2008 Krug and a few others...

was fortunate to taste the just-released 2008 Krug this week, along with a few others for additional context. Disclaimer; I’m a krug maxi through and through. for me, Grande Cuvee perfectly nails the balance of hedonistic and intellectual, always a tiny bit of maturity even at release, superb full texture, and a signature nose that just floors me regularly. I think magnums of GC with age are probably the best value in all of wine… but i digress.

Started with the edition 169, very light color in the glass, piercing young fruit on the nose and electricity on the palate. Would benefit from a few years, but a bottle with air is drinking well now.

Up next was Krug 2006, what a u-turn! Already rich and full, big nose jumps from the glass announcing itself. The DNA is noticeable between these two, but the 2006 is already a complete wine; mushrooms, flowers, baking spices galore. Loved it. This is a serious wine and i think would pair well with a rich dish.

The next two wines were served together for obvious reasons; Edition 164 and the 2008 vintage. Cut to the chase, the wait was worth it - 2008 Krug is magnificent. When compared to the 2006, it seems like a completely different wine, yet there are dotted lines connecting them. Beyond electric and pure, young fresh flowers on the nose and not a whole lot else; young, very young. Taut, very taut. I just kept saying “pure” to myself as I couldn’t come up with anything else. The depth and concentration - however - are endless. This will likely require a long time, but damn, does it have the stuffing. The non-surprise of the night was the 164 - this wine is also an outlier in how well it continues to show and how well above it stands among other terrific recent GCs. Here the GC 164 might indicate where the 2008 is going; insane balance, depth, and complexity. It’s just dialed in all so well; no edges, no nicks at all. Krug Edition 164 is a very very special wine and continues to show spectacularly whenever I have it.


08 Krug is going to be way above my comfort level financially but I’m going to have to grab at least one for the cellar. Thank you for the preview.

I’ve been waiting for that 2008-164eme side by side comparison. Thanks for providing it.

Looks like $375-$400 a bottle.

I’m so glad Krug presented them this way, which I think gives you an indication of what they think of these wines. They are simultaneously different and similar, in the best ways possible. Also brilliant marketing to influence you to buy both, which I think a lot of folks will do, rightfully so.

Make sense. In line with the 02 Cristal Late Release.

Or 2 bottles of 2008 Comtes.

speaking of, all recent vintages have gone up a LOT lately. was looking to backfill 2006 and was surprised.

Champagne is the new Burgundy in that it has rocketed up in the past 2 years after being fairly docile for many years.

it makes sense to me. it’s as good/better than burgundy and except for a few wines, all under $200 pb and quantity generally isn’t an issue. i’m at the point where i’d rather have champagne than white burgs most of the time (chablis i consider separately for some reason).

Earlier this week I posted a side-by-side comparison of the '06 based 162 eme and the 2006. The dissimilarities were more striking to me than the similarities.

I haven’t compared the 2008 and the 164 eme side by side, but after trying the 2008, I’m not going to open any for years, so that comparison will have to wait. I’m really glad to see it done by Yaacov above.



Great notes, appreciate it! Certainly painful to see the pricing on these, but if you’re going to buy, I’m guessing buy early as these will probably only continue to go up.

1 Like