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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.