Can't help much, as I've never been to any of them. I would lean towards the Paris & London trip myself, I think. Italy sounds like one of those places you want a long time to visit. Both my BIL&SIL and FIL & SMIL went relatively recently, and both couples spent 2 weeks. Of course, they were seeing the whole country.
January 29, 2007 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...
I agree that London and Paris is the way to go. I went to both on a tour my senior year in HS, and I didn't want to leave!
Make sure that when you go to Paris you hit all the typical tourist traps; the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame Cathedral, spend a day at the Louvre, and take a trip out to Versailles. I enjoyed taking a trip out to La Pére Lachaise Cemetery to see the graves of Oscar Wilde and Jim Morrison in particular, but enjoyed looking at the beautiful tombs of famous historical figures.
Out of your way, but worth a visit is the castle, Mont Saint-Michel, and the Bayeux Tapestry in Reading. There's too much to do there!
January 31, 2007 12:54 AM
We have to make the most wonderful of hard decisions. Long story short, I sold some stock options for work. We've paid off all our debt (except the car) and we're going to take a big vacation this year. And now we're just trying to finalize where. So, who votes what? Options A and B will cost about the same, while C and D are increasing in cost...
Option A: Hawaii Pro: gorgeous scenery Con: I burn through a 50 sunscreen in an hour, plus I'm not really keen on beach life or swimwear...
Option B: Paris and London Pro: I've had 4 trips to Paris cancelled and am determined to finally make it there one day. Plus, I love London and would love to show Brian some of the neat things I've found there. Con: I've had 4 trips to Paris cancelled. That's not a good track record... And the tour that would have had us in Paris on Valentine's Day is full (no surprise there...)
Option C: Paris, London and Rome Pro: Add in one other city I'd love to go see. Take a slightly longer trip. Con: Adds over $1000US for two days in Rome. Is Rome really worth it?
Option D: Blow all our money Pro: probably 2+ weeks touring through much of Western Europe. See lots of places all in one trip. Trip of a lifetime! Con: Cost. We're leaning away from this one on the basis that we should save some of the money...
So, what do you all think? Was there anywhere you went that you loved or hated?
"Decisions decisions"
2 Comments -
Can't help much, as I've never been to any of them. I would lean towards the Paris & London trip myself, I think. Italy sounds like one of those places you want a long time to visit. Both my BIL&SIL and FIL & SMIL went relatively recently, and both couples spent 2 weeks. Of course, they were seeing the whole country.
January 29, 2007 1:43 PM
I agree that London and Paris is the way to go. I went to both on a tour my senior year in HS, and I didn't want to leave!
Make sure that when you go to Paris you hit all the typical tourist traps; the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame Cathedral, spend a day at the Louvre, and take a trip out to Versailles. I enjoyed taking a trip out to La Pére Lachaise Cemetery to see the graves of Oscar Wilde and Jim Morrison in particular, but enjoyed looking at the beautiful tombs of famous historical figures.
Out of your way, but worth a visit is the castle, Mont Saint-Michel, and the Bayeux Tapestry in Reading. There's too much to do there!
January 31, 2007 12:54 AM