Sandy

I'd like to hear people's opinions on their ideas for venturing into a new country with time constraints? If posed with the situation of having only 10 or so days in a country, would you rather spend 3 days in a few cities, or 5 days in 2 cities? Would you dig in your heels and see as much as possible in a city, or skim the surface and see the major sites? <BR> <BR>The reason I am interested in this topic is my upcoming trip to Italy. We are planning 11 days in Italy and plan to see 3 areas. In my situation, I have a gentleman's farm, so it's very difficult for us to get away! It may be years before we could return. For me, on this trip I want to see as much as possible but still be realistic. I know others have shared their views and believe it is best to limit the amount of traveling from within to truly enjoy the experience. <BR> <BR>How do you all feel about this?

wendy

No matter where I've gone in the world I find that without at least 3 whole days (not travel days) in a city I just can't get the "feel" for it. I have skimmed cities before but I've know that I have the opportunity to go back realatively soon if I desire to. When I was in Italy and wanted to see as much as possible I spent 1 day in Milan, 4 days in Venice and 6 days in Rome.

Judy

Hi Sandy, To skim or delve: that is the question. I love to "delve", but sometimes there just isn't enough time, money or inclination. For example, I want to visit York and the UK in March, dilemma? do "lots" or do "it" well, My preference is to hunker down in one area, and take some of day trips. <BR> I once did a Mediterranean cruise with 7 differant ports of call in 12 days. I did not care for the "hurry up and see stuff" routine. I would never go on that type of cruise again. Now, I feel more like delving, not skimming. <BR> Judy <BR>

elvira

I had just two days to visit Venice and got a taste; I didn't get to see nearly as much as I wanted so I was disappointed. If I hadn't gone at all, then I'd have been really disappointed. <BR> <BR>If someone asked if they could "skim" Paris is two days, I'd tell them that's not skimming, that's flying over the surface at 600 miles an hour. They'd come back and say "I don't know what the big deal is about Paris". <BR> <BR>So, I guess I'm saying that if you skim, know you'll be disappointed and that you won't get to see what the big deal is; if you delve, you'll miss other places, so you'll be disappointed about that. Pick your poison.

Capo

Hi Sandy. On my first few trips to Europe, I skimmed (with the exception of London, where I spent ten days out of a total of six weeks on my first trip.) <BR> <BR>Since then, however, I've delved, usually going to one large city for most of the time with one, or maybe two, short side trips. <BR> <BR>If it's hard for you to get away, you think it may be years before you could return, and you want to see as much as possible, then I'd recommend skimming. If you were trying to visit three different countries in eleven days, that might get tiring. But if you're staying within one country, as you are, then it shouldn't be too bad. <BR> <BR>In any case, you've picked a wonderful country to visit and I'm sure you'll have a great time there regardless of how much, or how little, you choose to see.

Kavey

Dear Sandy <BR> <BR>Another delver I am afraid. <BR> <BR>I also have been on tour holidays, many of them during family holidays, and though I loved the chance they have given me to see so many places, I have always felt that I am still hanging out the coach window with arms reaching for the last place, feel torn from it before I am finished and on the way to the next. <BR> <BR>Now I plan my own trips, I always base in one place, and make a couple of day trips from there. <BR> <BR>We are going to spend 6 days in Venice in March and will probably only venture out of the lagoon once. <BR> <BR>Kavey

elaine

Sandy <BR>there isn't anything about travel, as in life, that there aren't differing opinions about. Everyone's style and preferences are so personal. <BR>Since you mention that it is hard for you to get away, I will suggest that <BR>you concentrate on the big 3 of Rome, Venice, and Florence. How much time in each place will depend on what interests you. Florence is Renaissance art and architecure heaven, for such a small city it abounds in museums. If art isn't so much your cup of tea, spend perhaps two days in Florence, and one day on a day trip elsewhere in Tuscany (Siena, San Gimignano, etc) if the weather is good. <BR>Rome is very large and spread out, larger than the sum of its parts. <BR>Again, depending on your interests, <BR>the Vatican alone can easily take a whole day, and the Forum/Colosseum can take at least half a day. <BR>Venice is my favorite, my dream place. <BR>The experience of the city is even better than what's inside the art museums and churches. <BR>If you truly have 11 full days to plan, <BR>assume you'll lose at least half a day, perhaps 2/3, just by traveling from one city to another. As a way to start, <BR>I'd suggest allocating 3 full days in each city. Then figure out your train or plane schedules to get you from one place to another. <BR>Allocate any time left over, or saved, either to Rome because of its size, or to daytrips, depending on your interests. <BR>If you are flying in or out of Milan, you may be able to also work in one day in the lake area on your way to or from Venice, but I wouldn't recommend taking any of your precious time for Milan itself, at least not on this trip. <BR>

cj

Hi Sandy - This is my experience with delve and skim. We visited some friend in Madrid and spent 6 wonderful days touring the whole city. Went to many tourist attractions and to plenty of local places we really delve into Madrid, but of course we had wonderful tour guides. From there we went to Barcelona and got onto a cruise ship and did the Med. Talk about skimming. We hit a different port every day. We never got the flavor of any city. We took the cruise tour and ventured off by ourselves (one hour free time) got lost and spent a whold day trying to find the tour group and missed all of Rome. The other cities we just skimmed over and wished that we had at least three days in each one. We did got back to Rome and spent three days there and got to see all that we missed the first time and Malta for two days and a couple of other cities that we always wanted to see. My vote is three days in each city. Enjoy not matter what you decide.

