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

WINE TALK
21

Oy vey! [swoon.gif]

22

My kind of dinner.

23

interesting comparisons. Made me buy even more 164.

I score with the Zanotti binary syatem—0 not worth drinking, 1 worth drinking. These sound like 1s.

24

I thought the broader style of the 02 was a better fit for the Krug style, which is also why I don’t think the 164eme is too Krug-like. Mind you, all of these wines are rated an Alan Weinberg 1 (except maybe the Ambonnay – haven’t got the coin to rate it 1).

25

I did the exact same tasting tonight. A few thoughts:

  • 164eme is really good. It’s young, coiled up, and very bright and citric. Needs tons of time, but that’s to be expected. I didn’t find it out of character for GC at all.
  • The '04 and '02 are very different, but both with classic Krug profiles. The '04 is more chardonnay-driven, more compact, and without the deeper, dark fruit profile and breadth of the '02. I expect the '04 will broaden out and pick up some darker citrus tones with time. I’ll note it was the first time I’ve had the '02 where I got a bit of heaviness in it (out of maybe 6 times or so), but generally it’s less vibrant a vintage than the '04 and '08s I had next to it.
  • The '00 Ambonnay is really nice, and has more than a bit of resemblance to the '00 vintage in its bright flavors. It’s seamless and with great length, but I think it’s the least differentiated CdA I’ve had.
  • 160eme in Jero may have been my favorite wine of the event. More depth, spice, and character than the (very good) regular format. For whatever reason I actually found the larger format to be more ready.

Really nice event put on by Krug, who always does a fantastic job showing their wines.

26

164 is definitely an atypical MV krug. I probably would not guess krug if blinded.