Would you stay in least expensive room in a luxury 5 star or top room in a top 4 star: Paris
 

Hi all!

Friends of ours are going to Paris and since I am at odds in advising them on hotels since I've been to Paris numerous times, but stay with friends and on occasion a hotel, I thought all you dears can help.

Here are their questions:

They have narrowed ( although its not really narrow) hotel choices. They are the top hotels in Paris. They can afford very nice surroundings, but their real question , I believe is the perceived value of these properties. They will not however choose the highest priced room at the top 5 stars, their limit is the lowest priced rooms at the top 5 star or they can afford the better rooms at the top 4 star.

So here are their choices. When I also explained to them the city layout, all of the hotels locations were fine to them, left or right bank, it did not really matter as long as it was pretty central. They are major walkers and love metros and public transportation. Their interests are wide and varied.

5 star choices: Would get the standard rooms:( they were not interested in the Ritz however)

Four Seasons George V
Crillon
Plaza Athenee
Meurice
Le Bristol

4 star: Would go beyond a standard room, not necessarily a suite or the very top room. Beyond a standard room here still were less than the standard rooms in the above mentioned hotels.

Pavillion De la Reine
D'Aubusson
L'Hotel

They are fine with either cozy and romantic or grand and glitzy.

I got from the discussion with them I think it will boil down to size of room, room decor ( the more comfortable and plusher the better), largest bathroom, of course service ( which can be formal, but not unfriendly. While the hotel amenities do not need to include everything imaginable, it is would be nice to have a fitness center and spa.

I think they really do not want to spend more than 700-$750USD a night( I think it's all nuts, but who am I to change a mind, they are pretty set on doing it up)

I have gone into many of these hotels during my trips and found them all to be lovely. But that was not as a guest, so if you kind folks can give your 2 cents if you've stayed at these properties and better still if you've stayed at more than one for comparison, that would be so helpful! If you have strong feelings, favorable or unfavorable about any of the above hotels, please do tell!

Otherwise, my friends are all set for the trip( I planned all their activities for them and gave them numerous suggestions for restaurants, etc). They will be there July, 2006.

thanks a mil....

I personally would choose the least expensive room in the luxury hotel just because the suroundings and the service would probably be so nice and I don't really need to be in the very best rooms to be happy in a hotel. Just my opinion. Whatever choice your friends make I'm sure they will have a great time. They have good options it sounds like.

Hi trip,

All of your hotels are outside my wage grade, so I can only answer, "Would you stay in least expensive room in a luxury 5 star or top room in a top 4 star: Paris?<

I would rather be the most important guest in a 4* than the least important guest in a 5*.

((I))

Me too.

Personally, I'd go for a better room in a 4* rather than the smallest room in a 5*. Chances are I would then be able to go for a lovely large room with seating area and desk or table and chairs too plus a larger bathroom. Perhaps even a proper outdoor balcony or terrace...

From my (limited) experience there sometimes isn't as much of a difference between 4 and 5 star properties as people might expect (though it does of course depend on the properties, especially when some of the so-called 5* should more accurately be rated 6*) and the ratings depend on whether the hotel has some amenity or other that is irrelevant to me anyways.

Given that both 4* and 5* hotels should be offering excellent service that hopefully shouldn't come into it...

In reality, I don't often go for 4 or 5 stars because I'd rather spend the money on other aspects of the trip, including being able to stay longer, but that's just my priorities and I appreciate that accommodation is a higher priority for your friends.

ira put it perfectly :)

For example, I'd much rather be in the Pavillon De la Reine's Duplex Suite (620 Euros rack rate, probably available for less) or the Victor Huge Suite (790 Euros rack rate) than a standard (superior) room at the Le Bristol for 680 Euros.

Then again even the superior rooms (which I think are the most basic) at the Four Seasons (which are 710 Euros) are gorgeous and one does get the spa, the sumptious public areas and the whole Four Seasons experience. I'd love to stay here for sure so it's not entirely a black and white choice...

Maybe they need to pick a price range, and then look at photos of the rooms within that price at each hotel plus consider the amenities at each place and then decide?

I don't have the euro for any of the hotels you mentioned. But if I had a choice I'm with the others who said choose the best room in the 4* hotel. Sometimes you get more personalized service at a small 4* than a palatial 5*. It would tick me off to pay more than 700 euro for a 5* hotel room and receive poor service.

