I'm probably slaughtering the spelling of these two sights but I don't have my Paris book handy. Anyway, which would you pick if you were going to Paris for the first time? I saw Versailles 20 years ago, but my husband and son have never been to France. We are in Paris for one week and have time to see just one of the two.

When I went to Paris for the first time I picked Versailles. I can't say which you and your family would prefer. <BR>Vaux was built first and to my mind is more subtle than Versailles; not plain by any means, just less over-the-top. <BR>Vaux has the advantage of offering <BR>candle-lit evening visits from May to October when it is open; I believe that Vaux's hours during the winter are more limited than Versailles's. Versailles <BR>is certainly unforgettable however and is a bit easier to get to by public transportation (RER train from Paris to Versailles-Rive Gauche.) <BR>www.vaux-le-vicomte.com/eng/accueil.htm <BR>For train service, go to : http://voyages.sncf.fr/ <BR>www.chateauversailles.fr

To go to Vaux you have to take a train to Melun,and take a taxi to the palace,there is no bus and walking is out of question.It was 2 years ago and one way ride was 15 usd,a bit expensive.Or you can rent a car. <BR>For a first visit definitely go Versailles,and take not only the normal tour ,which is included in the entrance fee,but take the guided tour and the audioguide tour as well,because the really nice parts you can see only that way.

I have visited both Versailles and Vaix le Vicomte as well as Fontainebleau. <BR>Paris Vision (I think I am recall correctly.) Has a day bus tour that goes to both Vaux and Fontainebleau. <BR>Seeing both in one day is a little much, but if your time is limited, I will put up with "little much" as opposed to "not at all". <BR> <BR>I visited Versailles on my second Paris trip last year. Last summer we went to Vaux and Fontainebleau. Had I gone to Vaux first, I might never have gotten to Versailles. <BR> <BR>Versailles is a grander structure than Vaux le Vicomte. <BR>But it is hard to believe that real people lived there. The gardens have been rebuilt to some extent following the terrible storms of last winter. <BR>But the huge trees that went over cannot be replace. <BR>Both Fontainebleau and Versailles represent a big chunk of French history. <BR>Napoleon used Fontainebleau as his residence. And many kings of France used it as a rural retreat, euphemistically called a "hunting lodge". <BR>On the other hand, the architectural completeness and artistic interior decorating of Vaux puts it into a class by itself. I am not one who thinks that <BR>the larger the better. Vaux struck me as being the consummate achievement of the designers' art; a near perfect small ruby as opposed to the huge, but slightly flawed, diamond that is Versailles. Fontainebleau is a hodge podge of architectural styles. Some lovely, some merely lavish, but always interesting. <BR>By the way the same three men who created Vaux, le Nostre, le Brun, and le Vau were "requested" buy Louis XIV to build Versailles. Vaux was never really finished because Louis threw the owner Nicolas Forquet into jail after a big party at the almost completed mansion. <BR>The landscaping you see is a reconstruction, but you can get a good idea of the genius of Andre Le Notre. <BR>And the interiors are the work of le Brun, and the architect was le Vau. <BR>It is quite an achievement artistically!! Versailles strikes me as the expression of an absolute monarch's obsession with power. <BR>So I think the basic decision is this: <BR>Do you want artistry over history?? <BR>Or vice versa??

No comparison. We found Vaux le Vicomte splendid, but nothing, just nothing, comes close to Versailles for grandeur. <BR> <BR>Vaux has little but the main building and some quite nice but relatively unexceptional grounds. The main building at Versailles is far larger, more grand. There are many more buildings, and the gardens are extensive and quite exceptional. <BR> <BR>To boot, Vaux is unfurnished. <BR> <BR>If you have a chance to see Vaux le Vicomte do so, by all means. But not at the expense of seeing Versailles.

Just to muddy the water a little, Fountainbleau is really very elegant too -- and it's a neat place to visit.

Thanks for all the info. I think we'll hit Versailles this time around and visit Vaux de Vicomte and Fontainebleau next time. Unless we have an extra day - which I doubt, given our list of things to do and see. We have a week but now that we are in the deep planning stages it seems so short.

In response to the assertion above the Vaux le Vicomte is not furnished, I would like to state that some of the rooms have been beautifully refurnished. <BR>For examle the Chambre des Muses, or Forquet's bed chamber is absolutely stunning with tapestries, couches, sculpture and paintings. <BR>Madame Forquet's room is also well done with furniture and paintings. <BR> <BR>The architectural innovations at Vaux are truly amazing. The dome covering the rotunda was the most significant achievement by Le Vau, but many other intricate details were worked into the facades and cornices of the structure. <BR> <BR>I admit that Versailles is more grandiose, larger, more ostentacious, and more lavish than Vaux. But size alone does not make an edifice better or more beautiful, nor does gold ornamentation necessarily mean good taste. To me, as I stated earlier, Vaux is a small, virtually flawless, small jewel. By comparison, Versailles struck me as a display of ostentacious bragging by an abolute monarch who had to constantly remind people that he was the king and the most powerful monarch of Europe. <BR> <BR>I look at these places to admire the engineering skill, the work of the artists and decorators, and the landscapers. The size and expensive <BR>vases and chandeliers do not necessarily express superior artistry; instead, I see them as the product of a mind set that said bigger is better because I, Louis XIV King of France, said so! <BR>To that I say balderdash, or even words with more epithetical vigor. <BR>