We are planning a trip to Paris and are confused by what we read on the Forum about the hotel ratings. Please explain what each rating (that is, 2* thru 5*) means in terms of price, services offered, etc. Thank you all.

The tourism ministry gives one to four stars to most hotels, stars are based on things like percentage of rooms with full baths, the dimensions of the lobby and the presence of elevators and TVs. None of this may matter as much as your specific room--plus all the intangibles that aren't factored in, from the noise level to the option of having breakfast in a garden. A room in a two-star which goes out of its way to provide good service and attractive rooms could actually be nicer than the worst room in a three-star. These star ratings are based on government standards, do not confuse them with "stars" given out by guide books. <BR>This is why hotel recommendations on this forum and from other reliable sources will tell you more than the star ratings will. <BR>

Newcomer, There is a little more to it, but it goes something like this: <BR> <BR>2 Star= A rather basic hotel. Usually no restaurant, but can mean that the condition is not very good. Bathroom/shower can be down the hall on your left. Sometimes you luck out and it's just a family place, clean, comfortable, but no frills. You roll the dice here. <BR> <BR>3 Star= Somewhat better, but still limited or having more amenities, yet not recently renovated maybe. You can usually get bath/WC if requested. Sometimes it is the location that limits it. Maybe they just do the budget tourist-thing. <BR> <BR>4 Star= Is usually what we strive for, when possible. It isn't the "Ritz", but can be clean, comfortable, have good location and offer some pretty good services and staff. <BR> <BR>5 Star= This is it. You have arrived. The doorman is usually an indication that this is one of the more upscale locations offering full service: fitness center, restaurant, room service, concierge, CNN, you get the drift. They'll probably accept your American Express AND VISA. <BR> <BR>Note: Be careful, some locations (Nassau comes to mind) have 6 Star hotels that are the highest standard. Better to check out your destination first. <BR> <BR>As with each, when you add a star, you almost add a zero to the bill.

The star ratings (actually 1 through 4 in Paris) are given by the government depending on the amenities offerred. To qualify for a certain number of stars, a hotel must have certain amenities--things like ensuite baths (i.e., private bath in room), AC, elevator, laundry service, restaurants, etc. The star rating reflects only this, and not the quality of the hotel per se. I have read various claims that some hotels devalue themselves vis--vis the ratings to save on taxes. The largest overlap and most ambiguous area is between 2- and 3- star hotels, as you can fins some 3-stars that are cheaper than some 2-stars, and certainly some 2-star hotels are nicer than some 3-star ones on a subjective level. Generally, 2- or 3-star hotels will give you a comfortable stay with ensuite bath at a low-moderate to moderate price (anywhere from $65-150 for a double). A 3-star hotel will definitely have AC, TV and phone in room, an elevator, and laundry service. 2-star places will have TV and phone (I'm pretty sure) and ma or may not have the others. Expect small rooms and small baths; this is the norm in Paris. Web sites like hotelboulevard.com and paris.org have comments from past guests and list all the hotels' amenities. hotelboulevard.com and countless other commercial sites (parishotels.com, etc.) also offer photos.

Please note that the second post isn't specific too ar entirely accurate re Paris. A 3-star must have ensuite bath, the "add a zero to the price for each star" is innacurate to say the least in Paris, and there are, as Elaine and I stated, only four star ratings in Paris. Also, do not buy the idea that 2- and 3-star hotels are *likely* to be shabby. Condition varies greatly, so check the forum for reviews and the web sites mentioned above.

