Jump to content

I Don’t Cruise ...


Toryhere
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe we finally have a concrete difference between luxury and upmarket. A luxury cruise will give you three nights in ST Petersburg while an upmarket one will only give you two.

 

Yet Regent only gives one day in Florence.

 

We have spent most of a day just in the Uffizi Gallery.

 

And another in the Pitti Palace and the Boboli Gardens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is a great example of why my argument is sound. There is a vocabulary that allows us to differentiate between good and cheap wine. There should also be a simple term that allows to make the distinction between the upmarket cruise lines and the mass market ones.

“Luxury cruising” is a bit lame, because, as many posters on threads all over CC often tell us, what some people call “luxury” is really not top drawer at all.

 

 

Well, I don't drink alcohol, so telling me that you don't drink "plonk" really wouldn't help me much. I would just wonder what plonk is. I would also expect people who don't cruise to not know the difference between cruising terms. In fact, people who don't cruise probably don't care whether someone is yachting, cruising, luxury cruising or voyaging on a big behemoth or in a rowboat. I enjoy cruising, and I still don't care. My only concern is whether it was a good experience for you or not and why.

 

I generally find that when I am talking to lay people about their medical problems, it is better to use every day language instead of medical terminology. I may tell a coworker that the patient had "a STEMI with 100% occlusion of the LAD", but I will tell the patient and his family "one of the arteries in your heart was blocked and you had a heart attack". It doesn't give them as much information as I told my coworker, but the terminology would just confuse them. Things may be different where you are or in your social circles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish that I could agree with you but "upmarket" is not a term typically used here. Instead, we might refer to a luxury cruise line as "upscale" or a wine as "top shelf". Again, there are many differences in our "common language". Thanks to this post, I've learned a new term.

 

Down here in Arizona, Top Shelf is a restaurant.

 

I think most of the problems in this thread come from people not understanding someone else's point of view, which is obviously difficult to do on a discussion board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree about the word "plonk" - the only place I have seen the word is on CC. Perhaps using slang terms makes the language differences worse?

 

In terms of alcohol, top shelf or premium alcohol still doesn't describe what I try to relay on CC. Regent carries, for instance, Grey Goose, Chopin, Stoly, etc. as their regular pours. And, they have Patron and Don Julio tequila which is high priced in the U.S These are also regular pours. However, there are a few (very few) brands that are even more expensive and I'm not sure what word would convey this.

 

So to touch on premium plus vs. luxury for a moment, I do not believe that any premium plus cruise line has this level as alcohol as regular pours (not certain because, while Oceania does have this level for their Premium Alcohol package, the cost is $69/day/person which is quite high IMHO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we finally have a concrete difference between luxury and upmarket. A luxury cruise will give you three nights in ST Petersburg while an upmarket one will only give you two.

 

Nope; Oceania at least commonly gives you 3 days in St. Petersburg; did a 3 day tour with Alla there back when Alla was a young girl plus a driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope; Oceania at least commonly gives you 3 days in St. Petersburg; did a 3 day tour with Alla there back when Alla was a young girl plus a driver.

 

What a treat to do tours with Alla. We used her company in 2006 and loved the tour - unfortunately, Alla was not our tour guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toryhere - you have given me food for thought - thank you.

 

I'm now wondering if I am a reverse snob (hoping not). Although my British DH and I rarely argue or get upset with each other, we do have different points of view on some things. One is the "class system" on cruise lines. He enjoys every benefit that we receive from staying in upper suites. While I enjoy the larger suite and the in-suite benefits, once you walk outside of your suite on a luxury cruise line, I feel that everyone should be treated the same - no special places where only people in upper suites can stay. I don't mind "invisible" benefits such as getting additional dining reservations in specialty restaurants because no one really knows how many times you have been to a specialty restaurant. I have had more than one battle on CC over these issues.

 

In terms of language, after 38 1/2 years of marriage, there are still some words that we misunderstand. He has been in the U.S. many years (raised and schooled in London) and there are likely "new" slang terms that he would be completely unfamiliar with.

 

Anyway, whether or not I am a reverse snob, I do care about people and want everyone to be treated fairly and as equally as possible. When it comes to cruise ships, there are a few things in play.

