Alla comfort tour St Petersburg

[c11nno]

Has anyone taken the comfort tour offered by Alla tours? if so is it good and do you get to see most things.:)

[LondonTowner]

Yes, we did it and enjoyed it very much. You can see a list of what is included on their website. They are two fully packed days. Obviously, in two days you can't see everything, but you will see the highlights. Like us, you will probably wish to return to SPB.

[c11nno]

Thank you London Towner we were just worried that at a slower pace we would miss lots. Think we will go for it :)

[LondonTowner]

We chose the Comfort Tour as I have limited mobility and had taken a manual wheelchair. There was certainly a lot packed into the two days and we didn't feel we were missing out on anything.

 

We were pleased we hadn't booked an evening tour as we felt that would have been too much, but many did.

[John Bull]

We chose Alla's comfort tour because we also had an evening at the theatre, and port days before & after St P.

 

On reflection it wouldn't have been too tiring & we could have gone on the Grand Tour, but there are just two extra stops on the Grand Tour - another cathedral (St Isaaac's) and another palace, so we certainly didn't feel that we'd missed-out. A decent restaurant lunch break both days.

 

JB :)

[Mr Piano]

We booked comfort tour for up and coming June cruise, however I had second thoughts as the comfort tour didn't include Catherine's Palace, which we particularly wanted to see. I contacted them and had no problem changing to grand tour. The advice I got from CC members was if you're fit and mobile, choose the grand tour

[John Bull]

We booked comfort tour for up and coming June cruise, however I had second thoughts as the comfort tour didn't include Catherine's Palace, which we particularly wanted to see. I contacted them and had no problem changing to grand tour. The advice I got from CC members was if you're fit and mobile, choose the grand tour

 

Good job you posted, pianoman. :)

It shows how info can go out-of-date.

 

Catherine Palace was on our Alla Comfort Tour, and one of the must-sees.

St Isaac's & Yusopov Palace were the only exclusions compared to the Grand Tour.

Also now missing on the Comfort Tour according to their website, Peter & Paul (another must-see) and a subway ride (mixing with the locals). And no mention of using the hydrofoil (another highlight) to get to Peterhof.

Replaced by an inside visit to Peterhof as well as the gardens, and Kazan cathedral.

 

Yes, good move to switch to the Grand Tour :)

 

JB :)

Edited March 15, 2016 by John Bull

[c11nno]

Thanks for the info its been very useful, I have changed my mind now grand tour it is, although I liked the look of the TJ Travel group tour which includes the Faberge museum. Oh what to do ? The more you look the harder it gets, not going until July so have time to make up my mind. Not a bad position to be in though !!:)

[dogs4fun]

Thanks for the info its been very useful, I have changed my mind now grand tour it is, although I liked the look of the TJ Travel group tour which includes the Faberge museum. Oh what to do ? The more you look the harder it gets, not going until July so have time to make up my mind. Not a bad position to be in though !!:)

Alla Tours also has a 2 day tour that includes the Faberge museum. It is called the Imperial Splendors & Faberge Museum tour. :) OR, you can do the Grand Tour and then book the evening option to the Faberge Museum - think it is only about $45. That way, you could see as much a possible.

Edited March 15, 2016 by dogs4fun

[Pet Nit Noy]

Alla Tours also has a 2 day tour that includes the Faberge museum. It is called the Imperial Splendors & Faberge Museum tour. :) OR, you can do the Grand Tour and then book the evening option to the Faberge Museum - think it is only about $45. That way, you could see as much a possible.

 

An evening visit to the Faberge Museum is absolutely the way to go. After 6:00 PM individuals and small groups are not required to use the museums' tour guides who are only Russian speakers. In the evening, you can rent an audio guide of the highly ornate rooms and of each each of the eggs on display. Best of all, you'll travel at your own pace.

 

By the end of a very long and busy day, we had he energy for a detailed look at each of the eggs, and a slow stroll through the remaining rooms displaying the Faberge picture frames, pill boxes, cigarette boxes, jewelry boxes, and more. We paused briefly at many of the display cases, but at the end of a tiring day, the appeal of a case of yellow objects may not be as thrilling after you've seen the same objects in red, and in pink, and in royal blue, and in turquoise, and in light blue, and in emerald green and in...

[Bigred84]

My wife wanted to do the Fabrege tour plus we are doing an evening ballet there is no hydrofoil ride on this tour, otherwise we get to see everything we want to.

