Regent Mariner vs. Crystal Symphony vs. Oceania Marina

[3963golfer]

Going on our first Mediterranean cruise. Want to see all the "big" cities (Barcelona, Athens, Rome) Have found similar itineraries at the end of April on Crystal Symphony, Regent Mariner and Oceania Marina. All are 10-12 day cruises and stop in pretty much the same ports. Which would you choose and why?

[Travelcat2]

Going on our first Mediterranean cruise. Want to see all the "big" cities (Barcelona, Athens, Rome) Have found similar itineraries at the end of April on Crystal Symphony, Regent Mariner and Oceania Marina. All are 10-12 day cruises and stop in pretty much the same ports. Which would you choose and why?

 

Welcome to the Regent board! I would like to try to answer your question. . . . but should mention that the Oceania Marina is not classified as a luxury all-inclusive ship. From what has been written about the Marina, it is one of the most beautiful ships afloat today. However, it is not all-inclusive and the suites are smaller than Regent.

 

Crystal is a luxury cruise line that will be all-inclusive next summer. Until then you will have to pay for alcoholic drinks and tips. Airfare is generally included as are soft drinks. Regular" cabins are smaller than Regent.

 

I'm not sure what the competitive cruise lines to Regent are offering (Silversea and Seabourn). It is a bit easier to compare these ships because their offerings are similiar.

 

 

Regarding the ships, here are some comparisons:

 

Crystal Symphony: Built in 1995 -- refurbished in 2009. Smoking in cabins. Lowest regular cabin is 202 sq. ft. with obstructed view and no balcony. Passenger capacity: 922

 

Oceania Marina: Built 2010. No smoking in suites or balconies. Smallest non-inside cabin -- 242 sq. ft. Passenger capacity: 1,258

 

Regent Mariner: Built 2001. Refurbished in 2011. All balcony ship. No smoking in suites or balconies. Smallest suite 252 sq. ft. with 59 sq. ft. balcony. Passenger capacity: 700.

 

Having said that, you would probably be happy with any of the three cruise lines you mentioned. So, if you look at price. . . . . in order to level the playing field, you would need to take the fare for each cruise line and deduct the cost of tips, most excursions and alcohol from the Regent price.

 

Let us know what you decide.

[rallydave]

Regarding the ships, here are some comparisons:

 

Crystal Symphony: Built in 1995 -- refurbished in 2009. Smoking in cabins. Lowest regular cabin is 202 sq. ft. with obstructed view and no balcony. Passenger capacity: 922

 

Oceania Marina: Built 2010. No smoking in suites or balconies. Smallest non-inside cabin -- 242 sq. ft. Passenger capacity: 1,258

 

Regent Mariner: Built 2001. Refurbished in 2011. All balcony ship. No smoking in suites or balconies. Smallest suite 252 sq. ft. with 59 sq. ft. balcony. Passenger capacity: 700.

 

tc, suggest you provide clarification on your descriptions of the different cabins/suites. You are using the terms "regular cabin" compared to smalliest non-inside cabin to "smallest suite". Am sure the OP as well as others are confused with these different terms. They are probably what the cruiseline descriptions but, difficult for one not familiar with each of the lines to compare fairly. Also, the balcony on the Mariner is 49 sq ft, not 59, a typo I am sure.

[Travelcat2]

tc, suggest you provide clarification on your descriptions of the different cabins/suites. You are using the terms "regular cabin" compared to smalliest non-inside cabin to "smallest suite". Am sure the OP as well as others are confused with these different terms. They are probably what the cruiseline descriptions but, difficult for one not familiar with each of the lines to compare fairly. Also, the balcony on the Mariner is 49 sq ft, not 59, a typo I am sure.

 

Yes -- hit the wrong key on that one!

 

I probably should not have taken on that question as the three ships are so different. I was taking the smallest cabin I could find (checked on the websites) for each ship. Regent advertises "suites", Crystal "staterooms" and Oceania "cabins". Then there are "obstructed views" and "inside cabins". I suppose that the bottom line is that Regent's least expensive accommodation is larger than on the other two ships.

 

I apparently also neglected to answer another question. . . . which would I chose and why. I would pick Regent because of the all-inclusivity factor. I'd also recommend checking Silversea's website for their Med. cruises as they are comparable to Regent.

[Judith02]

Just curious -- once Crystal is all inclusive and now that they have their open dining with reservations, would you consider trying Crystal?