I disagree strongly with the second poster. We have stayed in two star hotels that were much nicer than the three star accomodations nearby. <BR>Follow Elaine and Caitlin's advice here. Both were much more correct. <BR> <BR>(I think some travel agent pulled the wool over on Lee) <BR>

Lee, what a bunch of crap! It shows how very little you know! But, then, you booked with a TOUR for Prague, didn't you. And you got taken if you think the Cloisters was remotely close to a 4 Star, what you "strive for". <BR>And your report from Prague...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Let me also add that I disagree utterly with Lee, the second poster. Too often people are under the mistaken impression that travel to Europe needs to cost tens of thousands of dollars and a large part of that comes with this weird assumption that you NEED To stay in a 4 or 5 star hotel to enjoy any degree of comfort!! NOT TRUE, often times 2 or 3 star hotels are the most charming and have a nicer staff, often it's a family hotel and they really care about your stay, as opposed to a larger/chain hotel which can often suffer from impersonal service and too many business travellers. <BR>Unfortunately I think a lot of people miss out on the real charm of Europe, either because they think it will cost WAY too much and decide not to go, or because they stay in overpriced, impersonal hotels that cater to businessmen and lack the true charm of a beloved 2 star.

I am sure (but I have my senior moments) that all 3* hotels must have en suite baths. Prices can vary by location (a 2* hotel in the 6eme will probably cost more than a 3* in the 17eme), not just number of stars. <BR> <BR>Use the recos on this forum, and visit the websites to get others' reviews (and photos) of the hotels. Everyone's criteria are different; I'd rather be within walking distance to many sights from a 2* hotel than out in the hinterlands at a 3* for the same price.

It is the poor advice written by poster number 2 who will keep people from visiting Europe and many other great world destinations. Is it done on purpose? And what's with the "you have arrived" when you stay at a five star! <BR>I have heard many people, most of whom use tours refer to this frequently, and often snobbishly. They are "proud" of the number of stars that follow the name of the hotel. What they don't know is how very lovely that little two star may be next door. <BR>We have stayed in 1,2,3,and 4 star hotels. One cannot judge a hotel by it's stars. <BR>

You people are great. Thanks for all the info. To follow up on Elvira's comment, is there any way of getting more in-depth price guidelines for Paris hotels.

I found this site today; tres cool: <BR>http://www.france.com/travel/hotels/PHG.html

Put me in the camp that disagrees with Lee vehemently, to say only a 4star+ is decent is nonsense, at least in Paris. I think the problem is that some of these comments are written for other cities, whereas the poster specifically said Paris--in fact, Lee appears not to have read the question as he talks about Nassau. On the other hand, I have never stayed in a wonderful 2-star hotel in Paris that was better than a 3-star, and am not that enchanted with them; they are often very small, cheesy and tacky (ie TVs mounted to ceiling corners), modern motel-type furniture, bathrooms that are prefab like in an airplane, etc. Yes, they are adequate but more likely to suit you if you are the kind of person who says you don't care what kind of hotel room you have, you "only sleep there." Well, I do more than that and anyway I care a lot about where I sleep, shower, etc. I also don't agree that these ratings have nothing to do with quality or mean nothing, because to me the size of rooms, presence of elevator, nice bath, etc certainly has to do with quality. Sure, you can find exceptions, but in general, 3-star hotels are nicer than 2-star hotels and if you know nothing about the hotel, it would be logical to assume they do. It isn't true that a 3-star hotel will definitely have AC as someone above said (I've stayed in many that do not); more are getting it nowadays, but it is not a criteria for 3-stars and I'd say it's only about 1/2-2/3 that do now--the more expensive ones in the prime tourist areas do more, as those appeal to American clientele who want that. Maybe someone mentioned it, but I think the main distinction of a 4-star hotel is that it is considered more oriented towards business people, so it may have more business services available (FAXing, etc) and I think it must have a restaurant (not sure on that as I think I've seen a few that do not, but they must then have room service, I believe, say from a restaurant next door). I think a 3-star musthave a lift, and someone who speaks English, at least in day time (but not nec. at night). I've never seen a 3-star hotel without TV/phones (although the TV does not always have cable and English channels, at least where I stay). Most if not all 3-star hotels have bathrms in every room, but most 2-stars do, also. Prices vary too much to say specifically, but you can find prices all over the web on all kinds of websites (Ie, www.hotelboulevard.com); they vary a lot depending on size of room and especially location in Paris more than stars, in my experience, at least in the borderline between 2-3 star hotels. Many people on this forum who stay in the most expensive tourist areas pay a lot more for a 3-star hotel than I do in Paris, because I don't stay near Notre Dame/St Germain--prices drop a lot as soon as you get 1/2 mi or more from the Seine. Some things I find very peculiar when hotels with a lot of advertised amenities have stars below what they should for that level--ie, Grand Hotel Leveque in the 7th and maybe the Muguet (I think it's only a 2-star but seems to have amentieis of 3-star?). In those cases, I think it may have to do with room size which is also a criteria, so I'd ask unless you don't care. I think some star ratings in other cities are lower than in Paris (ie, a 3-star hotel is not as nice as in Paris), so that may be what some comments refer to. Paris does not have 5-stars, but sort of has the same with a 4-starL (luxury), there are only maybe a couple of those (Crillion and something else).