[Margouille]

I'm probably a bit late to the game but we are thinking of doing the comfort tour and I just had a quick question. We like the idea of the free time (about 2 hours) highlighted in the itinerary. Did the people who have done this tour get any free time to wander on their own or do you still have to stay with the guide?

Cheers, Sophie

[Marisawrite]

Catherine Palace was on our Alla Comfort Tour, and one of the must-sees.

St Isaac's & Yusopov Palace were the only exclusions compared to the Grand Tour.

Also now missing on the Comfort Tour according to their website, Peter & Paul (another must-see) and a subway ride (mixing with the locals). And no mention of using the hydrofoil (another highlight) to get to Peterhof.

Replaced by an inside visit to Peterhof as well as the gardens, and Kazan cathedral.

 

This just goes to show how different people will have different opinions!

 

I didn't think Catherine Palace was a must-see at all. It's completely fake - it was totally destroyed in WW2, and rebuilt from scratch. All the wall and ceiling paintings, sculptures and furniture are either new or taken from other palaces. Even the famous Amber Room is new, construction started in 1975. You can see the same interiors at the Hermitage which are more original. Peterhof Palace is also a reconstruction.

 

The Winter Palace (which you'll see when you visit the Hermitage) was designed by the same architect at the same time, and it's original not a reconstruction, so you won't really miss out by not visiting the other two. I'd spend more time in the Peterhof Gardens instead.

 

The only part of Peter & Paul we saw on the Grand Tour was the church, which is sweet but not spectacular. Its main point of interest is that it's where all the Romanovs are buried so if that interests you, it is a must-see - otherwise not.

 

Yusupov Palace is where Rasputin was murdered. Its interiors are original, not recreated, so if you are interested in either Rasputin or 19th century interior design, it is worth a visit.

 

I thought St Isaac's Cathedral was absolutely jaw-dropping so I would've said that was a definite must-see. I thought the interior was more impressive than the Church on the Spilt Blood.

 

I can imagine the hydrofoil will be better now the weather is getting warmer. When we went in May, it was cold outside so the windows were misting up and we didn't see much of anything!

Edited June 11, 2016 by Marisawrite

[threetowner16]

I'm probably a bit late to the game but we are thinking of doing the comfort tour and I just had a quick question. We like the idea of the free time (about 2 hours) highlighted in the itinerary. Did the people who have done this tour get any free time to wander on their own or do you still have to stay with the guide?

Cheers, Sophie

 

Under the conditions of these tours , you must be accompanied by the guide , you cannot just go wandering off on your own.We did the comfort tour in 2014 and didn't have much free time on it

[Hlitner]

This just goes to show how different people will have different opinions!

 

I didn't think Catherine Palace was a must-see at all. It's completely fake - it was totally destroyed in WW2, and rebuilt from scratch. All the wall and ceiling paintings, sculptures and furniture are either new or taken from other palaces. Even the famous Amber Room is new, construction started in 1975. You can see the same interiors at the Hermitage which are more original. Peterhof Palace is also a reconstruction.

 

The Winter Palace (which you'll see when you visit the Hermitage) was designed by the same architect at the same time, and it's original not a reconstruction, so you won't really miss out by not visiting the other two. I'd spend more time in the Peterhof Gardens instead.

 

The only part of Peter & Paul we saw on the Grand Tour was the church, which is sweet but not spectacular. Its main point of interest is that it's where all the Romanovs are buried so if that interests you, it is a must-see - otherwise not.

 

Yusupov Palace is where Rasputin was murdered. Its interiors are original, not recreated, so if you are interested in either Rasputin or 19th century interior design, it is worth a visit.

 

I thought St Isaac's Cathedral was absolutely jaw-dropping so I would've said that was a definite must-see. I thought the interior was more impressive than the Church on the Spilt Blood.

 

I can imagine the hydrofoil will be better now the weather is getting warmer. When we went in May, it was cold outside so the windows were misting up and we didn't see much of anything!

 

What you say (about reconstruction) is true, but not sure we agree with your philosophy (and we have been to all the sites you mention and will return for another visit next month). To dismiss reconstruction, especially when much of the art works and furniture are real historic treasures, is a bit silly. One could say the same thing about places like Ephesus, where many of the "ruins" have been painfully reconstructed. Or a visitor to the White House in Washington, D.C. is wasting their time....because the entire building was rebuilt (with a different design) after being burned by the British? Even a visit to places like Pompeii, Rome, Athens, etc. will find a majority of the "ruins" were reconstructed. In fact, the Acropolis has been undergoing "reconstruction" for many years (the scaffolding is quite annoying). Another example of your folly would be the Palace at Versailles. Not much of this place is truly original....having undergone constant reconstruction over many decades (the most recent huge reconstruction project started in 2003).