[Wendy The Wanderer]

If it's the April 30th Mariner cruise, that's one heck of an itinerary, Barcelona to Istanbul. It certainly hits the high spots. I like the look of this one a lot--it's even got a sea day in the middle to recover, and also begs for a post-cruise stay in Istanbul.

 

Not sure which Oceania Marina trip you are comparing it to. It must be the Riviera trip--Apr.14, Barcelona to Athens. That looks really nice to me too.

 

The Crystal trip on April 30th is Istanbul to Barcelona. I have always excluded Crystal from consideration because of the perceived formality, the smallness of the cabins, and the fixed dining.

 

A few comments:

- to me the prices are better, for a comparably-sized stateroom, on Regent

- I would choose Regent because they have great deals on Business Class upgrades

- if you are content with Economy Air, then the Oceania trip is the least expensive on the surface. But then you may want to assign a value to the "free" excursions on Regent Mariner (which I certainly would.)

 

So, overall, despite my desire to sail on Oceania Marina/Riviera some day, I would choose Regent Mariner for this trip.

 

But if you don't mind the limitations on Crystal, this trip has 3 sea days scattered through the 12 days, which would make for a more relaxed trip.

[ededmd]

While this most certainly will not be true, if adjusted monetary outlay were the same for all, I would pick Regent.

 

Now, back to reality. I'd go for the one with the best comparative price. I think in these ports, it might not make sense to pay for "included" excursions on Regent making Oceania a better deal.

 

Despite Crystal's policy changes, I still much prefer Regent's and Oceania's elegant casual dress code (I'm too simple and perhaps young to think dressing in formal wear is fun) and more restrictive smoking policy.

[Responder]

I need to offer a bit of input..

 

Last year we tried our one and only cruise on the Crystal Symphony.

 

We always opt for a low end cabin, since we have sailed exclusively with Regent for many years now.

 

We chose the E category which is a 202Sq Ft. Big mistake. We have been on ships with smaller cabins, but have never seen a poorer layout than this, and we couldn't understand the purpose of the window, as nothing could be seen from it...except lifeboats..

 

Bathroom was so tiny, you couldn't open the bath towel to its full size.

 

The scheduled dining at the time was ridiculous...something like 6:15 or 8:30 and the only table for 2 available was right on top of the service area.

 

As I mentioned in another post, we experienced subtle undertones of tip hustling from the Maitre 'D on down...and when we had the shipboard credits left over, since the prices in the shops and Spa were so ludicrous, we distributed the remains among the service personnel. Of all, only ONE server thanked us.

 

The dress formality was not for us..the price of each and every drink overpriced.

 

To this day, we don't know what compelled us to sail with them. We were and are so spoiled with Regent that for us, it's difficult to go elsewhere.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Wow, that's interesting. And here I was thinking that Crystal might not be too bad! I too have sailed in rooms that are around 200 sq ft, but I guess the layout really matters.

 

A P.S. to my previous post--I was talking about Regent vs Crystal when I said that the prices were better on a comparable stateroom on Regent. The standard balcony cabin on Riviera is a tad smaller than the standard Regent stateroom, but it's a fair size and considerably cheaper.

[Travelcat2]

Just curious -- once Crystal is all inclusive and now that they have their open dining with reservations, would you consider trying Crystal?

 

Based on some comments on this thread, I don't think too many Regent customers will be trying Crystal. We considered it at one time but found the price for a stateroom that is a similar size to a penthouse on Regent too costly.

 

If there was a low cost Caribbean or Mexico cruise on Crystal, we would think about it. At the moment, it is at the bottom of my list of luxury cruise lines.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

We are considering Crystal for a future cruise. Almost all the friends we have had that have sailed on the line have loved it.

[tallship]

I need to offer a bit of input..

 

Last year we tried our one and only cruise on the Crystal Symphony.

 

We always opt for a low end cabin, since we have sailed exclusively with Regent for many years now.

 

We chose the E category which is a 202Sq Ft. Big mistake. We have been on ships with smaller cabins, but have never seen a poorer layout than this, and we couldn't understand the purpose of the window, as nothing could be seen from it...except lifeboats..

 

Bathroom was so tiny, you couldn't open the bath towel to its full size.

 

The scheduled dining at the time was ridiculous...something like 6:15 or 8:30 and the only table for 2 available was right on top of the service area.

