Except the whole point of the MV is to balance out vintage base variation. Presumably, if they wanted to keep a consistent profile they’d reduce the percentage 2008, or add a slightly higher percentage of another vintage from an earlier year that is richer and more oxidative to keep consistency. That’s, to my knowledge, the whole point of the MV. Balance % grapes and vintages to ensure cross release consistency with the Grand Cuvee. The 164 appears to be an outlier. The whole design of the MV program is, as I understand it, to keep house style and avoid outliers. So is this a failure (sure doesn’t seem like anyone thinks this is a failure), or is this a movement in house style?
Adrian thinks it’s a failure. But then, perhaps he is an outlier.
The release delineation of Krug MV has always struck me as brilliant: keep it MV/NV and stylistically reasonably consistent for 95% of the population who buys this just to drink Krug, but also generate “vintage” hype among folks like us. And it works! I have a case of the 164eme. If it were true NV, I would hardly need to buy any 165eme, etc. – but of course I’ll probably do just that.
But it also seems to me that, as a matter of substance/taste (as opposed to marketing), Krug is still sorting out the purpose of the new delineation. Is it just to allow people to more easily understand (w/o having to decode the Krug ID) the age of a bottle? That seems wrong to me. Instead, I think this cuvee becomes more interesting if there’s some material variation among releases, and that also seems to be what has been accomplished. The question I have–and I don’t have enough experience to answer this–is whether the “stylistic shift” of the 164eme is somewhat a product of people focusing on the unique characteristics of the 164eme, whereas in the past people didn’t talk so much about individual releases and just thought of the wines as generic MV.
Whatever the story, the 164eme is awesome–absolutely a success in my view.
I had my first bottle of the 164eme last night, having had the 2009 Cristal the night before. I prefer the Krug by a wide margin. Playing “critic bingo”, the two descriptors that come to mind with the 164 are: purity and vibrancy.
Excellent point, I hadn’t thought of that. For those who have had 165, is it as vibrant and fresh as 164? If so, it might be a stylistic change. If not, 164 was an anomaly
Once you place a unique identifier on a label, it will be interpreted as different from the previous. What was the reason for labeling the NV wines as batch/vintage numbers?
They are doing what all Champagne producers should be doing. It's Time For Transparency From Champagne - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers
A few comments:
Krug has always done things a bit differently than most for their ‘basic’ wine. Yes, there is a Krug style and it shows across all of their wines, but they don’t blend each year’s Grande Cuvee with the goal to taste just like the previous year and all the years before that. They want to create the best wine they can each year and the end result will not only be a reflection of the base year, but also the reserves they have to work with and what their vineyards gave them. In many years (even great years), some grapes in some locations are great and others are not. A lot of other producers have followed this route of letting each year’s blend be its own wine and talk more about it now, but Krug has always stood out as a trailblazer in this area.
The goal of uniformity no matter the base year is more common on much higher volume NV wines, but even there you can still find big swings in quality and style from year to year. The root of this is always the base vintage, but sometimes the actual cause is due to reserve wine effects. Also, most producers will now tell you that blend of one year is always going to differ from the next no matter how much you try to make it the same and that great or very distinct base years are often the greatest challenge because you have to find a way to balance things out. In great years, you want the base year to lend its signature, but you need to find a way to add a good amount of reserve wines (to meet volume needs) and not ‘ruin’ things or lower the quality - that is a big challenge. In years, where the vintage character can be very distinct (and often too distinct), you have to find a way to balance that quality out. With non-vintage wines, you also need to deal with a fact that they need to be drinkable at a fairly young age; these wines can age, but they can’t require a good deal of aging like many vintage wines do.
Another big factor in blending of non vintage wines is how the previous vintages were. While producers like Krug have a large array of reserve wines going back well over a decade, the fact is that a lot of the reserve wine is going to be fairly recent. Match a 2008 base up with 2007, 2006, and 2005 reserves and 2008 is going to overpower most of them. Additionally, 2004 as a reserve is actually quite similar to 2008 and can further perpetuate the 2008 style. Older wines are going to be used in smaller quantities and will have an effect, but it will still be tough to overpower 2008. Now, take 2009 or 2012 and 2013 as a base year and you have a number of younger reserve wine years (2012, 2009, 2008) that can really have a big effect on the end blend and blur any true base year signature.
Do I think the Grande Cuvee 164 is a bit different than other releases? Yes, but I also think 163 and 162 and 161 and … are different. I do feel the blending of the 164 has resulted in a wine that is much more precise, intense, and concentrated than most Grande Cuvees and that a lot of this is due to the character of 2008, but that has nothing to do with Krug changing style. It is the end result of Krug doing the best it could in 2008. The 2004 and 2002 based Krug Grande Cuvee are pretty darn awesome too.
Recent years that seem to really show through when the base vintage of an NV are 2008, 2003, and 1996. 2012 is also up there, but a step behind the other three in terms of its influence on a blend of vintages. I’ve also come to learn that the overall influence of the base vintage (especially when it is a strong vintage year) really comes out over time (10-20 years) as the reserve wines settle out and the base vintage takes control.
So, simply put, things are not simple and Krug has not made a stylistic shift though it is fun to talk about things like this.
