Krug dinner: 164eme, 160eme, 2004, 2002, 2000 Ambonnay, etc.

WINE TALK
1

CHICAGO 2004 KRUG RELEASE - Chicago, IL (10/11/2017)

  1. Exactly as I remember it from a month ago. Yes, this is outstanding Champagne, but there’s something about this that doesn’t taste particularly Kruggy (in hindsight, with air, it did start to show more and more of that power, but I think this is perhaps a question of time). Heaps of acidity, a little bit of green apple, and a great zing. It doesn’t quite have the broad shoulders of Krug right now, but the power is there. (93 pts.)
  1. This is good, but simply too young. It’s a tight and dense coil of energy right now. Lots of citrus extract on the palate, this almost veers towards some lemons or limes. It’s got power for sure, as well as some of that characteristic Krug richness. Air tames the acids a little. This is much too young; time is needed to round out the palate and let the acids cool down a little. No denying the quality of this wine though; it is certainly head and shoulders above the 2003, but eclipsed by the monumental 2002. (93 pts.)
  1. This wine has been hyped up to me for years now, and for whatever reason I never had a chance to try it until today. It’s exactly what I expected it to be – dense fruit, bruised apple, raw Krug power. As with most of the wines tonight, this was still incredibly tight, and it needed much more air to ease up, but this has that perfect balance of fruit, acidity, and raw power. And while I loved this wine a lot, it was not the easiest drinking wine right now. (93 pts.)
  1. As far as the Grande Cuvee goes, this bottle was even better than the 164eme, at least in that it was much more approachable. It gives up its charms easily, and this embodies, in my mind, the bottle of “ready” Grande Cuvee. It’s a softer and approachable champagne, and but the Krug concentration and power are all there. The lemony acidity of the 2004 vintage is here in spades, but I think the added extra juice does a lot of work to round out this wine. An iteration of the Grande Cuvee very much to my taste now. (93 pts.)
  1. I think it’s quite weird to stick your nose in the glass, smell the mushrooms and earth of pinot alongside the characteristic broad-shouldered Krug signature. The palate was where this got interesting. I found the midpalate a bit softer and less powerful than the other wines tonight, but the finish was extremely persistent. In fact, that the wine just kept going on and on, despite the relatively lighter midpalate, was the most compelling thing about this. (93 pts.)
  1. From magnum. This bottle of rose (my first, believe it or not), just showed incredibly well. Soft and delicate, but with the same Krug power behind it. There’s a slight bit of earthy mushroom on the nose here, which gives this a little more wildness, but the palate definitely carries the house style. Broad and concentrated, with really good acidity that’s not too bracing, this is an excellent wine for drinking right now (at least, this edition of it). (93 pts.)
  1. From jeroboam. Technically the 160eme. It was extremely instructive to be able to taste roughly the same juice from different bottle sizes side by side (although this bottle was disgorged slightly later). This bottle shows much more like the 2004 vintage Krug than the 160eme, truth be told. Tons of bright acidity, white fruit, and potent acidity. More tight and less enjoyable now than the fifths of 160eme. (93 pts.)
2

That’s a lot of 93s :slight_smile:

3

He needs to do a 1993 California horizontal.

4

given the point spread i’m sticking to the nv and saving some dollars

5

I’m honestly a little confused. How can the 160eme be “even better than the 164eme”, but get the same score? And then the final NV in the list, which is “technically the 160eme”, be “less enjoyable” than that wine, but also get a 93?

The notes are very helpful, but doesn’t this show the risk of giving point scores to wines? Or was the scoring simply a post-postmodern commentary on scoring wines?

6

The blanket 93 is Adrian’s didactic commentary on giving scores. If you go to cellartracker it has his real scores ironically plenty of 93s there too…

7

I love me some bruised apple in my champagne, as long as it is left-side bruising.

Marc, the notes are indeed very interesting, but Adrian can’t help but put a thumb in the eye of everyone who scores wines with each of his notes. All wines are always 93

8

Bruised apple? Sounds like something a points huckster would say.

9

Respect!

10

interesting to see all the 160s around. Fred told me they are tasting them right now at Krug and now they are bringing them out. I wonder if they are going to do a release of it soon? Like a late disgorgement similar to the savoir faire?

11

They’ve done several releases packaged with other bottles. A a minimum there’s a 03/04/05 NV 6-pack, as well as a less hard-to-find '04/160 6-pack (same way they co-released the '02/158). Not sure if there are any plans to release it on its own. They didn’t with the 158 AFAIK.

12

The Krug folks last night indicated they are releasing the 160 with the 2004.

The 160 out of Jero was insanely good. Phil - you need to track down one of the <1000 Jeros bottled. I’ll gladly drink yours!

13

I’m doing the analogous event tonight… not sure that they’ll do the same formats or all of the wines you did though.

14

Why did the 04 and the 02 Krug get the same score, given your note on CT?

15

just read a few posts above.

16

We had 2002 krug last week to celebrate the Chicago Cubs defense of their title. While the nose flavors and textures were terrific I couldn’t help wondering if the acidity might be too high.

17

He actually gives scores in CT and both got 95 points…

18

Interesting. I actually preferred the 04 over the 02. Really liked the leaner more lemon notes vs the more powerful 02. My preference currently would be 160>04>02.

19

Yes - I saw the 93’s across the board, but even on CT it’s all 95 except for the 164eme

20

Which is what I was trying to get at. 95 across the board for the 00, 02, and 04?