Quark v Scenic

[teamflames]

Hi I have received quotes for Quark Ultramarine and Scenic eclipse. Both look high end and itineraries seem similar (at least in time). Scenic seems to include a little more in terms of drinks. Quark is slightly more expensive. Does anyone have any experience in both? Is there an advantage to Quark?

thanks

[PerfectlyPerth]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:11 PM, teamflames said:

Hi I have received quotes for Quark Ultramarine and Scenic eclipse. Both look high end and itineraries seem similar (at least in time). Scenic seems to include a little more in terms of drinks. Quark is slightly more expensive. Does anyone have any experience in both? Is there an advantage to Quark?

thanks

3 of my 4 expeditions were with Quark. They have been in the Antarctica business for over 30 years. I choose that level of experience over a drinks package personally. Their vessels are getting too big & posh for my taste these days as I prefer the more rugged vessels that remind you you are on an expedition, but at least they have retained their smallest vessel Ocean Adventurer (which was Sea Adventurer when I sailed on her). 

[teamflames]

Thanks PP,

I do agree with your sentiment but at the moment when I look at pricing I can be on an all inclusive luxury boat with about 200 people on board or for the same price I can travel on Ocean Endeavour which seems to be a basic ship, same passengers, much less included and same itinerary. Do these ships really do excursions so much better?

Will keep searching - all good fun. 

[PerfectlyPerth]

9 hours ago, teamflames said:

Thanks PP,

I do agree with your sentiment but at the moment when I look at pricing I can be on an all inclusive luxury boat with about 200 people on board or for the same price I can travel on Ocean Endeavour which seems to be a basic ship, same passengers, much less included and same itinerary. Do these ships really do excursions so much better?

Will keep searching - all good fun. 

One thing to count/compare is the number of expedition team members per passenger & number of zodiacs - that will determine how many of the pax are rotating on landings and zodiac cruising. 
3 of my trips were under 90 pax and the Sea Adventurer was 116. So we all got off the ship without much delay and plenty of hours on shore and no rushing with zodiac cruising if we ended up surround by whales. 

For me the "luxury" was being outside on the deck seeing albatross, icebergs, whales, seals, penguins. Or being on landings or zodiac cruising (or helicopters). I had no need for a luxury cabin - I still paid the price of my first house ! But it was for the experience not a posh interior. (Google double cabin photos of the Khlebnikov and you will laugh - we had seatbelts on our very compact single beds 😆😆 and the poor sods in triple cabins had netting to lock them into the top bunks! It was spartan to say the least. But I felt like an adventurer lol). 
 

It's all very much a personal choice. Antarctica still gives its all to us - no matter how we get there. 
 

The other thing I thought of that I don't think any of us have raised with you yet. As you are slightly younger but very much fitter than me - you might be up for considering the Oceanwide Base Camp itineraries. They tend to do less exploration and daily moving from spot to spot, and have more focus on finding a good spot to do a lot more adventure activities including snowshoeing, climbing etc plus usual kayaking & camping. My pal has just booked one for his 60th. 
 

[teamflames]

55 minutes ago, PerfectlyPerth said:

One thing to count/compare is the number of expedition team members per passenger & number of zodiacs - that will determine how many of the pax are rotating on landings and zodiac cruising. 
3 of my trips were under 90 pax and the Sea Adventurer was 116. So we all got off the ship without much delay and plenty of hours on shore and no rushing with zodiac cruising if we ended up surround by whales. 

For me the "luxury" was being outside on the deck seeing albatross, icebergs, whales, seals, penguins. Or being on landings or zodiac cruising (or helicopters). I had no need for a luxury cabin - I still paid the price of my first house ! But it was for the experience not a posh interior. (Google double cabin photos of the Khlebnikov and you will laugh - we had seatbelts on our very compact single beds 😆😆 and the poor sods in triple cabins had netting to lock them into the top bunks! It was spartan to say the least. But I felt like an adventurer lol). 
 

It's all very much a personal choice. Antarctica still gives its all to us - no matter how we get there. 
 