* Note edited to correct vintage (from 2009 to 2008) in second to last sentence in third to last paragraph above.
Brad, as always, your time and insight are hugely appreciated by this champagne neophyte.
Thanks for the post, Brad. We opened the Grande Cuvee 160-eme (2004 base) at a dinner last night, and it seemed very fresh and intense and not yet solidly showing all of the Krug style, albeit more open than the 164-eme.
I’ve noticed significant variations depending on base vintage in NV Champagnes from other producers, eg, Pierre Peters or the Jacquesson numbered NV, as well as others. Depending on the base vintages, the differences may be more or less noticeable. But, I suspect they would be noticeable in side by side comparisons.
-Al
Wonder how many drinking the 164eme blind, who are familiar with Krug MV, would identify it as such.
Michael,
I’m not sure a blind identification is all that relevant. Every Grande Cuvee release is different. Yes, there is a stylistic trend that weaves through all Krug releases, but identifying it blind is still difficult. I recently was served blind a Champagne that I thought was a younger Krug Grande Cuvee (2007 based or 163rd edition to be exact). While no others called out Krug, all thought it was a Pinot driven blend that saw some oak. Turns out it was Pierre Peters NV with a couple years of age on it. Does this mean that Krug changed styles to be like Pierre Peters or that Pierre Peters changed styles to be like Krug or that I just sucked at identifying the wine?
The 164th release is one data point and, to me, really speaks to the 2008 vintage in its style. The only way I could see a case being made for a stylistic change argument is if the next few future releases all taste like 164 rather than being their own unique wine. The problem is that 165 and 166 taste completely different from each other and from 164. I really think you are just tasting a unique Krug Grande Cuvee that reflects the climate from 2008 and the reserve wines they had to work with to make the best possible wine they could for this particular release.
As always, thanks for your excellent insight.
Do you have impressions on the 165 and 166 vs. the 164, in terms of style and/or quality?
Brad,
I have no problem deferring to your expertise and I mean that sincerely. But I think what most are referring to when they say the 164eme is different, is the lack of a significant oxidative characteristic, and I would think that would be something that could be controlled. What say you?
I’m guessing Olivier flinched when and if he read that. I think Krug aims to be on a significantly higher qualitative level than Pierre Peters NV.
Edited to state: And we’ve all missed on qualitative levels in both directions with blind guesses. That is not a knock on you.
John,
I’ve made some horrible blind calls in my life and some great ones. I view the correct calls as getting lucky every now and then. As for this tasting, it was at the end of a long meal where we had been drinking (and not spitting) a number of wines so there was that factor to be considered too. Still, it was stunning to see all of us get this wrong and no one get close (and there were good, well known industry palates at the table). After getting Krug wrong, my next guess was something centered around Vertus, but still with 40-60% Pinot Noir and some oak. At least that was a little closer.
I don’t look at my guess as a knock on Krug, but a compliment to Rodolphe Peters. He has long believed that you don’t need oak to bring richness and complexity to an NV blend- you just need a good reserve wine mix. This wine showcases that. I also rarely find young Krug Grande Cuvee to have the same richness that it has two or three years later. Young Krug Grande Cuvee is also quite citrus driven with a little nuttiness and some spice, but not all that much.
Quick Summary:
164 - a baby, very concentrated, precise, lots of potential
165 - fruity, open, intense, yet much easier to drink than 164; also has potential, but shows well now
166 - more down the middle; only sampled from half bottles at this point; a very good wine that is well balanced and doesn’t lean too much in any direction
Michael,
I don’t really view Krug as an oxidative wine. It sees a few months in neutral oak barrels (including fermentation) and is then transferred to steel. Yes, this gives it a round, rich, spicy note, but compared to many other oak aged Champagnes, it tastes like it is all steel. Put it in a lineup of many other 100% oak aged Champagnes and, many times, it will taste like it was made entirely in stainless steel or has only seen a little oak.
In general, I don’t find young Grande Cuvee to show much overt richness in its first 2-3 years. As a youngster, it does have some richer, spicier notes, but it is usually very citrus driven and doesn’t show all that much of the classic ‘Krug’ profile. Over time, it gains this, but not when it is first released (at least IMO).
For the 2008 based 164, you have a very intense, concentrated citrus profile that is currently overpowering any richer, spicier notes. Given time, I think this will change. This is exactly why some producers are releasing 2009 before 2008 and why some should probably keep releasing vintages before 2008. 2008 is very slow developing, but has amazing concentration and potential when handled correctly.
Good conversation. Let’s remember to bring it back up again in 5-10 years and see where things are at!
-
NV Krug Champagne Brut Grande Cuvée Edition 164eme - France, Champagne (3/2/2018)
Blinded on this the week before I suspected it was the 164 but it tasted like Dom given the high acidity and more yeasty notes. A week later at happy hour they were pouring Krug by the glass for $29. The profile is consistent and also distinctly different from the 07 base they were pouring last month. I can see how some people are concerned this is a deviation from the house style of past MVs. The richness and oxidative notes don’t care me around until 1 hour later though. Only time will tell.
Posted from CellarTracker
Totally agree on all counts.