2004 Krug is exceptional- and so is Mesnil by the way. And the really great thing about many 2004s is that they are very showy in youth and- at least so far- appear as though they will drink well most of their lives. So while the customary wait will be worth it, it will not be compulsory and I see 2004 not only as a great vintage, but one with a very broad drinking window.
I went very deep on many 2004s for this reason- and I would be backing up the truck on Krug at that price.
EDIT- in case helpful, here are my TNs for the 2004 Krug and 2004 Krug Clos du Mesnil from this spring,
2004 Krug
Served immediately after opening
good bright champagne color, a grand nose of primary fruit and mousse, toast, on the palate showing a dramatic breadth, mousse evident but the focus here is an intense core of sweet apples, pear and dark berries leading into a long and very full finish, after an hour a racy grapefruit note develops, this is already sensationally good- in fact probably the best suited vintage for early consumption I have seen in quite a long time- but it will surely get even better.
(***), 2024++
2004 Krug Clos du Mesnil
Served immediately after opening
bright champagne color, soaring nose, brioche and a particularly intense and tightly focused note of apple, a rich bright mousse already evident, a light citrus note and an almost peppery playful dash of acids, on the palate a primary baby but already quite beautiful with the broad and showy character of the vintage, apples, a bit of pear and citrus, long fine finish that builds beautifully, with time a sweet primary fruit comes into play and the mousse- while still not fully exposed- takes on a seductive dark tone, a really lovely Mesnil that promises to be generous and showy in time. Already quite approachable, but I personally prefer to lock this one away for a while.
When you’re asking yourself what to do with your $209.99, you’ve gotta be thinking in terms of Zero [Percent] Interest Rates, and then Negative Interest Rates.
Zero [Percent] Interest Rates are deployed in order to flood the economy with Fake Money, so as to maintain asset prices in what would otherwise be a deflationary price cycle [because with deflation, none of the standard business models nor legal contracts make any sense anymore, and everyone wants out, and quits partaking of economic transactions, and refuses en mas to abide by their contracts, and the entire Usurious Industrial Complex vanishes overnight, which of course is forbidden to happen].
To the best of my knowledge, we’ve never had Negative Interest Rates in the United States [I don’t know whether the idea was ever broached with FDR], but the demographic problems in Europe are now so severe that some of the European banks have already started experimenting with the Negatives.
Anyway, there’s a growing consensus that the World Economy probably entered a recession circa the beginning of this summer, and after all the Fake Money which The Fed pumped into the economy circa 2008-2016, I don’t whether pumping Fake Money is gonna do any good anymore.
So if you really care about your $209.99, then you ought to ask yourself what $209.99 might be worth in the next 2 to 5 to 10 years [which might also depend on how you store the $209.99, especially if your Savings Account were to start declining in nominal value, even though you hadn’t actually made any withdrawals].
And, again, if you care about your $209.99, then you’ve gotta keep reminding yourself that the Champagne AOC seems to be able to pump out a nearly infinite supply of the bubbly stuff every year.
If you ignore the fake money ranting, he’s actually pointing to a real issue. If you believe there is now a deflationary environment, you are better off holding your money and buying later when prices are cheaper. If everyone does so (because it makes sense), you end up in a deflationary cycle, which is catastrophe. To head off the deflationary cycle, central banks try to inflate money. One method to do so is to lower (nominal) interest rates, even into negative territory, to try to spur inflation. Negative interest rates make it so that it costs money to hold money, and thus induce you to spend or invest the money, which is supposed to counteract the deflationary cycle. The problem is if negative interest rates do not successfully inflate and deflation continues. Then you are in a lose-lose situation: it cost you both to hold (in a bank, which is a kind of lending, so you would be “earning,” i.e. paying a negative rate) and to spend money. The solution is to stuff cash in your mattress.
Back to the $210 Krug, if you believe the economy is deflationary, you are better off holding the money and wait for the continued drop in the price of the Krug. However, if nominal interest rates are negative (or nominally positive, but really negative), you might want to buy the Krug now. It depends on where the costs cross, but both are based on projections, so where they might cross, and thus whether it makes sense to go out and buy the Krug at $210, is uncertain. The fact that I actually bought the Krug at $210 might mean that (a) I do not think that the economy is deflationary, (b) I believe the economy is mildly deflationary, but I would rather buy it now at $210 rather than wait for it to drop further, (c) in a variation on (b), this was a one-time windfall opportunity to buy it cheap because the “real” clearing price is much higher, and even if the economy is deflationary I won’t see that price again for a long time, (d) the market for 2004 Krug is sufficiently disintegrated from the greater economy that even if asset values in general were to decline, the price of 2004 Krug will stay high or (e) I suck at math.
Neal, I think a slight variation of that would be a better response to Nathan, i.e. STFU.
Hey Nathan, what if Jonathan buys it and drinks it immediately? That should eliminate his potential losses since there’s probably not any negative interest rate on pee.
Well. No matter what happens, you’ll want something to drink. So, buy what you want to drink. The price in the future may be higher or lower, just buy something you will continue to want to drink. If the economy tanks hard, Nathan may be drinking pruno while lording it over the poor fools drinking 2004 Krug. But, is that the worst outcome?
It ends up as deciding whether I would prefer Cristal 2008 or the Krug 2004. I think the Krug is excellent, but potentially the Cristal is better.
I drank my last bottle of the 2002 Cristal recently, and did not feel like repurchasing at double the money. But the 2008 is potentially as good or better, so for me it is a no brainer.
Not Mark, but if I had only one bottle I would wait 5-7 years as it is still youthful.
And I agree with Mark that the '08 is potentially better and the '09 is already as good.
I can agree with that Mark. Fortunately pretty early on I did pick up 6 btls of 08 Cristal at $199. Wish I had bought a case, but am happy. Now the lowest I can find, would likely be around $250. Although the Cristal is a little better, I have never had a vintage Krug I did not enjoy immensely, and they do go the distance. I think on account of the price and my love of Krug am in for 3 more 04s giving me a total of 6. Thanks everyone for their input, and mostly rational replies !
Guessing at potential future deflationary periods or recessions is pretty difficult. What are far more predictable are two general pricing cycles. They are: price reductions for large volume wines like Krug when a new release is arriving soon (i.e. clearing out old inventory) and end of year sales (more clearing out, plus competition to catch holiday wine buying). I wish I had the will power to focus more buying on these cycles.
My guess is that this $210 price for 2004 Krug is about as it will go.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