 

As I mentioned in another post, we experienced subtle undertones of tip hustling from the Maitre 'D on down...and when we had the shipboard credits left over, since the prices in the shops and Spa were so ludicrous, we distributed the remains among the service personnel. Of all, only ONE server thanked us.

 

The dress formality was not for us..the price of each and every drink overpriced.

 

To this day, we don't know what compelled us to sail with them. We were and are so spoiled with Regent that for us, it's difficult to go elsewhere.

 

 

Responder - Thanks for the comparison. Hustling for tips is a turn-off for us

[wripro]

My suggestion to the OP, if you haven't already done so, is to ask this question on all three boards since people are very partisan to their preferred cruise line you will surely get different responses on the other boards.

 

Here is my own opinion.

Crystal is the most formal of the three. If you like dressing up that can be a factor. Oceania is country club casual all the time as is Regent.

 

Regent includes shore excursions. This is a plus if you like tours on buses with 50 other people. If you like to explore on your own or arrange private tours as I do it's a negative because the cost of the excursion is built into the price of the cruise.

 

Regent has great suites. In order to get anything comparable on Oceania you have to book a penthouse which brings the price up pretty close. If you're happy with a smaller cabin you can get a great experience on Oceania for less money.

 

Crystal has great food and lecture programs but the Marina and Riviera offer four specialty restaurants which are superb and incur no extra charge.

 

As stated above you really can't go wring with any of the three.

[Eager2Travel]

We used to sail Crystal quite regularly (at least 6 sailings)until we discovered Regent. Price would be a factor in our decision. That being said we would be willing to pay somewhat more for Regent. It has been awhile since we have been on Crystal. Two things were a turn off for us. First is the obvious catering to passengers who sail very frequently and stay in the penthouse cabins. Second is the formality and rigidity of the ship. This came manly from the fixed dinner hours. Even their proposed change to making dinner reservations lacks the relaxed nature of showing up whenever you want on Regent. However Crystal is a very well run operation.

[AWED23]

This thread is on Crystal and Oceanias boards as well. Good way to get a cross section of comments.....For us it isn't even close, after a 2 week Norway cruise in 11 days that was paid for in January, we will not stray for quite a long while from Regent or Oceania....Crystal not even close to as perfect and superior as their regulars proclaim....Much more relaxed passengers aboard Regent & Oceania....Crystal has nothing that is even close in quality to Prime 7......

[mimito4]

Well, now I really can't wait to cruise Regent in late August. Just so I can compare. And that I will do. . .but not to the point that it takes away from my fun. After all, none of us are being paid to do reviews. At least I don't think so. Stay tuned.

 

Unlike most people on any one board here on CC, I am not loyal to any particular line. I do have expectations when I cruise a particular line, and that is usually based on the per diem rate we've paid, same as when staying in a hotel. When I stay at a Ritz Carlton or a Mandarin Oriental, for instance, my expectations are different than when I stay in a Hyatt, or for that matter, a Red Roof Inn. In other words, I better darn well get my money's worth, whether the hotel is full or mostly empty. . .has no bearing on my expectations.

 

I have cruised Crystal, and I each time have had impeccable service and cuisine; I've enjoyed fellow passengers, the activities, and so on. This has been true both when the ship was full, and when it was only 3/4 full. They have earned their consistent awards. . .very customer oriented. I've always said that Crystal management has taught the crew to say YES. Period. One never has to go looking for anything, or ask twice. For that matter, you have to practically wrestle with the crew members to be able to do something. . .anything. . .for yourself.

 

And no, we don't cruise in a penthouse. Oh, and never, ever, have I ever felt hit up for tips on Crystal!

 

For the OP's info, even if you cruise Crystal while the "as you wish OBC" are in place and before the all-inclusive thing kicks in, you will be cruising all-inclusive. So you have to sign a check or two. . .so what? At the end, your OBC covers your charges in ways you WANT it to. It's just a matter of taking the $ out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket. It is a great model particularly for those who don't drink. Also, never heard of a TA who didn't pre-pay gratuities for their clients on Crystal, so again, all inclusive it is.

 

That said, it is a more formal line, and the standard staterooms are on the small side. I've come to the conclusion that I will cruise Crystal next only when the ship is the destination, such as on a crossing because I do indeed love it.

 

I've cruised SeaDream and love it. . .for the Caribbean, and probably for the Med. Casual fun and luxury is a great combination. . .I mean how often does the Captain take a hike with a handful of people to a Caribbean beach joint and buy beers for everyone? I don't think I'd like it for a crossing or for a colder climate. Again, service and cuisine is perfection.

