Recently had a bottle of NV Krug - not my style at all. Too oxidized and overblown. I’m more of a grower/producer Champagne guy, especially at the price Krug is these days.
Depends on which Wiki you consult.
(1) The Wiki entry on “wine bottle” says what you posted.
(2) The Wiki entry “Glossary of wine terms” defines “split” as: “A wine bottle that holds approximately 6 oz (175-187 mL) or one-fourth the equivalent of a typical 750 mL bottle.”
(3) Wiktionary gives two definitions of “split”, either: “A unit of measure used for champagne or other spirits: 18.75 centiliter or 1/4 quarter of a standard .75 liter bottle.” Or: “A bottle of wine containing 0.375 liters, 1/2 the volume of a standard .75 liter bottle.” Your choice, apparently.
In the internet age, you probably can find any definition you want.
Circa 1986 or 1987, I stumbled upon a post New Year sale of Krug NV Grand Cuvee. I can’t remember the exact price, but I know it was under $25/bottle. At the time, I knew of the Krug’s heralded reputation, but I had never tried it before so I initially purchased just two bottles. After opening one bottle, I rushed back the next day and bought the remaining eight bottles. I loved them all. Over the ensuing years, as the price has escalated, I have picked up a bottle here and there. The last few bottles I have tried over the last couple of years, at $100+ per bottle, simply aren’t competitive with what’s otherwise available in the Champagne marketplace. I think Krug is resting on their laurels and they need to put some better juice into their Grand Cuvee and restore it to its once glorious position at the top of the non-vintage hierarchy.
Well this is far better on day 2, the house style as I understand it is starting to come through. But it still doesn’t crack 90 points for me, a cardinal sin in a $100+ wine that doesn’t otherwise bring some smashingly unique quality to the table (such as an interesting melange of bacteria from the side of a volcano or something).
I think this style done well is something I would like, so this is either a bogus batch or an example of a house resting on its laurels (as David says). Hopefully I’ll get a chance to try this again in the fall at one of the local tent Champagne tastings. (Unless someone wants to invite me to the Krug house in Aspen, lol.)
By definition (as with Magnum, Double Magnum, Jeroboam, etc) a split is a 187. People misuse it all the time.
+1
And Wikipedia is not always correct. If enough people misuse it over a long enough period, then the incorrect usage may become standard. But it is still based on an incorrect definition.
I wouldn’t liken Krug to Mollydooker; more like Latour, power and grace together.
Nick,
Any clue as to what disgorgement you had of this (you can check the code on the cork or if it is a newer release, the code on the back of the bottle)? When young, the wine can come off a little disappointing, but it normally fills out with time in the bottle. Even when young, I sometimes don’t find that letting the bottle air out gets it up to the level where I really enjoy it. This really needs a good three to eight years in the bottle post release (or four to ten post disgorgement). The last disgorgement of the Grande Cuvee that I really enjoyed right out of the gate was the release disgorged throughout most of 2006 as it was quite forward and rich, but well balanced. By comparison, the next blend debuted with with early 2007 disgorgements and it took until the second half of last year for it to really start to hit its stride for me.
You really shouldn’t find much oak in the wine as it doesn’t see very much time in it. It sees a few weeks in mostly very old oak before going into steel. There definitely is some richness from the oxygenation, but woodiness should not be present. I do agree that you can often really taste the richness when drinking on its own or when matched with lighter styled Champagnes, but if you put it in a lineup of Champagnes that use newer oak or leave the wines in oak for a few months, the Krug comes off as anything but oaky. A good way to discover this is to serve Grande Cuvee next to a vintaged Vilmart (or even the NV Grand Cellier). I love Krug and Vilmart, but Krug often seems light in comparison. In fact, when I complain about Grande Cuvee, it is normally with a release that is too thin and doesn’t have the richness and power in its youth that I expect.
All of the above said, Grande Cuvee isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea and at $100+, it isn’t going to be a great value to all. While I often prefer it to Billiot’s NV, the gap isn’t that much and the Billiot is a lot less expensive. If you move up to the Billiot vintage level, I sometimes prefer it to Grande Cuvee and the cost gap is still pretty big. Anytime you find a $50-$70 Champagne that performs at a high, high level, my advice is always to load up.
There is no reason that the Krug style should appeal to everyone. Same goes for Billiot, Bollinger, Bouchard, Chartogne-Taillet, Camile Saves, Selosse, etc., etc.
As for the comment regarding Krug “resting on their laurels” and needing to put “better juice” into the MV, I would call that totally off base. Look at how often they release vintage, and the quantity. They put great juice into the MV - it’s just not everyone’s style.
Beyond that, I thought Krug owned a very large % of the land they use for all of the wines. The Clos wines are clearly both “grower” Champagnes. Not sure on how close Krug is to hitting 100% for the vintage or MV.
I do find it funny when folks bellyache about the pricing of one wine, while in other threads high priced wines are chased after like lost treasure. Relative value has more to do with an individual’s style preference, and much less with “objective” quality.
I loved the Krug style in the ten bottles I bought circa 1986/1987. The bottles I have tried over the last few years, however, simply didn’t have the depth or complexity of the earlier ones. I don’t think my ability to perceive depth and/or complexity has declined that much in the last 25 years, so I can’t help but conclude that something other than me has changed with the Krug.
Lots of things change in 25 years, including personal tasting ability, weather in a wine region and personal stylistic preferences.
David B,
IIRC, Krug owns around 33-40% of what they need for production. Not a small number, but not a large one either.
