I don’t think the other wines in question (besides the DP)
have the long term aging potential of the Krug MV. I trust FMs impressions on champagnes but he isn’t buying them to drink in 20 years.
outside of 164 can’t remember too many MV krugs i have liked on release.
I thought 163 and 167 were good on release too; 165 and 166 were super tight.
Good info. I enjoyed 167 upon release as well.
No, I am not. Aside from some older Vilmart CdC I own, that’s about it. I don’t liked aged wines, nor do I want to live based on what the future might be. At 54, I want to live in the moment, now, and feel that energy in these wines. So, my voice is not one for people to reference as a data point when it comes to things that may be best suited for the cellar.
I agree that the 163 was fairly bright and fruity on release with a more elegant edge and that the 167 was fruity, rich, round, and open as well. 162 also drank fairly well right out of the box with a young richness. All of them will, of course, get better. 164, 165, and 168 are three of the most unique Grande Cuvees that I can recall. I love all three. 164 for its precision and energy that demands cellaring to bring out its best. I found 165 to drink dynamite on release and have more potential than the 164. I love the 168 and find it to be expressive, rich, and also full of structure for drinking now or later.
In general, any Grande Cuvee is going to be quite a bit better 5, 10, and 20 years post release than it is on release. It can be tasty on release, but the magic, for me, is in how it develops over time.
Thanks for the feedback Brad. Appreciated.
Question- comparing the 164 to 168, how do you see those two developing? Obviously the 164 already has some age, and with that has put on weight, do you expect a similar path for 168 or do to the perceived sharper 168 structure will it not prove out to be as rich or richer in style?
Ryan,
I think the 168 will be the richer wine and the 164 more precise or detailed. I think the 168 will offer more fruit and flavor with a solid backbone of structure holding it all together while the 164 will be a bit more about a bright and elegant core with the richer notes toned down a bit in comparison. Another way to look at it IMO would be to say that 164 will have the structure lead the richness and 168 will have the richness lead the structure. Both are great wines.
Thank you very much!