Krug

WINE TALK
21

There isn’t the same reason why the price of all of those wines have gone up in price. The first two raised prices to make changes in production, Selosse is because of a feeding frenzy (he held back due to Covid), and Comtes and Krug released vintages that everyone had been waiting for a while for.

And it hasn’t been mentioned here, but the price of Salon has gotten absurd, and frankly I have no idea why! It isn’t worth the price, and people are buying it.

22

I like both the 168 and 169, but they need a few years to settle down. The price will probably be over $300 by then though. I also have the 169 in half-bottles and I don’t like it, but I never have liked Krug halves (or rose). For years and years buying blue chip Champagne in quantity on release had been a good strategy. If you liked it, you could ensure you had enough to drink for years to come and if you did not like it, you could sell it at auction and at a minimum get your money back. Now it is tougher to get quantity on release and it is getting really expensive to drink. It used to be that Krug vintage was a weekend Champagne and CdM was a special occasion Champagne. Now the are both the latter.

23

I had the '12 Salon last weekend and afterwards placed the remaining bottles in the retirement bin.

24

I have had both the '04 Cdm and the '08 Krug and the CdM is a much better Champagne IMO and not much difference in price at the moment which I don’t get.

1 Like
25

Up until relatively recently, you could find '88 Krug – often lauded as one of the greatest Champagnes ever made – in the $500-600 range.

26

There was an offer last week for 1k, seems like a deal now.

I grabbed a bit more 169.

27

I have not seen CdM below $1k in the last few years, is the 08 that high right now?!

28

yes

29

that’s insane, I have a single bottle I paid $270 for with coupons [rofl.gif]

30

I have bottles of both and I think the Krug will shine brighter in time, but needs another few years to shed some of the piercing acidity and round itself out. The CdM is definitely the better wine right now.

I also wonder how much bottle variation there is with the Krug. A lot of the CT notes are not very consistent. The same was true with the 08 Dom.

31

The '04 has the edge right now with more time in the bottle, albeit a lesser vintage in general. I am going to open the '08 a few hours before dinner tonight so it has time to open up. I have had a lot of bottles of '08 DP since release and I have found about 1 bottle out of 12 seems off, not corked but showing little fruit and bitter. More recently I have had bottles that seemed closed, things are still in balance, but everything is dialed back from what it was on release.

32

Not sure if it’s true but a retailer with who I inquired about 08 said that they are releasing very little at sky high pricing and holding back other stocks to release in Krug collections at even higher prices. Sounds like a market play of which I have no interest in participating.

33

Sure, I didn’t mean to imply it’s all one reason, but there is a general trend among the very high quality wines in the category (outside of the few that were always extremely expensive).

34

Oh sorry, I wasn’t picking on you, I was just looking to add to the discussion that it’s not just one reason why this is all happening. It’s all over the place, and kind of nuts.

35

It’s quite impressive how Krug prices in particular have risen. A few months back, in November, I bought two “Creations of 2008” Krug cases each of which had a bottle of 164th and a bottle of 2008 Krug for $665 per case . . . and added 2 bottles of 2008 separately for $395 each. Barely talked myself into it then, and now I’m pinching myself that I have them . . .

36

CT seems to bear this out. There’s 2x as much '88 Krug entered as there is '08. And people have had 20+ years to drink the '88!

37

No need to apologize; I didn’t take it that way. Yes, it is a confluence of things adding up to a tough market for those of us who love great Champagne and are not wealthy.

1 Like
38

Drank both last night.

Second time having the 2008 in a few weeks, and it’s one of the most compelling young Champagnes I’ve ever had, and either right on par, or just a hair below the 1996 Krug, which is the most compelling young Champagne I’ve ever had.

The 164 on the other hand was fine, but nothing that I would be running out of my way to own. To add more context, I miss the days of the old gold label that went away more than 10 years ago. Those old Grand Cuvees were much more in the style of what I have always viewed as the Krug house style. Since then the wine comes across as more subdued and refined, but not always compelling, which are never tasting notes I would associate with a great bottle of Krug.

1 Like
39

You must like the 04 then. I had the 08 a couple times recently and it’s been most similar to the 04, overly acidic, very tight, not much fruit. It has more potential though, to me. I like the 164 much more, except from magnum.

I am not sure the 96 has aged as gracefully as one might hope.

02 is fire right now.

At the current prices, I would be trying to buy as much cristal as possible as it seems like the best (relative) value. I got a bunch of 08 cristal rose mags lately for ~1000-1200, which seems like highway robbery compared to 1000-1200 for a 750 of 08 Krug.

40

I haven’t had 04 in a while. I didn’t love it on release, lacked in the texture department for me.

I have had very consistently great bottles of 96. The one that I had that was wonky tasted like it hadn’t been stored correctly, which I find all too common with vintage Champagne. The last bottle of 96 Krug I had tasted like it would age until 2070. It was pure magic.

Agreed about the pricing. No arguments there. I have been loving Cristal and find it really consistent. We had a great discussion about it last night over dinner. I’m going to try to track down a 2014 and try it. If it’s as good as the 2002 or 2008, I’ll bite the bullet and stock up.