I usually do the beach first as a way to relax from the flight and work then once I have had enough of the beach its then off to the city.

What about city/beach/city??
Have to say that I would seriously consider a short city stay at the end of the holiday as it does seem to prolong the holiday. If you are on the relaxation part at the end all you do is think that the holiday is about to end. In a city you don't have time to think!
We did Singapore/Bali/singapore last summer.

I think it depends on whether it's your first visit to a city/country. I met an elderly couple in BKK this year who were then going on to Phuket. They didn't like Bangkok, found it overwhelming. I think if they had spent time in Phuket first they would have got used to the food, people, etc and would have coped better with the city.

good point Chris. Also some may find the city too tiring as they are jetlagged.

We did Koh Samui first and got all the flights out of the way in one day then we could relax. Coming back to Bangkok and going to our hotel was a piece of cake - then a short hop back to the airport for home.

Definately city first for me as I find it hard to relax when I first arrive at my destination , then the beach at the end suits me when I am starting to chill out , city at the end as well would be okay for me though, next year thinking of Saigon, Nha Trang , Hoi An then Hanoi.

I agree that city/beach/city is good, we are visiting Vietnam in Oct, having 3 nights HCM, 10 nights Nhr Trang and 3 in Singapore. Although my hubby is really looking forward to HCM normally he would rather fly straight to our main hotel/resort - think its the child in him, cant wait to play on the beach but after we flew to straight to Hawaii a couple of years ago I vowed never to travel that far again without a stop over, it took me a couple of days to get over the journey. if we had had a couple of nights in USA on way out Im sure I wouldnt have been as 'jet lagged', although I believe if you can fly direct to your destination that isnt as bad as changing plans etc, sometimes seem to spend more time on airport lounges than flying.

Jules

We tend to do city first, but I think it depends on how long you intend to spend in the city. Two or three days would be fine at the end of a holiday, but we usually like to spend between 5 days and a week exploring big cities, We do so much walking that by the time we leave we're absolutely shattered and really appreciate the first few days at the beach resort just relaxing and resting our aching feet

Elaine

Have done both, city first then beach and beach then city and much prefer to get the city out the way first. One thing I have learnt is if you see something you love in the city then buy it... don't wait like me and think you'll get it cheaper elsewhere because you never find it again.
I've now come to realise I'm not a city person (despite living in the suburbs of a city with 1 million people) I thought I could cope with the heat, humidity, frantic pace, high rise buildings and all Bangkok has to offer... but no! I couldn't wait to get out and head to the islands for R&R. We are heading that way shortly again and it'll just be beach and more beaches... with no stop over in BKK. 2 two weeks in Phuket does it for me

Can't do without my quota of a Far Eastern city myself....somehow making it multi centre makes the holiday seem longer than say just a couple of weeks at the beach.

Have to agree there! Our last holiday had 3 stops and a fortnight seemed to last forever!
However, everyone has their own ideas of what makes a perfect holiday.

hmmmm well i WAS thinking after our long long flight from the u.k via abu dhabi we'd stay a couple of night in bangkok,spend 10 on the beach then 2 in bangkok on the way back,but no wi am thinking of heading straight to the beach,as we'll be in the airport,another hour flight will get it outta the way and if we went shopping in bangkok we'd only have more to carry,,,,,,,,

so maybe leave the last 2 nights and 3 days for bangkok,leaves more for beaches and island,ace!