[Ira Fishman]

The green fees for the Queens Course is as steep as that for the Kings Course. Is it worth playing/paying it? We will be meandering our way from Aberdeen to St Andrews.


Thanks as always,


Ira

[Michael Graham]

100%. I’m likely in the minority but I prefer the Queen’s over the King’s. A day ticket on both would be the way to go.

[Jon Wiggett]

100%. I’m likely in the minority but I prefer the Queen’s over the King’s. A day ticket on both would be the way to go.

The Kings is a great course but I suspect if you were playing at Gleneagles regularly then the course to play the most would be the Queens because it is so much fun.


Jon

[Brian_Ewen]

I also prefer the Queens and think it's a must play.

[Tom_Doak]

The Queens course was the first I had ever seen to promote a restoration, back in 1982.


They had added two new holes in the sixties to lengthen the course and get it up in the same neighborhood as the Kings, because too many golfers back then dismissed it as being short and easy.


I'd like to say the resort was ahead of its time in pursuing the renovation, but their change of heart had a lot to do with wanting to develop the land where the new holes had been built 😉

[Niall C]

100%. I’m likely in the minority but I prefer the Queen’s over the King’s. A day ticket on both would be the way to go.

Michael


I doubt you are as this thread suggests. Although I haven't played either course for many years I always preferred the Queens which was not to slag off the Kings. When I heard they had redone the Queens in the last couple of years I was keen to play again but then I saw the cost and was fair taken aback.


Ira


If you are looking at value for money then I suspect Gleneagles isn't the best but there is no doubting it is very good.


Niall

[David Jones]

The green fees for the Queens Course is as steep as that for the Kings Course. Is it worth playing/paying it? We will be meandering our way from Aberdeen to St Andrews.


Thanks as always,


Ira

How much is it coming in at? Would agree with the sentiments here for the quality of the course but the value can be atrocious, depending on time of year.

[Ira Fishman]

Next year during the summer the green fees are north of 200 pounds at both courses.  I cannot remember if it is 225 or 250.  Then again, still less than Kingsbarns this year which I do not regret paying even though it probably was my least favorite course on our trip. But I will not pay it again on our trip next year.  Long way of saying, I am willing to pony up once for a well-regarded course, but as my mother taught me "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Just reading the ‘texts’ and not knowing either course, I ask:
If someone who does know the courses describes one as ‘great’ and the other as ‘more fun, if you’re playing it everyday’, does that mean that the first course is better — you know, actually better — than the second one? And if so, why would someone choosing between the two for a single play ever choose to play the course that is not as good as the other one, and that is not described by anyone as ‘great’?
Conversely, do those who are suggesting to Ira that he should play the ‘fun’ course mean to say that it is, in fact, also/therefore the ‘better’ course? Maybe even the ‘great’ one? But if so, why not just say that? If ‘fun’ is the criteria/measuring stick for a great course, why not just cut to the chase and call it that?
An honest question, but one that comes out of my dislike of how very often the word ‘fun’ is used these days — so often that, for me at least, it seems to have no meaning left at all. Like the word ‘sporty’, the word ‘fun’ often seems to mean: ‘actually not great at all, architecturally or otherwise — but you’ll score pretty well and probably not lose a ball, and you’ll be done in less than 3 hours’.
Nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but not really something to write home about. Or even to get very excited about. I mean: ‘Hurrah, what a special course — I played it in 2 hours and didn’t lose a ball!’

[Kalen Braley]

Peter:

I think its very plausible that there are several "fun" courses that aren't "great".
But I would also think there are a few "great" courses that aren't "fun", especially if you make a list of the top 5 attributes of a "great" course, fun might not be in there.

[Jon Wiggett]

Next year during the summer the green fees are north of 200 pounds at both courses.  I cannot remember if it is 225 or 250.  Then again, still less than Kingsbarns this year which I do not regret paying even though it probably was my least favorite course on our trip. But I will not pay it again on our trip next year.  Long way of saying, I am willing to pony up once for a well-regarded course, but as my mother taught me "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


Ira

Ira,


you could have a look at the course right next door (no, not G-West) which is not to shabby and a lot less for the greenfee.

[Ira Fishman]

Next year during the summer the green fees are north of 200 pounds at both courses.  I cannot remember if it is 225 or 250.  Then again, still less than Kingsbarns this year which I do not regret paying even though it probably was my least favorite course on our trip. But I will not pay it again on our trip next year.  Long way of saying, I am willing to pony up once for a well-regarded course, but as my mother taught me "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


Ira

Ira,


you could have a look at the course right next door (no, not G-West) which is not to shabby and a lot less for the greenfee.

Jon,


Auchterarder?  Looks like like fun. But given your and others praise of Queens, now I have three on the list!


Ira

[Sean_A]

Just reading the ‘texts’ and not knowing either course, I ask:
If someone who does know the courses describes one as ‘great’ and the other as ‘more fun, if you’re playing it everyday’, does that mean that the first course is better — you know, actually better — than the second one? And if so, why would someone choosing between the two for a single play ever choose to play the course that is not as good as the other one, and that is not described by anyone as ‘great’?
Conversely, do those who are suggesting to Ira that he should play the ‘fun’ course mean to say that it is, in fact, also/therefore the ‘better’ course? Maybe even the ‘great’ one? But if so, why not just say that? If ‘fun’ is the criteria/measuring stick for a great course, why not just cut to the chase and call it that?
An honest question, but one that comes out of my dislike of how very often the word ‘fun’ is used these days — so often that, for me at least, it seems to have no meaning left at all. Like the word ‘sporty’, the word ‘fun’ often seems to mean: ‘actually not great at all, architecturally or otherwise — but you’ll score pretty well and probably not lose a ball, and you’ll be done in less than 3 hours’.
Nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but not really something to write home about. Or even to get very excited about. I mean: ‘Hurrah, what a special course — I played it in 2 hours and didn’t lose a ball!’

The only answer I can give, and it isn't meant to be in the least snarky, get on a plane and discover your own answers. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to call a course great and prefer to play a course which isn't great.

Anyway, a Kington Buda is all you need. If not now, when?

Ira

If folks are saying they prefer The Queens, then by all means give it a go. I consider The Kings in the very top tier of GB&I golf so The Queens must be special.

Happy Hockey

[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


That exactly is what we will do. This Board has never steered me wrong, and more importantly, has led me to courses that I would not have even known enough to consider.


Ira

[Brian_Ewen]

Next year during the summer the green fees are north of 200 pounds at both courses.  I cannot remember if it is 225 or 250.  Then again, still less than Kingsbarns this year which I do not regret paying even though it probably was my least favorite course on our trip.

Never thought I would see the day that a round of golf would cost more than a set of clubs.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,


Auchterarder?  Looks like like fun. But given your and others praise of Queens, now I have three on the list!


Ira

That's the one.

[David Jones]

Next year during the summer the green fees are north of 200 pounds at both courses.  I cannot remember if it is 225 or 250.  Then again, still less than Kingsbarns this year which I do not regret paying even though it probably was my least favorite course on our trip. But I will not pay it again on our trip next year.  Long way of saying, I am willing to pony up once for a well-regarded course, but as my mother taught me "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


Ira

It is a lovely spot and the Queen's is a very pleasant walk. However, and I say this as someone who sometimes pays a lot for a round of golf, I think that £250 is just way overpriced.


However, this year they were offering a very good offer for late afternoon play this year. Link here -https://www.gleneagles.com/seasonal-offers/tee-time-for-380/


You need to tee off after 3pm any day bar Friday and Saturday and in the middle of summer it is -

[/size]£280 (2 ball)[/color][/size][/color]
[/size]£370 (3 ball)[/color]
[/size]£440 (4 ball)[/color]
[/size][/color]
It's better value in shoulder season but still this is worth looking at, you could tee off at 6pm and still get round easily with light.. Let me know if you need someone to make up the numbers!

[Pete Lavallee]

Gleneagles doesn’t really attract the budget minded crowd, but does leave a lasting impression. My wife and I stayed there on our honeymoon and played the Kings twice and once on the Queens. To this day I can remember every hole on the Kings; surely a sign of great design! I do remember the Queens being a bit more manageable, but really only remember the 17th hole, a world class par 3. The Kings is also one of the two places where the wife beat me scratch, so it’s very playable in strong winds if you can keep the ball low to the ground!


To answer Peter’s question, should you shoot your career round on the Queens you’ll have had great fun but had the notion that the course allowed you to go low. Do the same on the Kings and you’ll have a wonderful sense of achievement and be tempted to treat yourself to a 30 year old Ballantine after the round. 

[Kyle Henderson]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41152.0/

[Ira Fishman]

David,


They have not posted late afternoon rates for next year yet, but we may well take you up on your offer!


Kyle,


Those are just terrific pictorials.  We are playing a few for the first time next year, and we have played several of the others over the past couple of summers.  I have bookmarked the thread.


Ira

[David McIntosh]

Ira,

To answer your question, the Queens is worth playing but not at the prices quoted. £250 a round is scandalous, and that goes for any of the courses, not just the Queens. As Pete said, it’s not a place for someone on a budget.

I also prefer the Queens to the Kings but that’s mainly because I’ve never really warmed to the Kings and think it’s good rather than great golf. I noticed Kingsbarns was your least favourite course on your recent trip but, for me anyway, Kingsbarns is in a different league to the Kings.

The location is stunning though and everything about the hotel is first class so you’ll have a fantastic time if you decide to go.

Just to throw an alternative out there, as I see you’re travelling down from Aberdeen, I think you’d be better served playing Carnoustie (or even Panmure) on your way to St Andrews. It’ll be pretty steeply priced too however and if you’ve already played it you might want to try somewhere else instead.

[Ira Fishman]

To be accurate, I checked the Gleneagles site again and both Kings and Queens are 200 pounds for guests of the hotel and 225 pounds for non-guests.  Still pretty steep though.  But as I said earlier, I am generally willing to pony up at least once for a course that people on here think highly of.  Fortunately, the lodging in Aberdeen and St. Andrews is quite reasonable to balance out the budget. As to Carnoustie, my wife is a very hardy soul, but in terms of difficulty, it is a bridge too far. 


Ira

[David McIntosh]

Still vastly overpriced in my view, even at the lower rate. Will be interested to hear what you think if you do include it on your itinerary.

Have you played Carnoustie before? If not, I think you’d find it surprisingly playable for all levels despite its fearsome reputation. No real forced carries and have the option of running the ball up to the majority of the greens (bar two of the par 3s and three holes with the burn in front, but can always lay up before and pitch/chip across).

[John Emerson]

1921 Routing Map



https://photos.app.goo.gl/omRQ85MvCV7n14fbA

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()