Just got back from an Alaska cruise and noticed a few earlier threads on the general subject of cruising. My wife and I have been on 3 cruises including the one we just finished. This one was great! It was run by Alaskan Dream Cruises on the Admiralty Dream, a ship with a capacity of 66 guests but there were only 24 on this sailing (at least for the first part; we picked up 13 more for the last 3 days.) Great food, magnificent scenery/wildlife and enjoyable fellow cruisers. We generally stopped in smaller, out-of-the way places where we were the only cruise ship there. (Exception was Juneau where there were 4 floating hotels inport.) In all cases we were able to get close to the shore line, glaciers, etc. which the deeper draft larger ship's can't do. Also, there was a lot more flexibility in the schedule so if we saw something interesting the captain was free to spend more time there or alter the itinerary. They had both a science/nature expert and a cultural expert on board, so we got to hear a lot of lectures about what we were seeing and the native people. Of course, when you go on a smaller ship, the price per person goes up.
Our first cruise was on a Norwegian Cruise Lines big ship with several thousand of our closest friends for a trip from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Valparaiso, Chile around Cape Horn and through the Strait of Magellan. It was a great trip and since my only frame of reference for cruising at that point was Navy ships, it was a distinct improvement. But I felt we didn't really need the multiple restaurant options, the shows, the pool, etc. We definitely didn't need the gambling casino. The prices for the shore excursions were a bit steep, we thought.
The second cruise was a river cruise in Russia (Moscow to St. Petersburg) and we are anxious to try river cruising again, probably in France, Germany or Italy. That was larger than the Alaska ship but much, much smaller than the Norwegian ship and had the advantage of pulling up to piers for every stop rather than anchoring out and taking launches into shore. With only one or two exceptions, there were no extra charges for shore excursions.
I realize others may have different tastes and expectations for cruises but after 3 trip, we prefer smaller rather than larger.
Our first cruise was on a Norwegian Cruise Lines big ship with several thousand of our closest friends for a trip from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Valparaiso, Chile around Cape Horn and through the Strait of Magellan. It was a great trip and since my only frame of reference for cruising at that point was Navy ships, it was a distinct improvement. But I felt we didn't really need the multiple restaurant options, the shows, the pool, etc. We definitely didn't need the gambling casino. The prices for the shore excursions were a bit steep, we thought.
The second cruise was a river cruise in Russia (Moscow to St. Petersburg) and we are anxious to try river cruising again, probably in France, Germany or Italy. That was larger than the Alaska ship but much, much smaller than the Norwegian ship and had the advantage of pulling up to piers for every stop rather than anchoring out and taking launches into shore. With only one or two exceptions, there were no extra charges for shore excursions.
I realize others may have different tastes and expectations for cruises but after 3 trip, we prefer smaller rather than larger.
