New to Oceania

[cirman52]

I am looking at 2 different cruises on the Nautica, Istanbul to Dubia and Bangkok to Istanbul.

My partner & I are both very casual, living in shorts & tee aboard the ship, 'cept for the MDR, we will wear slacks & collared shirts. For formal, we eat in the buffet. We enjoy Celebrity alot, HAL suited our needs for that cruise, I think we will feel comfortable on Oceania, my question is will we? I don't question the gay thing, just, would we be too casual for the ship? On Celebrity's formal night, we do wear slacks for walking around the ship in the eve.

[LHT28]

If you can stretch to wear slacks & a collared shirt in the evenings you will be fine on Oceania

There are no formal nights so no worries there

 

Most men wear dress slacks or dockers in the evenings

[orchestrapal]

I am looking at 2 different cruises on the Nautica, Istanbul to Dubia and Bangkok to Istanbul.

My partner & I are both very casual, living in shorts & tee aboard the ship, 'cept for the MDR, we will wear slacks & collared shirts. For formal, we eat in the buffet. We enjoy Celebrity alot, HAL suited our needs for that cruise, I think we will feel comfortable on Oceania, my question is will we? I don't question the gay thing, just, would we be too casual for the ship? On Celebrity's formal night, we do wear slacks for walking around the ship in the eve.

 

Welcome! You will be comfortable so long as you don't wear jeans and tees in the MDR for dinner.

[Paulchili]

One of the main reasons we love Oceania so much is the country club casual dress code (the other main one is the best food at sea - bar none).

We do not enjoy playing dress up either and O is the right choice for us.

Just wear slacks (not jeans) and a shirt (can even be short sleeve/Hawaiian shirt) for dinner.

If you are like the most of us here, you will never go back to X or HAL again after your O cruise :D

[cirman52]

Thank you all, going to book it.

[Emperor Norton]

Welcome! You will be comfortable so long as you don't wear jeans and tees in the MDR for dinner.

 

Perhaps it was just my cruises but there didn't seem to be any enforcement of the dress code in the GDR. Jeans were good to go (and Im talking about basic 501s not something some would argue that do to price are somehow not denim).

[ORV]

Don't forget that the dress code NOW only excludes "casual jeans", whatever that is. All other types of jeans are allowed at dinner. Some of the longtime regulars tend to forget that change has been made, or don't want to acknowledge it

Edited January 7, 2014 by ORV

[LHT28]

This has been beaten to death in the past

The policy is

 

Is there a dress code?

Recommended onboard clothing is resort or country club-casual. For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner.

 

 

Unless they change the rules from a REQUEST to NOT ALLOWED there will always be some that will push the envelope ;)

[Lola911]

This has been beaten to death in the past

The policy is

 

Is there a dress code?

Recommended onboard clothing is resort or country club-casual. For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner.

 

 

Unless they change the rules from a REQUEST to NOT ALLOWED there will always be some that will push the envelope ;)

 

Good heavens I agree Lyn. The man asked a simple question so let us not start a 6 page thread on jean/denim dress code again.

[Aruba]

Amen.

[ORV]

Welcome! You will be comfortable so long as you don't wear jeans and tees in the MDR for dinner.

 

Good heavens I agree Lyn. The man asked a simple question so let us not start a 6 page thread on jean/denim dress code again.

 

As long as the old rules continue to be erroneously quoted someone needs to point out the new ones.

 

No need to start a long conversation about it, but as Host Andy & Host Laura mentioned in their hope for the new year post, corrections should be pointed out, without flames or attacks, which wasn't done.

 

In case you haven't read Host Laura's post here it is:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/announcement.php?f=28&a=360

 

Happy New Year

 

PS, I don't wear jeans at dinner on Oceania, but it's completely acceptable if they're nice colored or designer jeans. No big deal.

[JimandStan]

PS, I don't wear jeans at dinner on Oceania, but it's completely acceptable if they're nice colored or designer jeans. No big deal.

 

Actually, Orv, you've given misinformation there.

 

If Oceania requests that certain items of clothing not be worn in their Restaurants, it is inaccurate to say that those articles are "completely acceptable".

 

The mere fact that Oceania may choose not to embarrass an inappropriately dressed passenger further, by asking them to leave the Dining Room does not mitigate the faux pas.

[ORV]

Actually, Orv, you've given misinformation there.

 

If Oceania requests that certain items of clothing not be worn in their Restaurants, it is inaccurate to say that those articles are "completely acceptable".

 

The mere fact that Oceania may choose not to embarrass an inappropriately dressed passenger further, by asking them to leave the Dining Room does not mitigate the faux pas.

