Given unlimited money & time, I might be tempted by Crystal Cruises' 2017 World Cruise: 94 days, from Miami to Miami via an intense port-heavy circumnavigation of South America (with a few days in the Antarctica region). More than 50 ports, including eight Crystal's never been to.
(OK, so in practice, even if our cats were healthy, I don't think either of us would want to be gone for three months, and in any case we wouldn't spring for the fare, but...)
- walt crawford
The other ship in Crystal's small but mighty fleet is starting a "Grand Cruise" also in early January 2017: this one 99 days, starting in Melbourne and ending in Tokyo, with 46 ports (including stopping in Sydney three times because of the way the cruise is organized).
- walt crawford
[In case you're wondering, minimum fares for a pair of repeat passengers start at $76,000 and $66,000 respectively once you add port fees--not including air or most shore excursions but including tips, drinks, $2000 onboard credit. There are no "bad cabins" on these ships, and Crystal doesn't nickel-and-dime. Still, out of our league.]
- walt crawford
it would be really cool though. I'm sure you'd be tired of it after a while.
- Christina Pikas
Actually, we probably wouldn't--we've been on a 16-day Crystal cruise (they used to be cheaper and less all-inclusive, we used to have two good incomes), and I don't think that would be a problem. They have a no-announcement policy (except one morning captain's talk), they don't do art auctions and all that, they have good libraries, they have lots of room...and I'd guess they'd never repeat a menu during those 94-99 days.
- walt crawford
They've even added something my wife would love: later-in-the-day shore excursions specifically for cruisers who aren't morning people. There are lots of reasons why, with two ships that are aged by cruise industry standards, Crystal's consistently voted tops in Conde Nast Traveler readers' surveys.
- walt crawford