I am trying to decide between 2 different hotel in Rome. Hotel Raffeallo (3 stars) or Hotel Oceania (2 stars). Both have their positives.
We have stayed at many different places (2 star to 4 star), some of the lesser ones feel more like the 4 stars, and vice versa. I know the star rating can be arbitrary.
My specific question is... Is it worth spending the extra money at the 3 star? It seems the biggest difference (on the pictures) is that they have more variety in the breakfast. But it seems the 2 star have nicer people that work there.
I have read many reviews on RS and on Trip Advisor. There is about $150 dollar difference between the 2.
Any of your thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
Thank you in advance,
Christmas R.
If that is the sole difference I would not. Remember star ratings have nothing to with quality. Don't remember the details of the Italian system but basically a three star has to provide a certain level amenities that are more than a two star provides. We generally find that two stars are fine. Maybe a three star will have big rooms, 24 hrs front desk, etc., I can buy some extra good wine for a $150 savings. Location is generally a big factor for us. I will pay extra for location and convenience.
Having looked only at each hotel's website, it appears the Raffaello is the more posh of the 2. The Oceania looks plenty good to me and at a $150 per night less would be my choice. I have not read any reviews, so can make no comment in that regard.
When we were in Rome , a clean comfortable bed was the prime need for us. Other than sleeping, breakfast and showers, we were not there.
The Oceania certainly is well located and gets fine reviews. The Raffeallo does have a great breakfast, but some of the rooms are oddly layed out. I’d risk the Oceania and spend the extra $150 a day on a couple of meals throughout your day.
FWIW, I've met the owner of the Oceania, and a nicer man does not exist.