How do Crystal and Oceania compare with Princess?

[Go-Bucks!]

Question for anyone who's sailed on either of these lines and Princess: I really enjoy Princess, but keep getting brochures from these other lines. I wouldn't mind trying them, but am wondering if the higher prices are REALLY worth it. I love Princess' food, service, entertainment, and decor. I'm not a "princess" myself, so I don't need to be pampered or catered to - just need to relax and enjoy friendly surroundings. So, with that knowledge, do you think the experience on Crystal or Oceania would be so different to make the fares worth it?? If so, why? Thanks!

[Coral]

I wrote a long review of my Crystal cruise a few years ago:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=489031&highlight=crystal+serenity

 

I would love to cruise again but they have only 2 ships and I have a school schedule I need to schedule around. I loved their ship, service and food. I loved it much more than Princess, especially after sailing the larger Princess ships, I really appreciate the ships where service and food are a priority.

 

If you really enjoy Princess - stick with Princess. I am not overly happy with the direction Princess is going (smaller space ratio, service lacking) so for me, it is worth looking elsewhere.

[Andee]

We found the food on our two Oceania cruises to be way superior to that on Princess. We really like the open seating dining, no charge for specialty resraurants, lack of formal nights. We don't care for the big production number shows on Princess, so it doesn't bother us that Oceania doesn't offer them. I haven't been on Princess smallest ships, which are, I believe, the same size as the Oceania ships--a size that suits us very well. We also thought the service was better on Oceania.

[Bowie MeMe]

I was on Nautica for the Istanbul to Athens cruise last September. The food and service is much superior to Princess (I'm platinium so I do like Princess also) but the price is more also. There is essentially no real entertainment on Oceania just some on the cruise director's staff. Some were better than others but I was not that impressed with the entertainment on Coral Princess last month going through the Panama Canal. Both lines friendly and smiling.

 

I loved the Nautica and the fact that it could slip into small town ports where huge ships can not go. For Greece it was just perfect as we could tender into Delos (Greek Holy City) and included Crete. Well worth the extra money IMHO. I was also on the Tahitian Princess (Now the Ocean Princess) for Tahiti and again absolutely wonderful.

 

With only 600 passengers it is much more intimate experience. The small ships and Oceania ships all started life as Renissance ships and even have identical ceilings in library and other places. Worth the extra? Depends on the itenerary for us as that is just about the bottom line on all our cruises. Check out the Oceania cruise critic board. It is weird that the President of Oceania keeps tabs and often answers personally. Try one of the small ships. A different if not better experience.

[Go-Bucks!]

Thanks so much for sharing your experiences.

 

I have another question that sort of relates. Several of you said that the Crystal/Oceania service and food were "better", "superior", or is a "priority." In practical, concrete ways, what do those descriptions mean? I'm a very concrete thinker and those terms seem vague and difficult to figure out how they translate into the reality of the experience.

 

So, can anyone give me actual examples of how the food and service was better/superior? Thanks again. :)

[Hlitner]

We do not think you can do a valid comparison of these 4 lines because its one of those Apples and Oranges things. Crystal is a medium size ship line (we used to call those size ships huge) which has great space ratios, never a problem with on-deck seating, excellent cuisine and very good service helped by an excellent ratio of service staff to passengers. Oceania (and also Azamara) are smaller ship lines (the same Renaissance ships as the Ocean and Pacific Princess ships) that is somewhat more upscale then Princess (with higher prices). Food on both Oceania and Azamara (owned by Celebrity cruises) is better then Princess food. In fact, we thought that the alternative restaurant (Aqualina) on the Azamara Journey had the best food we have ever had on any cruise ship and was close to haute cuisine restaurant. As an example, for an appetizer I ordered a cold seafood platter which was a huge platter full of crushed ice. In the Ice there was a lobster tail, several jumbo shrimp, Clams and Oysters. And this was just the appetizer and the alternative restaurants are free.

 

One very important factor is the cost of the cruise, and Princess is far cheaper then those other lines (unless you are paying for a suite).

