(Closed) Luxury v. length

posted 6 years ago in Honeymoons
  • poll: Which?
    Longer and cheaper : (62 votes)
    64 %
    Shorter and more luxurious : (35 votes)
    36 %
  • Post # 3
    Member
    8738 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2011

    @redheadem:  It really depends on the length and luxury of each option.

    I.e. How much time are you trading for how much luxury?

    Post # 3
    Member
    8738 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2011

    double post

    Post # 4
    Member
    2866 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    Longer and cheaper. UNLESS it would have to be a 1 star type of thing which I wouldn’t do.  if I could do 1 week in a luxury place vs 2 weeks in a place I like, but not as fancy  I’d always go with 2 weeks. 

    Post # 5
    Member
    14480 posts
    Honey Beekeeper
    • Wedding: June 2011

    Longer and cheaper.  I’m all about going somewhere to see the sites and experience the food and culture.  I couldnt care less about how fancy my hotel room is, I just use it to sleep.  (Assuming you mean luxurious as in the resort…. and not every day fine dining)  I’d definitely include a nice meal or two, but not every night.

     

    Post # 6
    Member
    1352 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: April 2012

    I put shorter and more luxurious BUT it’s kind of hard to say when you don’t know the details.  Like is one WAY nicer or just a little bit? How MANY more days are we saying? You know what I mean?

    Post # 7
    Member
    5785 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: May 2011

    We did shorter and more luxurious. I was happy. I’m the kind of person that wants to be home after 8 days no matter what.

    Post # 9
    Member
    8738 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2011

    @redheadem:  Def longer and cheaper then!

    Post # 10
    Member
    1352 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: April 2012

    6 days is a nice amount of days so I would actually prefer that. At 9 I would be itching to get home!

    Post # 10
    Member
    2410 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    @redheadem:  In that case longer and cheaper.

    Post # 11
    Member
    5668 posts
    Bee Keeper

    @redheadem:  I was picturing HoJo’s vs Four Seasons. Definitely longer and cheaper then!

    Post # 12
    Member
    5273 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: October 2009

    It’s a difference of 3 days, so I say that if you will recieve better service, with better food & better environment – go with shorter and nicer.

    Post # 13
    Member
    1077 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: September 2010

    Uhh DEF length

     

    We went to New Zealand for a month (granted flights were a little salty) and stayed on Sheep Farms and home-stays, etc. It was sooo much fun, way better then hotels.

    Post # 14
    Member
    1629 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: February 2012

    I don’t necessarily think that the things which are more luxurious cost more. Not mutually exclusive concepts! But if those are the choices then I always choose to pay more. You get what you pay for and the honeymoon is not the time I would choose to scrimp and save.

    Anyway, when you make movies you hear about “adding production value”. It’s sort of when you have something that looks expensive in your shot, especially when it got there without you paying extra for it. Same sort of thinking applies to the honeymoon, IMO.

    The topic ‘Luxury v. length’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors