Recent case in point- 1995 Krug. Been sitting in perfect cellar conditions for last 10 or so years- not sure if I bought on actual release or not. Amber in color, very light bubbles- Nose is bread and nuts, palate has some bread, some definite oxidative notes, and a fairly sharp apple cider note. It was… OK I thought. Interesting at times, but not particularly enjoyable.
Could be a not great bottle. Could have needed more air. I admit to lack of experience in older champagne- but the consistent theme for older champagne is the more oxidative notes, the nuts, and the lack of fizz.
So I think I am basically done trying to cellar/age champagne much longer than a year or two. Will save me some cellar space I guess!
Is this decision based on just the one single oxidized bottle? That seems like a large conclusion off of one data point.
Probably a better process would be to have tried some good examples of older Champagne, and see whether you like that profile more or less than how young Champagne tastes. Plus then factor in what the odds of oxidation and decline are, which probably vary by producer (I think Krug is problematic in that area).
If you like young Champagne as much or more than good examples of similar mature Champagne, then the decision is easy, just buy what you want to drink in the coming months. Plus, Champagne is such a pain in the ass to store in racked wine cabinets.
I love 95 Krug but it’s been showing age notes for a decade now ha. But all Krug need a lot of air the older they get. Actually all well stored champagne needs more air the older they get
You’re not alone. I’ve run into people that have very experienced palates across great wines that just don’t love well aged Champagne.
I think it has something to do with well aged Champagne have a character that contrasts with young Champagne more than other types of wines. If you really like the bright, fresh fruit with a touch of sweetness that is often younger Champagne, the more oxidative wine with notes of things like coffee, toast and toffee can throw you off.
I think a lot of people are taught vigorous bubbles are also a mark of quality. Older Champagnes have increasingly softer and lighter bubbles. That’s another place people can get surprised in a way they don’t want to be.
Dry wines, both red and white don’t really have these sorts of transformations. And don’t have bubbles to lose. The curve of change is less severe so it’s easier to accept.
No- this wasn’t super clear in my post, I agree. Honestly my only aged Krug datapoint, but a consistent theme with other older champagnes I have had. Sample size is not 100’s, but well more than one.
In general once they get to this oxidative, not very bubbly point, I find them only intellectually interesting- which just isn’t interesting enough.
I am sure he is in the lumberyard somewhere. Yes, 26 years past vintage is older… for my cellar at least- I did avoid using the word “old” on purpose though.
Due to its petillance nature, champagne is unique in that it drastically changes in texture as it ages and loses some of its fizz. It throws a lot of people off. Add in the oxidative notes, and it can be a challenging wine for many. Are you a fan of aged/oxidative still whites or do you prefer them younger and fresher?
Personally, I prefer to have more freshness in my champagnes, so while I age most bottles a bit, I tend not to hold on to many for long. I do think they can age and keep their freshness for more than a year or two though, and in fact benefit from ageing that long or a bit more.
A good question- I have had some stunning older chablis, I like LdH whites, etc. I occasionally enjoy Oloroso sherries. None of these are my regular go-to’s and admittedly my cellar is very red heavy in general though. There is just something about the older champagnes that feels off to me, maybe just the bubbles. It’s like drinking a flat beer.
Scott, I’m with you. I don’t care for oxidative notes whether it’s with champagne or still whites. Personal taste. But again, I don’t care for them so young that they seer your tongue. Give it a little time to settle. So to me oxidative = oxidized = defective = dump
For Krug of this age what is the best preparation? Pop the cork a few hours before consumption? For older champagne seems like decanting might dissipate the bubbles?
When I was a yoot in the 80s, ‘old champagne’ was almost free. I think it was often the cheapest thing I came across in the old Butterfield and Butterfield auctions.
It was not regarded as a connoisseur-level wine in some of the wine circles I knew of. (I am sure there are people who have always loved, I am just saying my own perception of the era.)
And I like it! I was happy as a truffle pig rolling in truffles, if truffles were only so cheap!
Then, something happened and now it’s a thing. (Like Burgundy went crazy, too.)
Scott, you are mainstream regarding your opinion of those wines until the mid to late 90s.
I also recall really cheap brown diamonds, almost beneath buying, trash diamonds. I had a girlfriend who thought they were the bomb and collected them. Dang. Then, they became fancy “coffee” colored diamonds and now they are regarded as desirable.
i don’t really care about bubbles so i’m not opposed to decanting but for sound bottles of older krug I’ve never thought to myself “sheesh i shouldn’t have given this 2 hours of air”
I love young Champagne. And I’ve had some stunning examples of older champagne back to the 1980s but no older. I love the nutty oxidative notes. But I also love Sherry from Fino to PX. I think I had a 1985 Charles Heidseick with you once that was kind of an epiphany wine for the type for me.
Yep, as c fu said, Champagne needs air. Just a few weeks ago, I had a 98 Pol Roger WC that wasn’t decanted and it needed well over an hour just to get a little interesting. Funny enough, just got a 95 Krug. Definitely going to let it stretch before serving.
Agreed. I don’t love love young Champagne because the fruit doesn’t do too much for me. On the other hand, the coffee / cream / toffee / honey notes in old Champagne are really interesting and I find the more restrained mousse somehow melds better with the flavors to create texture
For what it’s worth I’ve found that Taittinger and DP and (comparatively young) Selosse hit the spot, while Krug is eh (but perhaps I just need to give it more air per Charlie)
I’m happy that this is not a taste not everyone shares - more for me in the secondary market
1973 Krug and 1969 Veuve Cliquot Rosé (out of a magnum) ethereally delicious at 25 years of age –
the depth and complexity that these wines evolve can be stunning
Michael S. Monie wrote: I love Bollinger NV Special Cuvée with 3-5 years of aging.
indeed:
the most economical means of drinking Really fine champagne
is to buy a case of this and forget it in your cellar for a few years
I remember enjoying either a 1989 or 1990 Krug at about 20 years old and it was truly stunning, but other than that, I’ve tended to be disappointed in both aged Champagne and still white wine…and the oxidative notes tend to be the key reason.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}