I skipped the 2015, but just received an offer for the 2016. Has anyone tried it? My offer was in the mid-$230’s. I’m tempted to get a couple, but I’ve drastically cut my wine buying and budget. Any thoughts on current or future pricing?
Cheers
Warren
Not interested myself. Rather buy the 12/13 if I needed any more.
(I did buy a case on release at $200, but wouldn’t do that today.)
I haven’t but did get a few; I’ve heard it’s pretty good. 230 isn’t bad.
Anyone have a good price on a mag or 3L? Birth year
Larger formats aren’t released until later.
There’s a whole discussion on 2016 in here that’s helpful-
Yes, that’s the thread that led me to skip the 2015. It’s interesting that @Brad_Baker liked the 2015 Cristal more than 2014 and 2016. I’m leaning towards holding off until ‘18, ‘19 & ‘20.
Brad is the champion of the outlier.
Having tried the two side by side last week, I would say it’s hard to make the case that 2015 surpasses 2016, though it is a very good 2015.
My review is published, so won’t reiterate those comments, but I bought bottles and mags of 2016 for my cellar, FWIW…
I keep opening 2013s because of how versatile & interesting they have been for us. My plan if/when they tighten up was move into 14s perhaps for their approachability… any thoughts on the dichotomy between 14 & 16, William?
I’d work on the '14 before the '16, and honestly before the '13! But that depends how much '13 you have!
Very helpful 
. Thank you, William.
(Chuckles)
Michael & Andrew have influenced (corrupted?) me in Champagne buying. Once you find your favorite vintage of a Big House, don’t be afraid to go Deep 
Hi Warren,
I don’t recall saying that I prefer the 2016 or 2014 Cristal over the 2015. I do prefer the 2015 vintage as a whole over 2014 and 2016, but not for Cristal. I like the 2015 Cristal and think the 2015 Cristal is an enjoyable, open, bright, fruity wine. This is the exact opposite of the 2013, 2014, and 2016 releases. But, I also feel the 2015 is the weakest (relatively speaking) Cristal since 2007.
I like the 2016 Cristal a little bit more than I do the 2014 and 2013 vintages and find it to be a very worthy release that will probably end up as one of the top wines of the vintage. It isn’t at the same level as 2008-2009-2012 Cristal trio (few Champagnes are), but the 2016 is still downright awesome. Kind of a combination of the best of 2014 and 2013 all rolled into one. The fact that Roederer can reach such a high level in years like 2014 and 2016 is extremely impressive.
Warren,
I expect the 2018-2019-2020 trio of Cristal to be legendary. The 2019 Cristal has very, very special potential. One of the best young Champagnes I have ever tasted (in terms of potential).
Oh goodness. I may need to start preparing my credit card now.
Interesting; I am really interested to see how 16 turns out, and am excited about the 18-20s for sure, especially 18.
I’ve had a whole lot of the 08, 09, 12 and 13 Cristal lately (case or more of each in last 2 years) and would currently rate them as follows:
Current drinking:
13, 09, 12, 08
Future potential:
08, 13, 12, 09
I think 12 is good, but prefer 13 to it all day. Interested to try 16s. I don’t think the 14 or 15 are anywhere near as good as the 4 above.
13 rose is likely both the best for current drinking and best future potential of any of the wines, fwiw.
13 vs. 12 Cristal really comes down to your preference in classical vs. structured, but showy (same could be said about 08 and 09 although 09 has more in common with 08 than 12 does with 13). I think the 12 will loose a lot of its more forward notes that some may find as clumsy or fat right now, but time will tell. From an analytical standpoint, the 2012 has a similar structure to the 2008 and a lower dosage, but it has all sorts of other characteristics that don’t allow that structure to stand out like it does in 2008.
Yeah, 13 Cristal Rose is pretty awesome. Cristal Rose in just about any vintage is pretty often and usually trumps the Blanc.
For the 2018-19-20 trio, I expect my preference based on pre-release tasting to be 2019-2018-2020, but we’ll have to see how things develop. The only caveat I would add is that none of these vintages are classical Champagne vintages. They are all on the ripe side. 2018 is calmed down by a touch of dilution. 2019 is a more precise and textured version of 2012 (or maybe mix up the best of 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2013). 2020 is bright, but maybe doesn’t have the same length as 2018 and 2019.
Yup! Although the 08 Rosé shows amazing potential also. I definitely look forward to another side by side in a decade or so to see where things are starting to shake out. Although my heart is with the 13 since I have cases and only a few bottles of the 08.
I like the 09 well enough, but I don’t really see how it can be in the same conversation as the 16. In terms of concentration, precision and structural integrity, the 2016 is considerably superior.
William,
I think the bright, open character of the 2009 on release made it easy to look past its structure and precision. The 2009 has started to close down a bit and its structure, length, and depth are more noticeable now IMO. I really like the 2016 and agree that it is extremely chiseled, mineral, elegant, with good primary fruit and a wonderful floral and honey note. For me, the 2009 has more going on and for the first couple of years after release continued to improve not only for current drinking, but also potential. We’ll see where the 2016 goes over the next year or two. It’s a great wine; I just don’t see it as well rounded as 2009/2012 or as next level in terms of expression like the 2008. That said, it is still probably better than 99% of Champagnes in 99% of the vintages. A lot of credit should also be given for 2016 being a vintage that is no better than average (in a general sense). To make a wine of this quantity and quality from 2016 is a far more impressive feat than what was done in 2008-2009-2012.