 

1. Some people enjoy the craziness and fun that can be had on a mainstream cruise line - even if they can afford a luxury cruise line.

 

2. Some people (like me) want to sail on smaller quiet ships, more or less a country club environment (and we are not member of any country clubs), great food and service and large suites - preferably with 1 1/2 bathrooms. and few to no children So, luxury cruising works perfectly for us.

 

3. People that cannot afford too pay upwards of $500/day per person but want a similar atmosphere as luxury cruisers and they tend to sail on Azamara, Oceania and Viking Ocean.

 

4. People that can afford luxury cruises but prefer taking more premium-plus cruises or just like the atmosphere.

 

I'm likely wrong on some things and are missing others but this is how I see it at the moment.

 

I have seen nothing of the reverse snob in your comments.

 

I agree with your 4 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and see examples of the reverse all the time. But my wanting it to be different is not enough to make it different.....and that's the same here for you. Deciding that you're going to simply use a word to mean something different than what it's come to mean to everyone does not mean that others will understand you, agree with you, or not think you're being obtuse. One anonymous poster on an internet forum may have good intentions, but no one else knows if that's true, or has any reason to agree with you or follow you.

 

 

I had a friend who said runway models were "mutants" because she said it was literally the truth -- that their body type and physiology was not a part of the normal spectrum, and that they could do what they did only because of genetic mutations. Nevertheless, she knew that her literal definition was not enough to a) get people to understand her and b) get people to agree with her. She doesn't call them mutants around other people, but I know she still believes that's what they are (and I agree with her).

 

Thanks for your very perceptive comment. I agree that no one person can change English usage by fiat. However, the language is not fixed and new expressions are being made up all the time. Thus a British commentator a few years came up with “virtue signalling” to designate the act of saying or doing something not because it is right but because it makes the uttered look virtuous.

All these new words and meanings come from a myriad of sources, not from some “offical” overseer of the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no correlation between affluence and discernment. And certainly one should not presume that consumers of "upmarket" products and services are affluent or discerning.

 

My understanding of "upmarket wine" is a product that is expensive. Is that what you meant?

 

I think there is a general correlation between affluence and discernment, but it is a case where a lot exceptions prove the rule. It is like a lot of generalisations in life valid if not used without caveat. Another example of such a generalisation is that men tend to be taller than women. But you can’t conclude that every man will be taller than every woman.

People with better means tend to have more experience of good food and wine, so it will give tham a better chance to be connoisseurs of such fare. However, it can’t be guaranteed that all those with posts of disposable wealth have any taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a general correlation between affluence and discernment, but it is a case where a lot exceptions prove the rule. It is like a lot of generalisations in life valid if not used without caveat. Another example of such a generalisation is that men tend to be taller than women. But you can’t conclude that every man will be taller than every woman.

People with better means tend to have more experience of good food and wine, so it will give tham a better chance to be connoisseurs of such fare. However, it can’t be guaranteed that all those with posts of disposable wealth have any taste.

 

And of course those connoisseurs "don't cruise!!!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you sail on a luxury ship, right? So do you or don't you cruise?

As I said in my original post, I believe that a voyage on a luxury ship is not a cruise.

Think about hiking and walking. Both of these involve using shanks’s pony to get from one point to another. But it is quite clear that they are regarded as different activities by the world in general. They have a different purpose, involve different equipment as well as a different motivation.

It is possible that there are some aficionados of hiking who feel their activity is better than “mere walking”. But that doesn’t alter the fact that hiking and walking describe two completely different forms of exercise.

Glamping and camping are another example of this phenomenon; an example that was developed rather recently.

In the same way I’d say that whilst cruising and taking a luxury voyage are two activities that have certain rudimentary things in common, they are in fact different things and should be acknowledged as such if only to improve communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep taking the bait!

 

 

How many times are you going to say it before you realize that others don't agree with you and won't change their minds?

 

Have to agree. We aren't going to change our minds but if someone wants to call it a voyage it's fine - just don't expect others to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep taking the bait!

 

 

How many times are you going to say it before you realize that others don't agree with you and won't change their minds?

 

Maybe he will change his mind only when the luxury lines change their names to Seabourn Voyages Line, Silversea Voyages, Regent Seven Seas Voyages and Crystal Voyages. Then we'll all know we're not on a cruise like the riff raff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...