 

Never cruised Oceania, but surely intend to at some point. When I've compared thus far though, Oceania seemed to price out above the all-inclusive luxury lines when you factor in on-board costs. Again, they seem to have a great reputation and rabid fans.

 

As for the mass cruise lines, I'm very fond of Celebrity. . .always had great service and good times. The food was more banquet type, but if you pay the small upcharge and eat in the specialty restaurants, it feels more like (and tastes more like ;)) a luxury line. The unique thing about Celebrity is that you can buy a drink package and end up making your cruise all-inclusive in a sense, and this is a great deal. The other mass lines don't offer this option to my knowledge.

 

Next month I'm going to cruise from NYC to Halifax with 5 great girlfriends. . .on Carnival. What are my expectations? To have a giggle-fest. Not expecting great food or great service, but I will be so busy thanking my lucky stars for such friends and the chance to break bread and sip wine with them that I won't be looking for much from Carnival, certainly not for what I paid.

 

And finally, even though we are going on the Regent Navigator to Alaska in August, I've come to the conclusion that in the future on port-intensive voyages, at least those in which I have never visited and intend to really be a full-time tourist, I will save my money and "step-down" in luxury.

 

Why?

 

Because I feel that unless the ship is my destination, I cannot justify the per diem rate for luxury, simply because there is no time to take advantage of the amenities for which one is paying.

 

Rather than repeat myself, here is an interesting thread from a few months ago on the SeaDream board about downgrading to mass lines in certain circumstances.

 

I do promise some comparing and contrasting after I have my actual Regent experience. I hope to be wowed!

 

Boy, did I get long-winded. My apologies.

[PaulaJK]

Loved your thinking........and await your reports.

[Travelcat2]

I found the following statements very interesting and agree with them:

 

And finally, even though we are going on the Regent Navigator to Alaska in August, I've come to the conclusion that in the future on port-intensive voyages, at least those in which I have never visited and intend to really be a full-time tourist, I will save my money and "step-down" in luxury.

 

Why?

 

Because I feel that unless the ship is my destination, I cannot justify the per diem rate for luxury, simply because there is no time to take advantage of the amenities for which one is paying.

 

With this kind of thinking, the Navigator should not be disappointing.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I found the following statements very interesting and agree with them:

 

And finally, even though we are going on the Regent Navigator to Alaska in August, I've come to the conclusion that in the future on port-intensive voyages, at least those in which I have never visited and intend to really be a full-time tourist, I will save my money and "step-down" in luxury.

 

Why?

 

Because I feel that unless the ship is my destination, I cannot justify the per diem rate for luxury, simply because there is no time to take advantage of the amenities for which one is paying.

 

With this kind of thinking, the Navigator should not be disappointing.

 

I'm confused by your last statement, TC. With high per diems, you can't help but put Navigator into the category, "ship as destination". So if you follow that reasoning, and also decide that Alaska is a port-intensive destination (which it is), then it would be time to "step down".

 

From what we've been reading about Navigator lately, I think disappointment would definitely be a possibility.

[Responder]

I'm confused by your last statement, TC. With high per diems, you can't help but put Navigator into the category, "ship as destination". So if you follow that reasoning, and also decide that Alaska is a port-intensive destination (which it is), then it would be time to "step down".

 

From what we've been reading about Navigator lately, I think disappointment would definitely be a possibility.

 

Disappointment for whom??

 

We just did an 11 day FtL-Ftl on the Navigator on Mar 24 and found it excellent in every respect.

 

We are seasoned cruisers and Gold on Regent.

 

I'm sure the experiences the OP reported were as he/she said, related to expectations.

How do the relatively few negative postings on CC allow the conclusion that disappointment would be possible?

 

I read the posts and find that most are quite pleased with their experience and those who are going for the first time are excited about it due to reading all the good things..I appreciate that someone writes well and takes the time to post a lengthy review of their experience, but that alone doesn't add more or less credence to the value as it might affect everyone else.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Mimito4 -

 

You said it perfectly and I agree 100% with you. We are Regent Gold but we have been on the line appropriate to the trip from Royal Caribbean with Grandchildren, Oceania, Regent, Princess, Celebrity, Holland America and more.

 

Jackie - I have heard nothing but good from friends about the Navigator lately. I would be surprised to hear of major disappointments.

