Krug editions - which are most like 164eme?

[MChang]

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.

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.

Right now I believe there are the following mv that have paired vintage:

158/2002 (only in creations case)
160/2004
162/2006
164/2008

[Andy_Sc]

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.”

Rule of thumb is 10 years of additional cellaring after release (that’s what experienced collectors told me). Of course it depends on how much bottles you have cellared. If you have 12, 18+ bottles you should of course try it in every stage of its development. If you have 3 bottles, I would wait (at least that’s my strategy).

[ybarselah]

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.

krug has been schizophrenic for a while, not limited to GC. richesse, Savoir-Faire, Mémoires, etc. etc. they don’t make it super easy to fully understand what you’re getting.

DP kind of solved this by committing to 3 plenitudes whereas prior Oenotheque releases had multiple disgorgements.

[ybarselah]

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.

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.

this is precisely what Krug did when they presented the 2008 vintage at various events here. they poured the 164 next to the 2008. To say they were two completely different expressions of champagne would be a massive understatement (on that day, the 164 pancaked the 2008 vintage) - i’d posit that anyone could easily identify the differences. was very fun indeed and saved me a lot of money as well!

[Brad_Baker]

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 think the marketing side of Champagne agrees with what you said or at least dictated that message for well over a century and a half. The winemaking side has always disagreed or at least has as long as I have been interacting with them. There is certainly a goal to a house style and consistency, but the base vintage and a particular blend tends to show through over time and the wines almost always drink better 5-10 or more years after release. Anyone speaking honestly in Champagne will admit to this and a favorite game in the region is to open up old NVs and see if you can identify which release/base vintage they are from. Again, you would be amazed at how well strong vintage characteristics show through (for better or worse).

In may ways, Champagne has made a 180 degree turn and has now embraced the differences of each blend. The best releases won’t always correspond with the best base vintages, but there are always differences. Krug was once one of the most secretive and least likely to embrace the fact that each Grande Cuvee was different, but Maggie Henriquez really helped to change things. As it became very apparent that each release/blend really was different, it eventually was embraced and we continue to see more and more large and small producers embrace this concept. Base vintage and blend matter, but so does house style. If you don’t like the style of a producer (such as Krug) you are not likely going to care about which particular release of a NV may be better or worse than another.

Historically as well, most producers had to figure out a way to make wine year after year when some vintages gave utter crap or next to nothing. The climate of Champagne has been rather unforgiving over the years though it is quite a bit better today. Add in limited storage containers and you often ended up with a lot of NV wines including many producers who made it almost 100%. It was more about being able to make and sell wine year after year than consistency of style or prime drinking on release.

So… were a lot of the producers (who tended to be large producers) feeding the world a line of B.S. for a long time - yes. Many still continue to. Will some try to play the vintage game with the NVs and upcharge on some releases - of course, but it won’t always matter. Overall, I’m just happy we are getting more data/facts with our Champagne now. Of course, trends could change next week and all of the above could become gibberish with the larger producers’ marketing arms.

[Brad_Baker]

DP kind of solved this by committing to 3 plenitudes whereas prior Oenotheque releases had multiple disgorgements.

What makes you think DP stopped doing multiple disgorgements of P1/P2/P3? They just stopped putting the disgorgement date on most bottles. P1 is going to have multiple disgorgements. P2 is normally going to see 2-3 disgorgement dates and P3 is going to have quite a number of disgorgements.

[ybarselah]

DP kind of solved this by committing to 3 plenitudes whereas prior Oenotheque releases had multiple disgorgements.

What makes you think DP stopped doing multiple disgorgements of P1/P2/P3? They just stopped putting the disgorgement date on most bottles. P1 is going to have multiple disgorgements. P2 is normally going to see 2-3 disgorgement dates and P3 is going to have quite a number of disgorgements.

Quite fascinating as I was told the opposite. What is the standard release schedule of green label? How far apart are the disgorgements? And is there any way to track them? Thanks as always, Brad.

[Brad_Baker]

Yaacov,

I don’t know how far apart the disgorgements are on the P1 aka traditional release. It really depends on the release schedule. It could be a few within a 6-9 month period or over a couple years. For P2, there does tend to be one disgorgement date that a majority of the bottles will come from, but there will still be multiple. With P3 as the wine remains a P3 forever, there will be an initial release that will probably be the largest volume and likely have the same disgorgement date, but after the initial release, there will be more releases and more disgorgements.

[ybarselah]

Yaacov,

I don’t know how far apart the disgorgements are on the P1 aka traditional release. It really depends on the release schedule. It could be a few within a 6-9 month period or over a couple years. For P2, there does tend to be one disgorgement date that a majority of the bottles will come from, but there will still be multiple. With P3 as the wine remains a P3 forever, there will be an initial release that will probably be the largest volume and likely have the same disgorgement date, but after the initial release, there will be more releases and more disgorgements.

just seeing this…thanks again. this all makes sense to the extent any of this does/can. i suppose a certain level of constant confusion works better for the producer than the customer!