In a club, vintage is trumped by luminosity.
Is that true for Krug too? How would you rank 02, 04, 06, 08?
I canât recall offhand all the vintages Krug is going to release. I know that they passed on 2012 and are doing 2002, 2004, and 2008. Ray has mentioned 2006 so that one is planned too. I think that their might be a 2009, but I would have to go digging through notes to see what I wrote down. I also canât recall what the decision was on 2013.
As for the 2002 vintage, remember that the 1990 was released in 2004 at the age of 14 so there is precedence on this.
In terms of vintages. I put 2008 as the best of the first decade followed by 2002-2004-2009 and then 2003 and finally 2006. The other vintages from the decade are not all that special though 2000 is much better than 2001-2005-2007. In fact, 2006 could end up being the equal of 2000 depending on how it develops. 2000 has already slightly overachieved while 2006 has disappointed in terms of what was expected shortly after bottling.
The other thing to remember is that Champagne is a large region and the different grape types perform differently in a vintage. 2002 was a Pinot Noir vintage with early maturing Chardonnay. 2004 was a classic Chardonnay vintage. 2006 is a heavier vintage where the Pinots were variable. 2008 is another strong Pinot vintage with high acidity Chardonnays. 2009 is much more fruity and balanced that seems to slightly tilt towards Pinot Noir. This summary doesnât even get into regional differences like Northern Montagne vs Southern Montagne, East Marne Valley vs. West Marne Valley, Northern vs. Southern Aube, Cramant vs. Chouilly, etcâŠ
Thanks Brad for that summary. Much appreciated.
#DomisDom
Scott,
Champagne is at a bit of a crossroads in terms of how special declaring a vintage is. It used to be that you only declared a vintage in a special, above average year. At least this is how most of the houses acted. You did have a number of small producers who did it more often and Clos des Goisses declared a lot more than the norm for the time too.
Today, you have small producers who make it a point to showcase every year and can do it successfully on a low volume and/or single/small site scale. You also have the a number of larger producers pushing to showcase each year or most years with a higher volume wine. Cristal has publicly stated this. Taittinger has said the same with Comtes. Dom P. appears to be going down this path too. This trend will continue for a number of producers. On the other hand, you will have people like Clicquot and Mumm who are latching more onto the âspecialâ aspect of a year more than anything else.
The fact is that, today, you can almost always produce something pretty darn good in almost every vintage in Champagne. The key is whether you need volume, care about volume, have the proper sites, and leave the overall âspecialâ vintage emotion/belief aside.
In an ideal world, I would rather see Champagne act more like Port with the prestige cuvees made only in the truly special years with straight vintage, single grape, and/or single village/parcel wines made in any year that the quality is there and it makes sense. These should be a step below a truly special prestige cuvee. Of course, I donât make the rules and a lot of folks would disagree with me. Then again, I also donât understand why many hold the single vintage, single vineyard wine as the pinnacle of Champagne.
I have only had the pleasure of trying the 03 and I was not impressed by any means. Would take a NV Krug or 02 Sir Winston Churchill any day of the week over the DP. If you were to suggest a year to give me the full Dom experience (ie one that I wouldnât walk away from feeling like I could have spent my money better), which would you suggest?
I very much prefer the houses that hold vintages to a certain standard. I consider Salon to be like this. I understand that now more than ever the demand for champagne is overpowering the supply and causing a bottleneck (forgive the pun) as well as the need for producers to start increasing production across both NV and vintage. But I also think that we need brands that stick to quality and quality alone. A bottle of NV Krug might take 10 years to actually produce, and may be comprised of wines up to 20 years old so that is what makes them such a quality producer, among many other things. That is something I feel should never be lost.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Brad. I largely agree with you, especially about this last part, which would be a great idea (but will never happen). In a way, Pierre Peters does something close to this. They make LâEsprit only in years where it makes sense, and Les Chetillons (theoretically) only in the very best years. Of course, one is a blend and the other single vineyard, so not analogous to Moet/Dom.
Scott,
I think Rodolphe Peters gets it, but I do question whether he has a true prestige cuvee in the sense of throwing the rule book out. Originally he had the Special Club which was not always Chetillons, but I think it was always Le Mesnil; I have no argument with this being a prestige cuvee. Eventually, the Special Club became pure Chetillons at the end of its run and then when Peters left the club and relaunched it as the Cuvee Speciale, it was all Chetillons. I now view it as a very, very special single vineyard bottling.
If you look at his lineup, Chetillons is the prestige cuvee in terms of reputation and cost plus it is also a single vineyard wine (though he is adding another single vineyard in the coming years). LâEsprit is the basic vintage wine. It is attempted and made in most years, but not always released as such. When it isnât released as LâEsprit it shows up in the NV Mags or the Extra Brut bottlings. Chetillons is actually made and released in almost every vintage now. Nothing wrong with that as it a single site and it does well in most years especially with selection. I do wonder what Rodolphe could do if he blended the best of the best in the best years. He has been working on some new blended wines focused on reserve wines so maybe one day he will work towards a super blend vintage wine.
