fathom spending way more money for lodging than necessary. Oh well, I'm not one of them. The amenities and comfort are a big difference to me. I'm a physician so my salary allows me to be more free when chosing hotels and restaurants, and frankly I don't worry about how much I spend when I'm on vacation.

Good point, Opusx.

Being that I work full-time, vacation is a treasured quality time for me and my family and whenever we go, we go for hotels and restaurants that provide the highest possible products and service that we can afford. We do enjoy staying at small and remote B&B's, by choice, especially when travelling through French countryside.

But, to us, why scrimp on a vacation that potentially becomes less relaxing and, potentially more stressful, than staying at home?

Up until a year and a half ago, when my former job required me to be in Europe more often than I (eventually) got tired of, I stayed at company-expensed 5 * hotels and my wife would tack on her vacation toward the end of my business trips. Now that I pay for my hotel expenses during our vacation, I've had the chance to experience the difference between a 3 and 5 star hotels. Hence, we've cut down on our European trips to about 2 to 3 times a year just so we can sleep and bathe, at the very least, as comfortably (or better) than had we stayed home.

Blah, blah, blah, sweetie. Who cares what others can afford?? Worry about yourself and how YOU are going to spend your holiday. The fact that someone can spend $1000 a night on their hotel room doesn't interest me in the least because it is not MY experience. Really, darling, all this worrying about the Jones family is oh, so middle class.

I've probably posted such a statement, why?? Because I am willing to pay, many times-not always, for a very nice hotel. We enjoy staying in luxury hotels, sometimes we spend a great deal of time in our rooms, we like luxury and are willing to pay for it. If the price is very high in a certain area, we may adjust a day or two for a shorter trip. Giving such information helps me get a good reply from others. BTW, I don't work, we are retired. Money is an overall object, but when planning some trips a certain restaurant or hotel price is not as important as the experience I'm looking to gain. I don't understand the argument about not spending much time in hotel so get a cheap one.

How much someone spends is nobody's business. Try to answer the question.

"Anyway, the amount you spend on a hotel should be a function of how much time you plan to spend inside the hotel room and how much money you are spending on the trip overall. The more of your trip you plan to spend sitting in your room and admiring it, the greater the percentage of your total trip budget you should dedicate to hotel costs."

"Should" "Should"
sheesh
Those are not my shoulds, and I wouldn't presume to offer them to anyone else.
The amount I wish to spend on a hotel, and I believe this goes for anyone, depends simply and only on whatever the heck the individual wishes to spend.
Period. That goes when I'm scrimping in order to squeeze out an additional trip, and it goes when I'm splurging (or my companion is). It has nothing whatever to do with the number of hours I spend in the hotel room, since I would say I spend an average or below average amount of time inside the hotel. When I AM inside the hotel, I want it to be comfortable and pleasant as I define that.
Sometimes comfortable is the bare minimum, sometimes, not nearly as often as I'd like, 'pleasant' is very luxurious indeed. Nice work if you can get it.

I have posted some threads where I've said price is not an issue. I'm sure I've never used the precise words "money is no object" (which strikes me as sort of tactless).

When traveling to certain places, I know that any hotel or restaurant will be within our budget. Disneyworld is a good example.

In other instances, I want to know what the nicest hotels are but I won't necessarily stay at the most expensive one. Knowing the range of upper end accomodations give me an impression of the location overall. For instance, when investigating ski resorts, I learn a lot by knowing what the upper end of accomodations are. I don't stay in the most expensive suite at the Stein Eriksen Lodge in Deer Valley but I can get a sense of the value of the condo I do book.