 

No, I respectfully have to disagree in this case. While I appreciate all the good information and advice you give here I believe you're the misinformed party here. Things change, I suggest you read the new dress code.

 

Here's the pertinent part for you;

 

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner."

 

It should be obvious that by adding the word "casual" in front of jeans then any other type of jeans are acceptable. Otherwise why add it? What are those other types of jeans? Well I guess that's open to interpretation. That's my take, and why I posted that it's completely acceptable. I'm certainly open to any other explanation why they would have added the word casual instead of leaving it simply as jeans.

 

As I stated earlier, I wear dress slacks to dinner on Oceania, but I feel that ladies that are wearing colored, well cut jeans like those from Chicos and designer jeans that aren't all faded and full of holes more than fulfill the requirements of Oceania's dress code as they've worded it.

 

Once again the question is, Why did Oceania management change the wording from just "jeans" to "casual jeans"? Everything else in the conversation is just people's opinion. Whether one likes it or not is not important, except just to them.

[LHT28]

Here's the pertinent part for you;

 

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner."

 

 

As I have said many times before on this subject the dress code from Oceania is a REQUEST not a rule

 

You & I may not think of wearing casual jeans to dinner but those that like to "do it their way " may just take it as a suggestion & choose to wear casual jeans

After all they paid for the cruise & will do what they like regardless :D

 

YMMD

[ORV]

As I have said many times before on this subject the dress code from Oceania is a REQUEST not a rule

 

You & I may not think of wearing casual jeans to dinner but those that like to "do it their way " may just take it as a suggestion & choose to wear casual jeans

After all they paid for the cruise & will do what they like regardless :D

 

YMMD

 

I do understand what you're saying, but that is another conversation. I agree that "request" is just a nice way of saying "please don't".

 

Let's try this again.

 

Would you agree then that any other type of jeans than "casual jeans" fulfill the dress code requirement? Or do you believe that all jeans would be classified as casual?

[LHT28]

I do understand what you're saying, but that is another conversation. I agree that "request" is just a nice way of saying "please don't".

 

Let's try this again.

 

Would you agree then that any other type of jeans than "casual jeans" fulfill the dress code requirement? Or do you believe that all jeans would be classified as casual?

 

A request to me is is like DO NOT

That is just me others may think differently

 

I think all jeans no matter what colour, cost or designer are not appropriate in the dining venues (except The Terrace ) but again that is my opinion only

 

DEAD HORSE ;)

[rallydave]

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner."

 

/quote]

 

Please read the above dress code again, you seem to be missing the first sentence where elegant casual resort where is "suggested" And the second sentence is a request and also uses the word "should" which is completely different from the word shall which is a requirement whole should leaves following what one should do being optional.

 

Thus three words in the dress code indicate that O would like you to dress in elegant casual resort wear and not wear casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes but, not require that dress thus any clothing including shorts are acceptable no matter how unappreciated they are. Really simple by reading the whole code. If O wanted to require a certain dress code, they would have so said. They cannot ask people to leave a venue or change what they are wearing based on what they wrote no matter how inappropriate some people think the people are dressing.

 

Really nothing to discuss, the rule is what it is and really not subject to any interpretation.

[ORV]

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is suggested. We request that casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes not be worn at dinner."

 

 

Please read the above dress code again, you seem to be missing the first sentence where elegant casual resort where is "suggested" And the second sentence is a request and also uses the word "should" which is completely different from the word shall which is a requirement whole should leaves following what one should do being optional.

 

Thus three words in the dress code indicate that O would like you to dress in elegant casual resort wear and not wear casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or tennis shoes but, not require that dress thus any clothing including shorts are acceptable no matter how unappreciated they are. Really simple by reading the whole code. If O wanted to require a certain dress code, they would have so said. They cannot ask people to leave a venue or change what they are wearing based on what they wrote no matter how inappropriate some people think the people are dressing.

 

Really nothing to discuss, the rule is what it is and really not subject to any interpretation.

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are saying. Perhaps auto correct or something got the better of what you were trying to say. I didn't miss the elegant casual part, and really don't see the word should anywhere.

 

Could you go back and edit your statement?

Edited January 9, 2014 by ORV

[rallydave]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are saying. Perhaps auto correct or something got the better of what you were trying to say. I didn't miss the elegant casual part, and really don't see the word should anywhere.

 

Could you go back and edit your statement?

