I could be wrong, but I think you may be projecting! What you said was this:

You are most entitled to think whatever you want about St Regis...but I think that may have more to do with your own background and less about the actual brand.

Naming rooms and suites after the founder’s family members doesn’t harken to any age or class; it simply references the founder’s family.

Having a Bloody Mary signature drink evokes 19th century classism to you? Really? It only evokes to me that the famous cocktail was supposedly created as the Red Snapper at the original St Regis King Cole Bar. It’s a cocktail that is reinvented with local style at other St Regis hotels. I find it difficult to get classism from a cocktail.

What references to parties in New York do you mean? I’ve not had any references to any parties in any of my many StR stays around the world.

Butler service is offered by many hotels. Heck, Las Ventanas by Rosewood also offers butler service to its signature suites. If you’re bothered by the terminology of dress of the St Regis butler, despite them being dressed differently at different locations throughout the brand, so be it. But a butler bringing me coffee versus in room dining at another hotel bringing me coffee doesn’t evoke 19th century upper classism to me. Having an unpacking and packing service is just excellent service. Having complimentary shoe shine and pressing is something that many hotels offer for their guests or even for their suite or Club level guests. There’s always been a distinction with better service for those paying more.

Both St Regis and Park Hyatt offer excellent service, so I have no idea what you mean when you talk about liking the Park Hyatt service style. They have no difference in service “style” that I’ve ever perceived. Their “style” is pretty comparable also to the “style” used at Four Seasons, Peninsula, Aman, Mandarin Oriental, Rosewood, Banyan Tree, Ritz-Carlton, Waldorf Astoria, and the like. I think the difference in your perception may have more to do with you than the hotels.

Waldorf Astoria is another brand founded on its original famous property in New York. Yet the various Waldorf Astoria properties around the world don’t evoke WA-associated ambience of Manhattan. The WA Shanghai and WA Beverly Hills evoke Manhattan as much as the Peninsula Shanghai and Pen Beverly Hills do—not really at all beyond the WA name, perhaps. The WA Caledonian Edinburgh doesn’t evoke New York at all.

I’d say the same is true for St Regis. There is nothing New York or 19th century oligarchical about the StR Lhasa or the StR Bora Bora or the StR Punta Mita or the StR Istanbul. Referencing the original property with room category names and a signature cocktail hardly evokes classism, I think. It is only a minor and respectful homage to the original.

I can understand you liking a more modern sensibility. That absolutely can explain a preference for PH over many StR. But I must disagree vehemently that most StR property evoke 19th century New York. The StR New York does. If there were a St Regis London, I’m sure it might. But few if any of the others do, and it would be quite a surprise to me!

So be it. But again, this really just makes me think you’re projecting! I love the St Regis brand AND I love the Park Hyatt brand. I don’t have any thoughts of any Anglo-Saxon nobility and days of empire when I stay at either. I’m pretty sure I am not a Russian oligarch in waiting either. Being a gay Jewish guy probably precludes that, I’d guess.

I think you have images of what types of people frequent the StR brand, and that is prejudicing you toward the brand. I think you’re wrong, though. I think your perception has more to do with you and your background and less with the hotel brands to which you ascribe such evocations. You’re most entitled to your thinking, though!

Most of the St Regis bars are King Cole bars and the menu has a section describing the history of the New York St Regis. When you attend a champagne sabering, you will usually be told that it's a tradition started in New York explaining how glamorous the parties are (the Sommelier in San Francisco is good at this). There will often be a reference to 19th century New York on the food menus, sometimes there will be a plaque or sabre lying around with a story about the 19th Century New York. And, as noted, many concepts of the hotel are named after references to the 19th century St Regis New York. If you look at St-Regis.com they reference the creation of the Bloody Mary in St Regis New York and have a whole timeline about the Astor family and their lives. For example, a quote on the St Regis.com website landing page says "As artists, visionaries and influencers of all kinds vied for inclusion, her social circle evolved to shape the first true expression of New York Society". It wasn't hard to guess that the St Regis website would reference 19th Century New York and that the Park Hyatt one would not (instead a sample sentence is "Park Hyatt designers furnish the finest in elegant taste while complementing the unique characteristics and culture of the destination" - you also hear a lot about "personalised service).

The 19th Century Upper East Side story is the cornerstone of the St Regis Brand and why all the hotels are called St Regis and not "Dave" or something else. Surely you can't think it's just a coincidence that there are all these references to 19th century New York high society all over the place in the hotels?

I think the overall quality of service differs between individual hotels, but I perceive a very different set of service standards between the two hotels. As you've said for example, the St Regis consistently has Butlers for at least some rooms, whereas the Park Hyatt is different. I'm not saying the Park Hyatt style is definitely better, but it is more to my tastes. I prefer not to be bowed at (Japan excepting, obviously) or called "Sir", but instead "Mr EuropeanPete", for example. In keeping with the St Regis brand, St Regis service is clearly designed to be more reverential, whereas Park Hyatt's have a more modern luxury style.

Bolding mine. Wow, do I think you are wrong. But we all sometimes see what we want to see rather than what is actually true. Since I have been called Mr. Rubin at the PHs just as often as I am at the St Regis hotels. Or any luxury hotels, for that matter.

That’s curious. My experience is exactly the opposite. I have regarded StR properties as traditional, old-time hotels (NYC, Rome, Florence, London) and even the newer ones have a conservative, very traditional style (Singapore, Bangkok). Whereas, R-Cs in my opinion tend to be more contemporary but a bit in bad taste, with kitschy and blingy interiors with sort of Trump Tower-esque decors.

I think that shows the wide gulf between people who think luxury is getting more for free and/or a nicer or more spacious version of what they already know...and others who think luxury is an excellent higher grade product delivered with excellent service and personalization. To each, their own.

I’m now at the Ritz Carlton San Francisco. I got moved to an upgraded Club level room for my next 2 nights after an air con mishap the first night. I’ve never been a fan of lounges or the RC Club because I don’t like lounge food and certainly don’t think of it as a luxury food/beverage experience. Given this first ever opportunity to freely explore the RC Club, I had both breakfast and lunch there yesterday. I wasn’t impressed; it smacked of just being a very nice lounge/cafeteria, but didn’t offer even close to a luxury meal IMO.

Despite having the RC Club available to me today, I instead ordered and paid for room service breakfast and lunch today. I’m more than happy to pay for what I want rather than take what is given for free in the Club.

FWIW, my nightly rate is $549–pretty good for a 5* hotel in San Francisco. And all the staff still call me Mr., despite this not being the St Regis.