David H,
Things definitely change over time, but post disgorgement age could be one factor in why some bottles taste better than others. Krug sells much more quickly today than it did 20-25 years ago. Quicker turnover is the biggest change Krug has had to deal with over the years and it has lead to some bottles being a bit too young on release for my palate.
Changing gears, I do agree that Krug’s Grande Cuvee is very high quality. One of the hardest thing to wrap your arms around is Krug’s philosophy that all of their wines are of equal quality and that rarity/limited production is the only thing driving price. I don’t completely agree with that as I do think there is some qualitative difference between the wines (the vintaged wines are only made when they Krug finds them to say something special), but in the large picture, I understand what they are saying.
Thanks for the info Brad.
I would expect that they have some rather long term relationships with growers.
Careful Nick! I’ve been flamed on boards I don’t even post on for being disappointed in Krug NV!
Krug has some very good contracts and most are long term. As with any producer, every now and then a grower will pull grapes back in for their own wines, but Krug has done well with the grapes they source. One of the better changes Champagne has made over the past 10-15 years has been the negociants involving the growers they contract grapes from to be much more involved in the process of understanding the role their grapes play and explaining what they are looking for. It has helped to strengthen many bonds especially as competition for top grape contracts has heated up.
Brad, the ID code is 410012, which was late 2010 disgorgement according to the website. I admit to being puzzled why Krug is making their NV in a style that needs years of bottle aging to show well, if this is now true. Seems understandable for vintage Champagne or some boutique grower NVs, but a big-house NV that 99.99% of people drink the day they buy?
I have enjoyed bottles, but for the price I vastly prefer Bollinger Grand Annee or Taittinger Comtes or C Bouchard . . . or a half dozen others. I can’t imagine ever spending $100 plus for this wine.
Krug is not exactly Yellow label Veuve.
Those grower champagnes aren’t cheap these days. Just noticed the local wine store is selling the 2002 Egly-Ouriet Grand Cru Brut Millésimé at $199.99. Popped one Wednesday night with dinner and really enjoyed it. Freaking delicious actually. Liked it better than my experiences with Krug Grand Cuvee. Probably would not have popped it if I had known prices had gone ridonkulous in the past 6 months.
Nick,
That would make your Grande Cuvee a 2003 base. A month or two after your bottle was disgorged, the blend changed to a 2004 base. I’ll be honest - I don’t think I have had the 2003 base. My area is stocked with lots of 2001 and 2002 base and the current release is the 2004 base. I will have to try to track one done. 2003 was a challenging year, but it tended to make for very tasty NVs that were good right out of the box and didn’t need lots and lots of cellaring.
For the 2004 base (which is the current release), I’m not a huge fan when it is chilled down or for the first couple hours it is open. It is enjoyable enough and has good potential, but it comes off as very young to me and, for the price, isn’t something I would pop right now. I get lots of tart fruit with a touch of cream and some spice. Now, give it three hours and let it warm up and it becomes much better as more fruit and dough comes out, but it still has a grip of tartness on the back palate. It also develops some nice nutty and gently spicy notes. All that said, the issue with drinking this wine right now is that most folks aren’t going to open a bottle, pour a couple glasses and then let everything sit and warm up for three or four hours.
I do agree with you that most NVs (even Grande Cuvee) tend to be consumed soon after purchase. Even when you factor in the wine geek population who will cellar Grande Cuvee, most of it will not be cellared. What helps Krug out a bit is the price point. It doesn’t move nearly as fast as many other NVs especially on restaurant lists. This often leads to “accidental cellaring” and a perfectly aged Grande Cuvee.
Krug has always had an issue with the Grande Cuvee because of the price and the belief that NVs should be ready to do from day one. That is part of the reason why Krug began marketing it as a “multi-vintage” - so that people would treat it more like a vintage wine. For a long time, this helped to also keep the wine a slower seller and one that often saw a lot of time aging both pre and post disgorgement. As sales starting to increase in the second half of the 90s and then with LVMH entering the picture, the wine began to turn over faster. I also believe that right around the time of the label change in 2004, a move was made to release the wine a little younger than before. Demand was high so this was a way to meet it. The Grande Cuvee was still of high quality, but it seemed to need more aging than usual in my book.
The economy crash in 2008/2009 stalled things a bit and suddenly NVs were seeing way more time aging - usually post disgorgement - before they hit the shelves. This helped out the Grande Cuvee that many bought in 2009-2010 and the first part of 2011. In my area, a lot of bottles were being sold with over three years of post disgorgement age. Things have corrected themselves now and Krug found ways to move more Grande Cuvee (bundling it with the vintage wine). This has led to the Grande Cuvee being a bit younger again. Now, in the big picture a 2004 based NV wine disgorged in late 2010 is not so young, but Grande Cuvee is not your normal NV. It really is a prestige Champagne and should be treated as such - including giving it time to age. I know it is Krug’s basic wine, but, again, it isn’t a normal NV.
Before writing this wine off, see if you can try one with some age. If you can find a well cellared bottle of the previous label generation that will be something with at least eight to nine years of post-disgorgement age. A bottle of the current label with four plus years of post disgorgement age would work too, but you can’t tell the age without popping the bottle and looking at the cork. If you don’t like an older bottle than I would say this wine isn’t your style. No big deal. There is plenty more out there and it is never a bad thing to dislike a more expensive bottle of Champagne. Look at it as a blessing - it will leave you money for other stuff!
Well I let 1/4 bottle sit until day 3, and damned if it still isn’t getting better. If this is indeed a partial window into how it will age I can begin to see the attraction of this wine. I’ll keep my eye open for a chance to try an aged version, and may even cellar a few bottles in the name of science. I don’t like mysteries and this is a mystery I want to solve, hence my persistence…