I guess I view Chetillons like I do Clos des Goisses - it is an awesome wine and worthy of all its accolades, but it is more site than producer or true prestige cuvee (at least in my definition). Cristal, R. Lalou, Grande Dame, Fleur de Passion, Margaine Special Club, Lilbert vintage, Dom Ruinart, Dom P, etc⊠are great examples of how blending the best of numerous vineyards can yield results greater than the sum of the parts especially in truly great vintages. I guess I would love to see more producers bottle their top single plots separately and also put together a special blend of their top plots in special years where the sum is greater than the parts.
As a side note, Chetillons and Clos de Goisses are interesting to look at as single vineyards because they are both quite large and different sections/parcels perform quite differently. Numerous producers make wine from Chetillons and many are now starting to bottle it separately. Philipponnat is also bottling small parcels of Clos des Goisses separately to showcase the differences. Looking at things from this perspective, you could make the argument that Petersâ Chetillons and Clos des Goisses are different from a typical single vineyard that is smaller in size and has less variation between parcels.
Brad: very interesting perspective. It really strikes at the heart of what makes Champagne different (and great, to at least some of us) â the art of blending being the height of achievement. Can you imagine if a wine writer took this sentence:
I do wonder what Rodolphe could do if he blended the best of the best in the best years.
And said it about Eric Rousseau? Actually, come to think of it, a hypothetical blend of grand cru Gevrey-Chambertin sites could be pretty awesome - LOL!
I love the prestige cuvees because you get that unique taste that canât be had elsewhere. But obviously blending is the hallmark of Champagne and is what keeps it in stock each year. I see the discussion almost the same as the grower vs. nĂ©gociant discussion. Both have their pros and cons and both can be incredible in their own way.
Quite a price difference between '03 Dom P and '02 Sir Winston Churchill. I get what youâre saying, though. I donât think '03 Dom is anywhere near worth the price. I do think itâs a nice bottle of Champagne, one that Iâm happy to drink, but I would not be a buyer given many other options.
I am in the camp that doesnât really understand DP in general, but several people whose opinions I trust say you need to have a good vintage with some age on it to understand how great it can be. Of course, sourcing the 1990 right now is quite pricey for a wine that you donât know if youâre going to like even if it is a good bottle.
Yeah I guess my area (CT) is just weird with pricing. 02/03 Dom usually comes out to around $200 so for $240 I can get an 02 SWC. $40 difference and yet worlds apart for me. But again, for $170 (prices Iâm seeing on 03 Dom online) I would purchase NV Krug first every day of the week. I didnât bid on a 1988 Dom recently and probably should have. Price came out to $153âŠ
D, I am not sure where you live, but 2003 Dom is still easily available in a great many places for less than $140, and the cheapest price I can find for 2002 Winnie is $210. At those prices I wouldnât buy either, but I also wouldnât buy NV Krug for anything close to the $170. Frankly, I wouldnât spend $100.
I live in Connecticut. The shops out here (and the market) inflate prices for everything. Itâs either I buy at the inflated price, or spend the money saved to travel to a place to buy it and Iâm back at square one. Been looking online recently. I can usually find Krug for the $150 mark and I paid $240 for my 02 Winston. Forget about the 02 Salon. They want $350 or something, and thatâs if you can even get it. Iâve been searching for a bottle of Jacques Selosse and I donât even want to ask the price. Iâm surprised you wouldnât spend $100 on a bottle of NV Krug. Honestly, itâs one of my favorite bottles. I donât like the price point, but when you get into that range I donât think anyone likes the prices.
Thatâs what makes horse races, I suppose. I think Krugâs reputation is largely unearned. The wine is good, but there are a lot of champagnes I would rather have for the same price or even less. At $50 it would be a buy
Just out of curiosity, what are a few champagnes you would purchase over Krug?
Well, 1996 and 2002 Dom P are both better than any Krug NV I have ever had. Also Comtes, Dom Ruinart, Billecart Nicolas-François, Bouchard Ursules, Benoßt-Lahaye Violaine, Vilmart Couer, and Clos des Goisses come to mind immediately.
Interesting. I have had the 2005 Comtes. It was good but I wasnât blown away (honestly, I liked Grand Siecle better in a side by side comparison). Clos Des Goisses would be more expensive than Krug, no? I have yet to try to Nicolas-Francois but I do love me some Billecart Rose. Also, since you guys are so affirmative on the Dom P I have started a search for the 88. I would like to experience what you all said about an aged Dom P versus the more recent releases.