[Travelcat2]

Goodness, this thread confused me as it sounded from mimito that this was the Navigator thread instead of the comparison with the Mariner.

 

Since this is turning into yet another Navigator thread, I'll stick in my 2 or 3 cents. Tallship (certainly not a newbie to Regent) sailed on the Navigator last month and experienced disappointments. Historically (anyone wanting to check history can do so), Alaska cruises have had issues. While we have enjoyed the Navigator, we probably will not sail on her in the future as her stabilizers (and other parts) do not function as well as the Mariner and Voyager. Rumor has it that once a new ship is built (IF a new ship is built), the Navigator will be sold.

 

It seems that too many people take it personally when someone is critical of anything about Regent. Most regulars on the board love sailing on Regent and select it over other cruise lines. But, nothing is perfect. And, in my opinion, the Navigator is the least perfect ship we have sailed on. People who post about poor service are actually experiencing it. There is no reason to make it up. And, although food is subjective, when you have a piece of fish that is so tough that you cannot cut through it, there is obviously something wrong. There are so many variables that we need to take into consideration (on any ship). A person's entire experience on board could be different than another person simply because their butler or steward/stewardess was disappointing. One person may spend evenings in the Navigator Bar while the other hangs out in Stars Lounge. . . . . different servers, different atmosphere, different experience.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Disappointment for whom??

 

We just did an 11 day FtL-Ftl on the Navigator on Mar 24 and found it excellent in every respect.

 

We are seasoned cruisers and Gold on Regent.

 

I'm sure the experiences the OP reported were as he/she said, related to expectations.

How do the relatively few negative postings on CC allow the conclusion that disappointment would be possible?

 

I read the posts and find that most are quite pleased with their experience and those who are going for the first time are excited about it due to reading all the good things..I appreciate that someone writes well and takes the time to post a lengthy review of their experience, but that alone doesn't add more or less credence to the value as it might affect everyone else.

 

I'm glad it was great, this makes me feel more confident. But the OP is not the only one who has had disappointing experiences on Navigator this season. I'm also Gold, and if my Navigator trip next May is less than satisfying, I will be disappointed. I don't expect perfection, but I have the bar set fairly high from past trips.

 

This "expectation" thing. It's subjective, of course. My expectations were set extremely high after my first Radisson cruise on the Paul Gauguin in 2000--it was perfection. After returning to that ship in 2003, my next trip was on Diamond in 2004. After all the hype about that ship, it was not as good as the PG, ship-wise. Great cruise, unparallelled dining room, great staterooms, atrium, lovely. But ambience and service weren't up to the PG, and the alternative dining frankly sucked. And so it goes--we each have had a cruise experience that we'd like each of our subsequent trips to live up to. After that, I gave up on the special PG ambience, and the bar was re-set on my 2006 Voyager MC-Dover cruise--everything was divine.

 

I'm thinking out loud...for me, expectations have several dimensions that can be independent: food, service, physical aspects of the ship, the intangibles of ambience. My 2006 Navigator trip, using those four dimensions was, out of 10: food 7, service 8, ship 9, ambience 7. I expect my trip next year to meet that or better.

[mimito4]

Goodness, this thread confused me as it sounded from mimito that this was the Navigator thread instead of the comparison with the Mariner.

 

My apologies for seemingly going off topic. I had read several threads and was likely responding to various themes. Still, I was trying to keep with this OP's original question comparing the three various ships. I suppose I was taking a "broader brush" to give my thoughts, opining on the three lines the OP asked about rather than the 3 individual ships, and conceptually, even broader, on various cruise-line models in general.

 

*slapping self up-side the head* I tend to be always guilty of that. My husband says I'm more the big picture person than the detail type. :p Again, my apologies if I started this thread in an off-topic manner. Still, I hope the OP finds these opinions and themes all helpful.

 

Mimito4 -

 

You said it perfectly and I agree 100% with you. We are Regent Gold but we have been on the line appropriate to the trip from Royal Caribbean with Grandchildren, Oceania, Regent, Princess, Celebrity, Holland America and more.

 

Yep, we've done several of those too. . .Royal Caribbean with grandchildren and family and honestly, it's perfect for that--my kids and grandchildren have had great times making great memories on those big monsters. You couldn't get our 23 year old "bonus child" on anything other than Royal Caribbean.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Sorry also for contributing to getting this thread off-topic.

 

I've been fascinated reading all three threads on the three different forums.

 

To the OP: what kind of cabin class are you thinking of on the three ships?