When did they start issuing 5* ratings?

I have been under the impression that the the highest rating is "4* delux'.

((I))

4 is the highest, Ira.

Count me in for the top 4-star room, for all the reasons mentioned.

mom

Yeah, I thought 4* was the highest rating too. However, if you check www.parisby.com they actually do have a category for 5* including hotels such as the Crillon and the Meurice.

I mentally count a French 4* deluxe as a 5*...

I don't care whether we call them A B and C or 1 2 and 3 or Bill Ben and Bongo, I think we all know what tripgirl is referring to when she talks about 4* and 5* hotels, no?

Your're right. I saw the toplist.com.

Let's forget about the French ratings system, we all know what you mean when you talk about 5 and 4 starred hotels in Paris.

I'd always go for the 5 star property. Firstly, the public areas, facilities, restaurants, bars, etc. will all be far superior. As for the room, the services and amenities offered will again be much better in the 5 star property. It's always better to have the best you can afford in the best category available. It's a little like having a smaller house in Mayfair as opposed to a mansion in Wales.

http://goeurope.about.com/cs/hotels/a/hotel_stars.htm

this explains the ratings.

That list of 5* hotels was accurate in that they are 4*L hotels, not just 4*. I know many people get bent out of shape by calling them 5* rather than 4*L for France, but I don't know why, it is a higher category than 4* and means the same thing and we all know what they mean. Parisby.com isn't using official ratings (nor do websites like Expedia, etc). To find accurate ratings, you can check the Paris Tourist Information website.

I haven't been a guest at one so can't comment on that aspect, but agree with the idea that there is a wide range of prices in both hotels, and I suspect their goal is to stay within a certain price range. I'd go with the suggestion to see what you really get for a given price range at the hotels of choice and decide from there. I'd go for the better room in a 4*.

I do have an official list of the differences that qualify a hotel for the 4*L rather than 4* and can check on that, but the hotels of choice are really what you need to find out about, as some 4* hotels have things that are not required of them but only for 4*L. I think a full restaurant may be one of them.

Christina,

That was an excellent overview of hotel ratings. Thanks.

thanks all.

Has anyone stayed at any of the mentioned hotels, or more than one so I can get your comparison rating?

I looked up each and every one of them on Tripadvisor, scoured all my travel mags, etc and all them have some many positive attributes, I can see why my friends are having a hard time deciding. But I don't think they just want to draw straws!

But perhaps a wise fodorite out there can give me some more details and help me along....

thanks a mil....

I've stayed at a "superior" room at the d'Aubusson, but I'm sure it wasn't the best room in the house. It was lovely though.
Nice-size bathroom (not huge, just comfortably large for Paris) with robes and thick towels and lotions and shampoos.
Tub with shower.

Bedroom had enough space for two beds plus two chairs and a table. TV sound was piped into the bathroom.
Hotel is charming with all services available, and they sold the museum pass in the lobby with no mark-up.
Rue Dauphine is a narrow street giving direct access to Pont Neuf. There was a bit of noise from traffic on weekeday mornings (horns, but not the sound of speed as there wasn't any speed possible). I think the location can't be beat; equalled, but not bettered.

I have often said that I too would prefer the best room in a hotel that's one notch down, but I may be changing my mind here, and find myself, amazingly, agreeing with Mr Kingdom.

No offense to Wales, but I liked the analogy, and for a chance to experience the Bristol or the Crillon, I think I'd be willing to have one of their lesser rooms. I've made a similar decision for a hotel during my Italy trip planned for next April. That decision (to take their standard room) would not necessarily hold in a hotel that doesn't have those hotels' reputations for unsurpassed service and luxury.

A friend of mine recently had booked a stay, for two, at the Bauer hotel in Venice, a hotel considered one of the best in Venice. He knew they would only be getting only a standard room, but when he got there he felt the room was unacceptable: worn furnishing,view only of a wall, inadequate lighting making the room further depressing, tiny bathroom, etc.
He politely complained to management, and within 10 minutes they were upgraded to a much nicer room at no additional cost. Maybe that was a function of availability, maybe it was a function of knowing that not everyone would find that first room acceptable but the hotel gave it a shot.