The other thing I thought of that I don't think any of us have raised with you yet. As you are slightly younger but very much fitter than me - you might be up for considering the Oceanwide Base Camp itineraries. They tend to do less exploration and daily moving from spot to spot, and have more focus on finding a good spot to do a lot more adventure activities including snowshoeing, climbing etc plus usual kayaking & camping. My pal has just booked one for his 60th. 
 

Funny you say that PP, those Basecamp itineraries were the ones I was studying today. Definitely seem to be a bit more focused on adventure - although the reviews are very hit and miss - those with negative views seem to have had poor expeditions staff/teams - sounds like there are some inexperienced hires being used (those trying to have their own cheap experiences).

we are not hung up on being on a luxury ship but it just seems crazy that there is so little price difference and often the luxury ones (like Atlas) are actually cheaper than Intrepid.

[kaisatsu]

I’ve heard some disappointment from people who joined the basecamp trips and were unhappy that there was less wildlife than they were expecting (since many of the landing sites were chosen for the activities rather than the nature). I would definitely only recommend them to someone wanting a more activity-focused trip.

 

Pure speculation, but I think some of the issues with the expedition staff may come from the fact that they need guides with training and experience in the activities themselves, which leaves less staff capacity for region experts.

Edited March 3 by kaisatsu

[PerfectlyPerth]

21 hours ago, teamflames said:

Funny you say that PP, those Basecamp itineraries were the ones I was studying today. Definitely seem to be a bit more focused on adventure - although the reviews are very hit and miss - those with negative views seem to have had poor expeditions staff/teams - sounds like there are some inexperienced hires being used (those trying to have their own cheap experiences).

we are not hung up on being on a luxury ship but it just seems crazy that there is so little price difference and often the luxury ones (like Atlas) are actually cheaper than Intrepid.

I can't judge re the expedition teams as my Oceanwide expedition mostly had a combination of Quark & Aurora expedition team members. 
But yes I have read similar in trip reports re a different quality on the base camps and I'm inclined to think it's what @kaisatsu says. 
Those itineraries were created for folks who felt bored by "just landing & walking round" & zodiac cruising & lectures and who wanted more physical action. So I guess they weigh up having people with climbing expertise over actual true polar expertise & knowledge of the environment. 
There are 160 reviews on the Oceanwide Facebook page - I've not scrolled thru all of them to see which ones specially mention Base Camps but it's another avenue for opinions. 

[kaisatsu]

FWIW, my own Oceanwide trip wasn’t a basecamp itinerary, but it had several of the most experienced staff of any trip I’ve been on. More than one had done multiple seasons at research stations. In addition to all the usual knowledge of wildlife and history, the staff’s experience included a scientific expedition to collect readings inside the Erebus caldera, being at Deception Island during an eruption, multi-day scientific expeditions in the dry valleys, and even guiding a documentary trip for Steve Irwin.

[donaldsc]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:41 AM, PerfectlyPerth said:

3 of my 4 expeditions were with Quark. They have been in the Antarctica business for over 30 years. I choose that level of experience over a drinks package personally. Their vessels are getting too big & posh for my taste these days as I prefer the more rugged vessels that remind you you are on an expedition, but at least they have retained their smallest vessel Ocean Adventurer (which was Sea Adventurer when I sailed on her). 

 

I sailed on the Ocean Adventurer a few years ago.  A wonderful ship although I think that this is her last year w Quark. 

 

I will add this to the people who have spoken of the value of the years of experience and size of the expedition staff that Quark has over almost every other Antarctica outfit in the business.  You also have to consider the backgrounds of the staff.  On my Quark cruise one of the staff members was a Russian who served for several years as chief of Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica - look it up in Wikipedia.  The stories he told and the experiences he had were great although he was not there and would not discuss the Vostok Station murder.

 

Of it  were me I would go with Quark.  There are some very good travel agencies out there that do just Antarctica cruises.  I worked w one of them when I picked my South Georgia Island trip.  However according to CC rules you will have to find the right one yourself as we are not allowed to recommend any travel agencies.

 

DON