 

Hank

[dogs4fun]

What you say (about reconstruction) is true, but not sure we agree with your philosophy (and we have been to all the sites you mention and will return for another visit next month). To dismiss reconstruction, especially when much of the art works and furniture are real historic treasures, is a bit silly. One could say the same thing about places like Ephesus, where many of the "ruins" have been painfully reconstructed. Or a visitor to the White House in Washington, D.C. is wasting their time....because the entire building was rebuilt (with a different design) after being burned by the British? Even a visit to places like Pompeii, Rome, Athens, etc. will find a majority of the "ruins" were reconstructed. In fact, the Acropolis has been undergoing "reconstruction" for many years (the scaffolding is quite annoying). Another example of your folly would be the Palace at Versailles. Not much of this place is truly original....having undergone constant reconstruction over many decades (the most recent huge reconstruction project started in 2003).

 

Hank

Completely agree with Hank - couldn't have said it better myself.

Furthermore, the restorations at both Peterhof Grand Palace and the Catherine Palace were painfully recreated using the original blueprints and/or photographs. In fact restorations are still ongoing at many sites (Alexander Palace, located in Tsarskoe Selo, is now closed to visitors - when I was there last year, there were only 3 restored rooms to be seen. Many of the gutted rooms displayed huge photos of how the palace interiors looked during its time as the home of Nicholas II and his family and it is my understanding that they are restoring the interior to the Nicholas II period. Very interesting and worthwhile to visit and i am awaiting its full restoration so that I can visit again).

[Marisawrite]

What you say (about reconstruction) is true, but not sure we agree with your philosophy (and we have been to all the sites you mention and will return for another visit next month). To dismiss reconstruction, especially when much of the art works and furniture are real historic treasures, is a bit silly. One could say the same thing about places like Ephesus, where many of the "ruins" have been painfully reconstructed.

 

I hear what you're saying, but much of the Catherine Palace wasn't reconstructed in its original form - they just found suitable murals and paintings and furniture in the Hermitage's collection and used those. The Catherine Palace was never a great historical treasure anyway, it was just a copy of European palaces - and you can see the originals of those, restored, in a number of other European cities. You can also see the work of exactly the same architect in the Winter Palace, when you visit the Hermitage.

 

So I couldn't see the point of trekking a long way out into the suburbs to visit Catherine Palace, time which could've been used to take a more relaxed look at other things.

[Hlitner]

I hear what you're saying, but much of the Catherine Palace wasn't reconstructed in its original form - they just found suitable murals and paintings and furniture in the Hermitage's collection and used those. The Catherine Palace was never a great historical treasure anyway, it was just a copy of European palaces - and you can see the originals of those, restored, in a number of other European cities. You can also see the work of exactly the same architect in the Winter Palace, when you visit the Hermitage.

 

So I couldn't see the point of trekking a long way out into the suburbs to visit Catherine Palace, time which could've been used to take a more relaxed look at other things.

 

You did get me wondering what other's think of Catherine's Palace so I just happened to pull up the reviews on Tripadvisor. It does seem that most of the reviews are very positive (usually 4-5 Stars) so I guess many folks just do not agree with your assessment. That being said, we do think you raise a very valid point....given the amount of travel time necessary to get to that palace.

 

Hank

[Marisawrite]

You did get me wondering what other's think of Catherine's Palace so I just happened to pull up the reviews on Tripadvisor. It does seem that most of the reviews are very positive (usually 4-5 Stars) so I guess many folks just do not agree with your assessment. That being said, we do think you raise a very valid point....given the amount of travel time necessary to get to that palace.

 

I guess it depends what else you've seen. If you've ever seen Versailles or Shoenbrunn Palace or any of a dozen great palaces in the rest of Europe, then you can see that Catherine Palace is a copy and sometimes a crudely done one, at that (just look at the faces and hands on some of the murals and wall decorations).

 

But my main point was that, like I said, you can see the exact same architecture at the Winter Palace. Catherine's Palace is a long way out of town and at the moment, there's nothing else to see out there, so it takes a couple of hours out of the schedule that could be used to better effect elsewhere.

 

And also the fact that though the artwork and furniture are genuinely of that period, NONE of it was originally from Catherine's Palace.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Marisawrite