Bob Brown

Hi Sandy. I think it is a choice that you have to make after taking into consideration where you are and where your interests lie and what you want to know about the world around you. For example, I have been to Paris three times total and, in recent years, have spent 10 days there. <BR>I like Paris, so skimming there is not what I want to do. I hope to return sometimes in 2002 when my bank account has recovered and see some of the places I have yet to visit and revisit some of those places I have not finished seeing. <BR>On the other hand, I would be quite content to skim some places that do not interest me, or avoid them completely and invest me time where I want to be. <BR>Vienna is another city that I could visit again and enjoy it. Part of the attraction of Vienna, however, is the vast opportunity to hear skilled musicians play and perform great music. <BR>We recently spent 4 days in Vienna and every evening was spent at either the opera or a concert venue. I have yet to get enough of the Vienna music scene and could return year after year. <BR>I think the big argument against skimming is that you return home with the "Belgium Syndrone" wherein you really don't know what you have seen or where you have been. The details run together in a big blur. (The Belgium reference concerns a book [I think] that described a visit to Europe. The title was If it is Tuesday, It Must be Belgium.) <BR>I think there is another side to the issue, too. If you are just skimming along, why are you there? If the location is not worth getting to know, why invest the time and money in getting there to start with? And, finally, does anything in life interest you to the extent that you want to learn about it? <BR> <BR>Let me give you an analogy. I know two Europeans. Both claim to speak 3 foreign languages. (English being to them a school-learned language.) One, I am quite sure, has only superficial knowledge because his knowledge of English is weak despite his claims. He knows a few words, but he would be hard pressed to exist where he had to have real knowledge. My other friend has earned graduate degrees at Universities where all three non native languages were involved. I would say that the first person is a skimmer. The second one has knowledge in depth. Which type do you want to be?

Thyra

My husband and I are what I would characterise as: Serial Skimmers. <BR> <BR>We spend either 1-3 nights in a town and move on to the next town... but if we feel that the vibe of a particular place was great, and we feel as though we've left something out, we return,,, and return and return.. never staying more then a day or two at a time but seeing different things each time. <BR>Face it, places like Rome London Paris etc, you can't delve into with the span of lifetimes. <BR>Of course we would love to be delvers... but until we retire, we will continue to skim and skim and skim... <BR>

greg

When you pose the question bis a bis in this manner "skim or delve", the answer would be "delve" expecially from experienced travellers who have already been to major places. <BR> <BR>However, if you pose the question differently: after taking this trip, if you find yourself unable to travel again, which way would you have regretted the least? Then the answer can be different. You mentioned difficulty in making the trip again. <BR> <BR>While many subscribe to "always plan on coming back" again, so why skim philosophy, I have seen many acquaintances whose day of next trip never came for various reasons.

Patrick

I think you've answered your own question when you add that you may not be able to return for a long time. Many people have posted that they hated Rome, or Venice, or were bored silly in Florence. Can you imaging planning this "once in a lifetime" type of trip for one area, getting there, and really not liking it? I say skim. If the situation were different, delving is a whole lot better. But I say give yourself wonderful memories of 3 areas instead of just one. I think the basic plan is simple -- Rome, Venice, and Florence, and if you're really into the coutryside then it would be hard to pass up a night or two in Tuscany. For 11 nights I'd do 3 in Rome, 2 in Florence, 3 in Tuscany (perhaps San Gimagnano if you have a car), and 3 in Venice. You won't have experienced anything in great depth, but you will have a lifetime of Italian memories.

Jeanette

I asked myself the question that Sandy has here so many times. It took me years to find my own style of travel. If I have never been to a country before, I favor the skim. I did the 14 days and 5 countries one time. Glad I was young as it took so much energy and I was sick for a week after I got home. <BR>But I do not regret it at all. It was barely an introduction-and NO you do not get a real feel or knowledge of any one place. But having done that, I did know where I would like to delve and what places had the style and activities that I delve well with. <BR> <BR>Sandy, you have to know what kind of travel experiences you like the best. If you like doing 2 museums, plus 1 or 2 train rides a day on every day of your vacation- you may love doing a skim of 3 or 4 cities. If you like to sip wine and lie on a beach every third day, then you would hate the skim vacation. I personally would not spend 6 days in Rome or 3/4 in Venice. Many would. I would rather spent 2 whole days at Pompeii or Herculeum and then go to the Amalfi. But having time restraints in this imperfect world is a true reality. I've done the delve now twice in areas that I found delightful while skimming and neither were in any big city areas. As above posters express so well, you have to know yourself and also what fits into your interest areas.