 

Hank

[Coral]

 

So, can anyone give me actual examples of how the food and service was better/superior? Thanks again. :)

 

I wrote a whole reviewing comparing the two and posted it on this thread. Tons of examples there.

 

Most importantly, staff is not stressing over so much to do and can actually serve you. Food is a huge step up and doesn't taste like convention food.

[Druke I]

Princess is main-line cruising, Crystal and Oceania are high-end cruising.

 

We think Princess has some of the best itineraries around.

 

Twice on Crystal - nice ships, very good food, but we did not care for some of the mid-management types, and there was a perceived "snootiness" among some of the passengers.

 

We've sailed Oceania three times, and have a booking on their new ship, Marina. They have outstanding food, nice smaller ships, and a very realistic dress code. Oceania is our new favorite cruise line.

[Coral]

Twice on Crystal - nice ships, very good food, but we did not care for some of the mid-management types, and there was a perceived "snootiness" among some of the passengers.

 

Ironically -I ran into more of that attitude on Celebrity then I did on Crystal. I found the Crystal passengers down to earth. I also found the Crystal board people very welcoming (more so than some other boards).

[Go-Bucks!]

I wrote a whole reviewing comparing the two and posted it on this thread. Tons of examples there.

 

Most importantly, staff is not stressing over so much to do and can actually serve you. Food is a huge step up and doesn't taste like convention food.

 

 

I hadn't had time yet to read your review, but now I did. You are right - many examples. Thanks so much! It was much easier to understand what you get for your money than just hearing "it's better" or "superior." Those are such relative terms.

 

I am seriously looking at going on Crystal or Oceania for the next cruise, but will likely have to save up a bit longer for it. Even though it may not seem to be worth the extra money, I'd like to try it anyway.

[Coral]

I hadn't had time yet to read your review, but now I did. You are right - many examples. Thanks so much! It was much easier to understand what you get for your money than just hearing "it's better" or "superior." Those are such relative terms.

 

I am wordy - sorry about that. Glad you got through it.

[Benita]

We have sailed on all three lines - Crystal twice, Oceania twice, and Princess six times. The two that are the most similar to eachother are Princess and Crystal - both have fixed dining (although now you can do the my time dining on both). Both are larger ships with a larger feel - two seatings at dinner, two show times, etc. although the Princess ships are larger. The Princess ships tend to be newer, although Crystal put out a new ship a few years ago, and Oceania is coming out with the Marina.

From a pricing standpoint - Princess is much, much cheaper. As a result, we sail on suites with Princess for far less money than the outside cabin we take on Crystal and the balcony on Oceania. There are many more Princess ships, so there are more choices on when and where to sail. Princess also has much better entertainment than the other two lines - Oceania has practically none, but its sailings are so port intensive, that I don't think people miss it much.

As far as Crystal, the food and service are top notch - much better than Princess and I found it on par with Oceania. It is more formal than Princess and the clientele seem to be much older. Loads of elderly women, traveling alone - the cruise line even hires older men to work on the ship as hosts, and dance with the women. The bands were very low key - I like Cole Porter, but some variety would be nice.

Oceania is a different experience entirely - although Princess has one of their ships. With only 675 passengers and no fixed seating at all, it is more like a great resort than a cruise ship. The itineraries are more varied and I found the passengers extremely well traveled and low key in behavior - no hairy legs contest or anything like that. The food is superb and service excellent. The cabins are not so great - too small for my liking unless you splurge for one of the suites, which is out of our price range. The experience is much more like a floating hotel - the itinerary brings you on, and you have great food while you sail.

That said, I would not go on either Oceania or Crystal if I were bringing children - no programs for them and the cabins are too small to fit more than two. If pricing were similar I would spend my entire cruising life on Oceania. It is similar in price to Crystal, and we love the less formal atmosphere and the fact that not everybody is 90 years old (OK, I do exaggerate some - but not much).

The reality is - Princess is a great line, but nowhere in the league of Oceania and Crystal. When you are comparing Princess, you need to compare it to Holland America, Celebrity, and Royal Caribbean. Comparing it to Oceania and Crystal is like comparing Godiva chocolate to Hershey's - both great, but no comparison.