Dean said:The Royals except VCI in Cancun and Paradise Village in PV are deserving. Can't speak for the rest.
Agreed and there are at least a couple Marriott's that I would not put as 5* either.tonyg said:Better than some Marriotts, tho.
NO, I know that. I as putting it on my 5* list, not listing it as a Royal.Ellis2ca said:Paradise Village in PV (Puerto Vallarta?) is not a Royal Resort.
Jim, the OP was specifically asking for opinions. My additions are certainly my opinion only. But there are objective criteria out there. AAA and others have objective criteria though they may be implemented with some subjectivity, same can be said for II and RCI awards. Most complaints I've heard in this area relate to disagreeing with the ratings given. It usually goes something like "AAA couldn't possibly be using a valid rating system else they would not have given X hotel a Y rating". And I think there's some validity to some of those complains. IMO, the problem with all of the industry type ratings is that there is not enough separation. That's why I like the 1-10 TUG rating somewhat better though I wish it were 1-100, I think it would give more definition over time.Jim in Cancun said:People on this board are using the same system as hotels in Mexico--and most of the world--use to decide how many stars a hotel has--their own individual, subjective judgements based on the individual history, baggage, likes and dislikes and prejudices of the person doing the qualifying.
An intersting, if dated but still correct article, is at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2004-03-05-grossman_x.htm
In other words, there are no international objective standards--they are subjective at best and influenced by many factors including economic, political and psychological ones at worst. Take them all with a grain--or many grains--of salt and go having an open mind always remembering that "you are not in Kansas anymore." JMHO.