Krug editions - which are most like 164eme?

Was going to pull a bottle of Krug out, put it in the refrigerator and enjoy later as we get ready, as a celebration of our anniversary, since Krug is our ‘relationship wine’ - lots of stories linking that Champagne to our marriage. Oops, don’t have any!

Stylistically we both prefer crisp, citrusy-focused Champagnes, therefore 164eme was perfect for us, in fact, the best of the editions we’ve had. I should have bought more, as now it’s $400+ in aftermarket.

Does anyone have experience with the closest to 164eme that is still relatively well-priced?

Right now 168

1 Like

Slight drift. But why is 170 one to avoid?
2014 base should be great?


Looking forward to that release for my second daughter’s stash.

I guess I didn’t read thoroughly, but this thread, in search results, showed qualities we don’t favor, yeasty, etc

But it was in reference to the '04, so I’ll amend the OP

1 Like

We just had 168 last week and it has lots of brioche toast.

1 Like

I think 169 fits the bill. Has great acidity, freshness, “crisp and citrus” as you described but just lacks some of the power and concentration of the 164. But you can find it for very reasonable prices under $200 without much trouble. I think the 168 is a different style than what you’re looking for (toasty, as Andrew K said) although it can also be found reasonably priced. And it rocks. Just my opinion based on having all three in the past couple months.



There really aren’t any Grande Cuvees in recent memory that I feel are similar to the 164 (2008 base) especially when it was first released. The 165 (2009 base) is also fairly singular. At what point of its life so far have you most enjoyed the 164? On release, a couple years ago, now? That can help narrow down some recommendations, but I don’t think any are going to be all that identical.

The 168 (2012 base) is not a bad suggestion especially in comparison to where the 164 is now. 168 has amazing richness and not as much cut, but as the 164 ages, it is gaining some weight and smoothing out a bit. The 160 (2004 base) also has some slight similarity and I can see the 164 and 160 becoming somewhat similar over time.



If you like Krug, and you’re already regretting that you did not buy enough. I’d suggest buying cases of each edition at this stage. Especially if you’re drinking it every year. Having said that, load up on 168, 169, & 170 now…while you still can. I don’t imagine anything will be like 164 again…but you can make your adjustments moving forward so you don’t land here again. Wishing you the best of luck in stocking up. [cheers.gif]

I was about to add comments, but then read Brad`s first paragraph and concur wholeheartedly. I too have been a 164 lover and keep looking for an Edition that is comparable and just do not find any.

I recommended the 168 because I think it’s relatively similar right now to what the 164 is at right now. I’ve had both several times in the last 3 months. Long term as in when both wines are mature, though, I think they’ll be different.

on a related note; I’ve finished all my 164 halves and am putting the 750 and mags away for at least 5 years. The mag we opened last year was impossibly tight. 164 are a little better but still not that pleasurable currently. 165 on the other hand…

I loved the 165 on release so I bought a bunch, but I haven’t opened one for a long time. I’d love to hear your impression of what makes it “fairly singular.” Unlike the 164, one rarely sees 165 TNs. Thinking of popping one soon.

I thought the 164 on release was truly fantastic. Have buried mine ever since though.

I’ve liked some of these MV editions more than others, too. However, I have to say, the entire historical purpose of this bottling was to create a champagne that is (1) consistent in character from year to year and (2) in a prime drinking zone on release. If people are starting to obsess over the edition numbers as proxies for a vintage date and cellar them on a similar basis, that would seem to suggest the wine has gotten pretty far afield of one or both goals. Indeed the current practice of numbering them at all and linking it to detailed information about the blend is 180 degrees opposite from their prior practice of treating the blend like a state secret and insisting it was somehow constant and unchanged in every important particular over the last century or so.


I feel like it gets the opulence you want from krug and get from vintages like 2002 and to a lesser degree, 1996.

Yes, times have changed. On popular demand.

A great tasting would compare a series of Krug vintage Champagnes with Krug Grande Cuvees having base years of those vintages. My guess would be that most tasters (including me) wouldn’t be able to align the two tasted blind with great accuracy. It would be fun to try.

Is the consensus now that one should further bottle age MV Krug? I’m a newbie with this cuvée and sitting on a couple of 168s. The classic conundrum of “I’d love to try it and would hate to try it too soon.”

Yes although 168 is also drinking well now especially in 375.

1 Like