Judy

Add my name to the skimmers. The first time I went to Europe I thought I'd never go back, and I wanted to be able to remember as many things as I could for the rest of my life. It was a bit hectic but I did get a feel for a lot of places, and most importantly, an idea of where I would like to return to "delve" if I ever got the chance. Much to my pleasure and surprise, I have been able to go back to Europe many times since then, and now choose where I go to satisfy whatever longing I may have at the time. I'll be in Paris over Thanksgiving, strolling through the back streets, soaking up the feeling in the little bookshops, lingering in some of the small museums that are way down the list, and avoiding the usual tourist attractions, which I'm glad to have seen, but once was enough. I would do the skim thing again, as it gave me a really good grounding for the whole experience. <BR> <BR>Have a wonderul time! Italy is fantastic, whether skimming or delving, and I've done both there.

mark

I more of a diver - for me a vacation is about relaxing. I really can't relax if I know I'm going to be here 3 days then there for 2 days and so forth. Solution? I take one leisurely vacation and one active trip. This year for vacation I went to Budapest & Rome for 16 days. This December I'm going back to Budapest (due to a voucher I have to use before the end of the year on Malv) for 5 days split by a vist to Vienna for 3 days. I'm in the mood to "motor" so to speak this time. But - hands down - if I had to choose - 10 days in one place (except maybe Milan proper)

Cheryl Z.

<BR>Sandy, <BR>I think skimming is the foundation for delving on future trips. And since you think you may not be able to return soon, I think you're better off skimming this time. Whatever you decide, you'll love Italy. (PS - what do you mean by having a "gentleman's farm"? I think I've heard the expression, but can't remember what it means....and I come from a long line of farmers!))

russ i

I think you can strike a balance between the two. We had exactly the same timeframe and dilemma our first trip to Italy in 1995. Below you will find the destinations and number of nights we spent at each: <BR> <BR>Milan 1 - Enough time to adjust to time zone and see the Duomo, Last Supper, Galleria Vittorio Emauelle II and La Scala. <BR> <BR>Cinque Terre 2 - Enough time to hike the 5 towns and enjoy the wonderful food and scenery <BR> <BR>Florence 3 - Never enough time, but we jammed a lot into 2 very full days <BR> <BR>Venice 3 - After all the museums in Florence, we stayed out doors and spent our time wandering and soaking up the atmosphere. Have been back 5 times since and see new things every time. <BR> <BR>Bellagio 2 - Great place to hang out and rest our weary feet. Taking the ferry to Cernobbio and enjoying the scenery. <BR> <BR>The beauty of this itinerary for us is that it combined cities and small towns. It also makes a nice circle. We rented a car, so we were able to stop in Pisa and Lucca on the way from the 5 Terre to Florence, and drove through the Dolomites between Venice and Bellagio (mistake, it added 6 hours to what would have been a 3 hour drive). However, this could very easily be done by train. We did not use the car once we arrived at any of our desitinations, so it was kind of a waste of money. And driving in the cities (Milan, Florence) was frustrating. <BR> <BR>Another option might be Rome 4, Florence 3 and Tuscan countryside 4. This will give you a nice balance between delve and skim. Have fun!

Vita

Hi, Sandy. It really depends on what areas you intend to visit and your own personality. I like to delve. On the trip I just took in October, I spent 5 nights in Rome, 4 nights in Siena, and 5 in Florence. In the case of Siena, 4 nights turned out to be too long, but Siena was also where I bounced around the most because I was visiting a lot of the Tuscan towns. In the case of Rome and Florence, 5 nights was great for me because I got to see the major sights at a very relaxed pace. In fact, I didn't see everything I wanted to see, but I had no desire to push myself on my vacation. That's just my personality, though.

JFM

I am a skimmer. I have been on 2 long European vacations (37 days/ 7 countries in 1993 and 28 days/ 6 countries in 1999). I have a short attention span. Also, I figure that your 20's and 30's are for seeing the world (I'm 29) and your 40's and 50's are for returning to the places you liked. For example, I went to college in Southern England for 10 months in 1992-93, and I am going to London this weekend to see soccer and go back to some of the places I visited when younger. When you go to a buffet, you don't just load up on one or two items on your first trip, unless you've been to the buffet before. You sample, and then go back and get only the items you want. <BR> <BR>I am going to Japan this summer for 11 days and will definitely be skimming. I feel like unless you live in a foreign country, you are going to be skimming anyway. <BR> <BR>That said, do not go nuts. I knew a guy who took a 20+ hour train trip in 1992 from Central Europe just to go look at Lillehammer (Olympics). He was screwed up for 3 days trying to recover, and it ruined the rest of his vacation. <BR> <BR>P.S. I hate Rome.

Patrick

I think we should award a star to Sandy for this new terminology. Skim and Delve is the perfect description for what we all constantly talk about doing, but I've never heard those two exact terms. Note how we have all jumped onto using the same words. Or am I wrong? Have other people used these terms and I just never noticed?