Aker builder- the CTer who is working in Turku on Oasis- has confirmed that the ship's hull is indeed light blue in color. The speculation began when with this brochure was released:

http://www.royalcaribbean.co.uk/email/2008/06Jun/Oasis/Royal%20Caribbean%20Oasis%20Brochure.pdf

Photos from the shipyard, like the ones below, also reveal a white superstructure and light blue hull.

It's too early to tell, but from what I see now I don't like the light blue hull. It looks like a primer coat of paint to me. Maybe a darker blue like NORWAY would be better? Besides, Royal Caribbean ships have always been crisp white and have always looked fantastic. Why spoil a good thing?

Ernie

[ 07-09-2008: Message edited by: eroller ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
I like the idea. There are indeed too many white ships. I guess this is much more motivated by the aesthetics than by trying to be different. Painting the hull light blue will structure her appearance a bit. Don't forget that she will be a rather intimidating sized ship.

---

I don't think aesthetically a light blue hull will make OASIS look any better. It makes the ship look unfinished to me, but again I will have to see the finished product. Also from an economy of scale and marketing viewpoint it doesn't make sense. Why have one ship in the fleet painted a different color? What does that say about the rest of the fleet, and it also means light blue paint has to be purchased for a single ship when the rest of the fleet only needs white.

I don't know, I think there is already so much inconsistency within individual cruise brands why make one more when you don't have to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I don't think aesthetically a light blue hull will make OASIS look any better. It makes the ship look unfinished to me, but again I will have to see the finished product.

---

This is of course a question of taste and we indeed have to wait and actually see it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

Also from an economy of scale and marketing viewpoint it doesn't make sense. Why have one ship in the fleet painted a different color? What does that say about the rest of the fleet, and it also means light blue paint has to be purchased for a single ship when the rest of the fleet only needs white.

I don't know, I think there is already so much inconsistency within individual cruise brands why make one more when you don't have to.

Ernie

---

Perhaps RCI is still deciding?

Again, the final result may look good, but somehow I think it will make the ship look very unbalanced.

I hope RCI will rethink this decision, if in fact they have made the decision at all.

Nal, perhaps Rd77 is refering to Union Castle blue lavander (which was not the same of course) or perhaps he's refering to bi-color scheme in general, not necessarily light blue in particular.

Well, we'll see what finally comes out off the yard soon. But, though I'm not certain at all, I suspect it will actually be light blue indeed.

[ 07-10-2008: Message edited by: Vaccaro ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NAL:
rd77....can you actually name a ship from the past with a light blue hull/livery? I cannot and would like to know one or some. Thank you.

---

As soon as I saw the renderings of OASIS, I was reminded of the Portuguese CCN liners, which had light blue hulls, although with a touch of grey. We're talking about liners like PATRIA '47, IMPERIO '48, ANGOLA '49, MOCAMBIQUE '49, INDIA '51, etc., etc.

Rich

[ 07-10-2008: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

looks blue here

greener gray here

However, for some reason, it reminded bit of the HAL livery (although that was light gray, not light blue). But I think the impression will a little bit the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NAL:
rd77....can you actually name a ship from the past with a light blue hull/livery? I cannot and would like to know one or some. Thank you.

---