February 2000

Vol. 15, No. 2   What's this?

Phony Ad Wrecks Vacation

from the February, 2000 issue of Undercurrent  

Dear Editor: I saw your column (Undercurrent, January, 2000) about the “shore dives” depicted in Little Cayman Beach Resort’s ad. It wasn’t the first time I’d noticed the ad. Last spring, my wife, mother and I wanted to vacation together — someplace where my wife and I could get in some good diving, and where my 76-year-old mother could enjoy the beach. We noted that Little Cayman Beach Resort was a toprated dive resort, and after I saw the ad, that pretty much clinched the deal. Mind you, I really didn’t take the ad literally. I recognized the signs of digital tomfoolery. I didn’t expect to have a reef that close to the beach. But I certainly never expected the water to be less than a couple of feet deep (and filled with weeds) for nearly a half mile from the beach.

The resort lives up to its reputation in terms of the diving, service, food, and accommodations. We all had a good time, even my mother. But Little Cayman just isn’t a “beach resort,” and shouldn’t be calling itself one. I can’t believe that a place so well-run, with such great diving, would be hurt by an honest characterization of the situation. I’d go back, but not with someone who wants a beach.

I admit sheepishly that, after the fact, I found the beach described accurately in a reader report on the Undercurrent website. I won’t travel again without reading everything that’s out there. John Sommerer (Silver Spring, MD)

Editor’s Note: It's true, there's a lot of good info from readers and editors on the website. If you’re not a member of Undercurrent Online, for 25 cents you can log on to Undercurrent and see for yourself what value it can bring.