It’s been pretty well documented, both here and with professional critiques, that the 164 EME edition of the Krug Grande Cuvée shows significantly less oxidative notes than is typical, and by some expected. I’m wondering if this was by design or simply a result of the character of the 2008 base year vintage. Does this represent a stylistic shift for Krug…dare I say it, a new paradigm, or simply an outlier from the house style?
No.
Try the 165 and let us know 
Yeah, I think we’ll need to see what 165, 166, etc. bring in order to know. But damn, 164 is great, and yes, it’s unlike any other young MV Krug that I’ve tasted.
its the character of 2008 coming through IMHO
I plan on doing just that, as soon as I can get my hands on a bottle. Right now, it looks like K&L is the only place in the country that has it.
Vinopolis in Portland has it.
Omg.
Yes, the answer to the OP question is resoundingly YES!
What a tremendous (and fortunate, in our opinion) change in the style of Krug Grand Cuvee! We’ve long had an attachment to Krug MV in our relationship, as it played a big part in it, but we were never huge fans of the style of Grand Cuvee…untill now. It’s absolutely spectacular, with more pop, citrus-leaning, yet preserving the richness and mouthfeel that makes Krug a luxury cuvee. Tremendous bottle of wine, and I have to buy as much as I can find.
Regarding the 165, Hi Time has it. I just bought a few bottles last week (though it looks like their price has gone up since then). I haven’t opened one yet, though.
I am waiting until 165 is released to try the 164 (I have an extra each of 163 and a half of 166 in hand to taste alongside) for precisely the reason of your post- I have heard many claim there is a style shift afoot. We will see probably this summer once the 165 is available here.
My personal inclination is that there likely has not been a change. I say that for three reasons,
-
Despite the marketing of the MV wines as a consistent product (and they are consistently great) in the past, the fact is they have very unique personalities. I have tracked this more with the Rose than the regular MV- but it is there.
-
2008 is a very unique vintage. In addition to being very high in quality, the wines- at least the ones I have tried at this early stage- are quite singular. Generally speaking I find them to have a significant presence of bread notes, plus really magnificent pure fruit notes leading into loads of acid on the finish.
-
Nothing about Krug’s recent rise to widespread popularity suggests they should make a change. Granted a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by the 1995 as it evolved, but I have not seen any other retail patterns to suggest consumer pressure to do things any differently.
In college and grad school I worked in wine retail, and so I got to taste all of the tete de cuvees with some regularity at trade tastings back to 90 for the most part, but 85 for many late releases. And on my own I have explored back to the mid 60s. I do not have anywhere near the experience of guys like Brad or Ray- to name just two- but I have had a good bit, and 2008 really is that unique.
Qualitatively it definitely has equals, but for being “outside the box” I cannot think of another vintage like it.
I popped a 164 relatively recently based on rave reviews. I had not, however, read much on the reduced oxidative notes. I’ll be honest that I was a bit shocked when I drank it because I felt the style was quite apart from what I typically expect. The 163, for instance, is more of a classic Krug MV style. The tighter, more citrus forward 164th is undoubtedly excellent but was less “Krugy” than I originally expected. Then again, I thought the same about the 2002 Krug vintage champagne. In both instances, phenomenal wines, but a bit of a deviation from house style. Or at least that was my experience shortly after release.
So my question is whether that’s a great thing for Krug. It has a rather unique style for its MV. If it changes that style to a slightly less oxidative, less yeasty biscuit style for more of a crisp style, is it now trying to do what others do. Is Krug now in a stylistic battle with Dom Perignon, whereas prior it was a very different wine for almost all releases? Is that beneficial to consumers or Krug? I really don’t know. I’m interested in grabbing a 163, 164, and 165 and having a little taste test.
As it happens, I popped a 165 last night. I haven’t had enough Krug to really know how big of a departure it is. I definitely noticed a citrus forwardness, but still struck me as yeasty, oxidative and rich!
-
NV Krug Champagne Brut Grande Cuvée Edition 165eme - France, Champagne (2/15/2018)
Thrills galore. Young, snappy and fresh. Focused but crazy rich, with a big whiff of marzipan, honey nougat, brioche and lemon tart to start. Attention grabbing acid, and layers of fruit that reveal themselves: lime and mandarin; white peach and barely ripe apricot; pear and slight bruised red apple. More lemon tart on a finish that goes on and on. Doubtless will get better with time but it is ready to drink now. (95 pts.)
Posted from CellarTracker
I received a definitive answer from Olivier this morning:
In my opinion, there is no stylistic change as this is the 164th time we recreated the dream of Joseph.
What I noticed is, because it was the first ever new Edition released, (as 163eme Edition joined only the end of the lot), it benefited from a « release excitement » as strong as a new vintage. It has been played very strongly by the trade (some of them even miscommunicating on a possible influence of 2008 as a « base year », which is the opposite of what they were claiming when they loved « savoir-faire », whose youngest year was 2001).
This is then the first time that we have so many people jumping on the freshest release of Krug Grande Cuvée and tasting it immediatly.
(I received permission to share prior to doing so)
It appears the ‘key’ to what is perceived as a stylistic change is the freshness of a younger vintage as base. I’m loving it.
I read this as Olivier more saying that it’s just because people are drinking it young. But I think I’m also missing something on the Savoir-faire and 2001 vintage references.
Sounds like marketing speak on his end. I’ve had plenty of MV krug soon after release (according to the ID) and none taste like this.
None have had such a young base, however. That DOES make 164 different, probably fresher.
Whatcha talkin’ bout Willis?
The release before was 2007. The release the year after was 2009. The age of the base is almost always the same from release
Been that way for at least 15 years. I have quite a few cases of Grande Cuvee that I purchased in 06/07 that are 1996 base. And they are currently fantastic with probably another 20+ years of great drinking.
Then apparently the 2008 is the freshest of the group, as it’s a noticeable change from other current releases, according to comments
So vintage influence.
That’s not stylistic change.