Thank you for the lead on the website, Elvira. I bookmarked it for later use. <BR>Gigi <BR> <BR>

I'll join the rest in saying that the second poster hasn't got a clue! We normally stay in 3*** hotels and they have all been very nice. Comfortable furnishings, nice bathrooms, clean, decent and in pleasant surroundings. Some had dining rooms, others not but they have all been nice! All had elevators as well. More than anything the price of the hotel can depend on the area of the city it is in - the more central and closer to the big sights the costlier it will be. In other words, a 4*** in the suburbs or further out of the city will cost less than a 3*** adjacent to some famous site. Perhaps Lee has not been to Europe in a long time, whatever he needs to rethink his ideas.

Sharon, Who the hell do you think you are, some kind of critic? Thank you for showing exactly what kind of person you are by flaming me here as well as slamming our Prague trip report. <BR> <BR>I only offered that report in good faith, it wasn't for sale, maybe it was only for my records, but at no point was it supposed to be critiqued, especially by someone like you. <BR> <BR>I guess that after visiting this site for 3 1/2 years, it had to happen: some holier-than-thou, self professed "travel expert" like yourself just had to take the opportunity to snub her nose at someone only trying to help other travelers. <BR> <BR>I bet you feel good. Maybe "Lonely Planet" is an alternative. I can get that kind of opinionated and self righteous treatment there. <BR> <BR>Lori, I lived in Europe. How about you? <BR> <BR>Over three years now and I won't be back. Thanks, folks, but I didn't frequent this site for so long to be dragged through the mud because you don't agree with my views. <BR> <BR>I used to really like coming here. It's no longer fun. <BR> <BR>

Lee, <BR> <BR>The star ratings in France have specific requirements for the types of facilities/services that a hotel must have. Your generalizations sound more like AAA or other types of ratings, but are not accurate for France. Therefore, your information was misleading to the poster who was asking specifically about Paris hotels. <BR> <BR>Instead of getting so defensive, you could just admit that you were wrong and move on. <BR>

As the original poster, I want to thank you all--well, most of you anyway--for your input. Elvira, that website recommendation is great. That alone made my this a worthwhile venture!

Lee, <BR>Don't give in. You are just as welcome here to share your views as anyone else. <BR>Granted, many people who visit this site, experienced travelers or not, oftentimes try to foist their travel memories as 'the gospel truth'. In reality, each of us adds a brushstroke to the finished picture. <BR> <BR>What is most distressing is that your input was seemingly 'dissed' by the original poster that posted under the name 'Newcomer'.

Although I have not yet been to Europe,yet I enjoy coming to this forum to maybe have some clue as to what there is to see and do. I hope to make it there soon. What I find distressing is when frequently helpful contributors such as Lee are not just disagreed with, they are then insulted and at the least ridiculed. He may well be inaccurate in this instance, yet how many times has he helped others? Sharon and those of her ilk have no recollection of the times he has assisted fellow travelers. She accepted his trip report, which he was thoughtful enough to provide her, and then in fact insulted him simply because it was boring in her opinion (as in "zzzzzzz"). It she wanted Harold Sheldon, she was in the wrong forum. If Lee does not return, I for one would find it very unfortunate. Vultures such as Sharon should find other places for the demeaning of individuals only trying to assist. Those who also pounced on him should find no solace in the way he was treated as it was not in good taste at all. Tom <BR> <BR>