 

Can't edit the post any more but, as you stated I did mis-state the should part, it is not there and sorry I screwed up that portion. However, the words requested and suggested are used and those two words are sufficient to make my point that the dress code is a suggestion and you are requested to not wear certain items. You are not required to dress in elegant casual resort wear nor are the items in the second sentence required no no's not to wear.

 

Therefore, anyone can wear anything including casual jeans and while most people will not take advantage of what is written, the words as written are not rules that have to be followed, they are only suggestions and requests which are certainly not binding on anyone.

 

Notwithstanding my error is thinking a word was there that wasn't, the two words I quoted are certainly NOT definitive nor requirements. People may feel out of place wearing other than the suggested dress code and others may not appreciate people not following the suggestions but, they are suggestions as written and people have every right not to follow the suggestions and continue wearing what they choose.

[JimandStan]

People may feel out of place wearing other than the suggested dress code and others may not appreciate people not following the suggestions but, they are suggestions as written and people have every right not to follow the suggestions and continue wearing what they choose.

[orchestrapal]

Lol

Edited January 9, 2014 by orchestrapal

[ORV]

Can't edit the post any more but, as you stated I did mis-state the should part, it is not there and sorry I screwed up that portion. However, the words requested and suggested are used and those two words are sufficient to make my point that the dress code is a suggestion and you are requested to not wear certain items. You are not required to dress in elegant casual resort wear nor are the items in the second sentence required no no's not to wear.

 

Therefore, anyone can wear anything including casual jeans and while most people will not take advantage of what is written, the words as written are not rules that have to be followed, they are only suggestions and requests which are certainly not binding on anyone.

 

Notwithstanding my error is thinking a word was there that wasn't, the two words I quoted are certainly NOT definitive nor requirements. People may feel out of place wearing other than the suggested dress code and others may not appreciate people not following the suggestions but, they are suggestions as written and people have every right not to follow the suggestions and continue wearing what they choose.

 

Ok, now that I understand what you're saying I have to definitely disagree with you . But you're welcome to your opinion on the subject.

 

I'm saying nice designer jeans are included in Oceania's "Elegant Resort Casual" definition, and in no way is disrespecting the host's request. You on the other hand are saying wear whatever you want no matter what's requested of you, because of the way it's worded.

 

On the other hand you might just be playing devil's advocate playing with semantics.

[rallydave]

Ok, now that I understand what you're saying I have to definitely disagree with you . But you're welcome to your opinion on the subject.

 

I'm saying nice designer jeans are included in Oceania's "Elegant Resort Casual" definition, and in no way is disrespecting the host's request. You on the other hand are saying wear whatever you want no matter what's requested of you, because of the way it's worded.

 

On the other hand you might just be playing devil's advocate playing with semantics.

 

Guess you could say I am playing with semantics but, I am reading what is written and following the words that are in their printed material. If the wording that O printed were in a Contract, I would be 100% correct and if O wanted to limit what dress is "required", they would word it the following manner:

 

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is required. Casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or athletic shoes shall not be worn at dinner."

 

And, they should define what casual jeans are. Saying tennis shoes is way to vague as well as am sure they don't want running shoes, basketball shoes, etc.

 

Writing in the vague manner they did leaves people wondering what is approved and what is not. If we can't determine what O wants, it is ambiguous and buy most any type of law, ambiguity is construed against the writer which is O and we the customers are not bound by ambiguous statements.

 

Certainly we can agree to disagree but, if I choose to wear any type of jeans or shorts in the main dining room, I would be totally within my rights based on how it is written although I do admit that I would not feel very comfortable and in actuality, would follow their recommendations but, not be bound by them.

[ORV]

Guess you could say I am playing with semantics but, I am reading what is written and following the words that are in their printed material. If the wording that O printed were in a Contract, I would be 100% correct and if O wanted to limit what dress is "required", they would word it the following manner:

 

"For evening dining, elegant casual resort wear is required. Casual jeans, shorts, t-shirts or athletic shoes shall not be worn at dinner."

 

And, they should define what casual jeans are. Saying tennis shoes is way to vague as well as am sure they don't want running shoes, basketball shoes, etc.

 

Writing in the vague manner they did leaves people wondering what is approved and what is not. If we can't determine what O wants, it is ambiguous and buy most any type of law, ambiguity is construed against the writer which is O and we the customers are not bound by ambiguous statements.

 

Certainly we can agree to disagree but, if I choose to wear any type of jeans or shorts in the main dining room, I would be totally within my rights based on how it is written although I do admit that I would not feel very comfortable and in actuality, would follow their recommendations but, not be bound by them.

 

LOL, Perhaps they should have the same writer that worded the Smoking Policy write the dress code.