TN: 2004 Krug

Underwheming. Completely outclassed by the 08 Dom and Cristal. This felt thin and shrilly acidic. Maybe it needs time but I am not confident this will ever develop into something pleasurable. Kinda annoyed I have 5 more.

The 160 is drinking better.

I never really got any of them and really don’t have any desire to get GC that aren’t 164 and 168 (and maybe a few 163)

There’s regrettably very little of it out there, but the 165 may be my favorite of the bunch.

I don’t think it’s worth the extra $$$ from the GC (164 or 168), but it’s a very good Champagne the two times I’ve had it. Wouldn’t call it underwhelming at all, but if you say DP and Cristal are better cheaper, I guess I agree with you :slight_smile:

Will gladly trade any of my 2008 Dom for all your 2004 Krug.

On a more serious note (not that I wouldn’t do the above trade in a heartbeat), I think the 2004 Krug needs a lot of time but I think it’ll be better than the 2008 Dom with age (and by quite a bit).

Yeah I have a few put away, not opening anytime soon.

Your note is in line with most of the recent tasting notes on CT. It may be going through a dumb phase. On the other hand, it may be that you are reacting to the lack of power that appears to be characteristic of this vintage of Krug.

I’m good on 08 dom; would trade for 08 or prob even 09/12 Cristal anytime (I think my average paid was slightly less for 08 and much less for 09/12)

Maybe, I’ll probably wait a couple years and try again but meh

I doubt that but time will tell.

It was unbalanced and not particularly pleasant to drink. One of those bottles you immediately regret opening.

I really like 04 krug. I think it’s the best krug since 96. I’d take it over 08 dom any day of the week. Just drank one this past week.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a lack of power for this vintage but rather than the powerful acidity, which is why I think it will age well.

Yup, and it reminds me a lot of 96 in that both have a lot of acidity and I expect ultimately a lot of power once it integrates a touch better. I’ve buried mine after having one a couple of years ago because I think it’s exactly the type of champagne that will benefit from age.

I’m also one of about 3 people on this forum who finds the 08 Dom pretty overrated. [smileyvault-ban.gif]

I’m also in that camp. The 08 Dom is great… for a Dom. Trimmed my holdings a while back to concentrate on, funny enough, 04 Krug.

The 2004 is IMO an acquired taste. I tasted the 160 side-by-side at Krug several years ago and preferred it for its richer and more accessible style

To Ryan’s point though, the 165 clearly outperformed both (at least for my palate)

I actually much prefer the 02 and 06 Krug, although I do think they are overpriced. I’m generally not going to be much of a buyer of vintage Krug as I usually prefer the GCs with age in any case.

The 165 is very nice. I’m really not much of a fan of 04s in general with the exception of CDC which imo is by far the wine of the vintage.

I had the 2004 Krug last summer (2019) and thought it was fantastic.
I enjoyed it more than the 08 Dom and 08 Cristal when I had them towards the end of 2019.