Lanson and Ployez-Jacquemart both let their top cuvee age on the lees for more than twelve years prior to disgorgement. Have to think Ployez-Jacquemart is getting close to the quality being discussed here–but it’s also the same price point as cdc. The 2002 Liesse d’Harbonville isn’t out yet, but that’s something I’m watching out for to put up against the big boys.
Mature Krug is kind of unique, though. In theory, there’s no reason a good grower with a top site shouldn’t be able to compete qualitatively with a large producer making a single vintage wine (quantity-wise, of course, it’s a totally different story - I think one of the most striking things about some of the wines mentioned is how much great wine is produced!).
Look at Burgundy. There’s no reason to believe that Jadot can make better Musigny than Roumier simply because Jadot is bigger and has more capital. There simply wasn’t a track record or financial incentive for most growers to make those kinds of wines (and arguably there still isn’t).
In practice, I think we’re starting to see it more and more, though to your point, the big names can often hold wine back longer. Still, there are a lot of good grower 08s that are only just hitting the market, so it’s happening more often at their level, just not at the volume of the big names.
The quality revolution in Champagne is a very, very recent phenomenon, so there’s no reason to think there would be an extensive track record, though things like 90 Selosse and 90 Jacquesson certainly give me hope.
Champagne is unique in that the art of blending, even within a single vintage, across different vineyards really advantages the big house. A lot of growers only have a few hectares to work with so their wines will not quite have the breadth that a tete de cuvée from a grand marque will have as they (the grand marques) have access to hundreds of vineyard sites.
Where I think the growers can compete is drinking a bit younger where the clarity and focus of specific sites bring an intrigue element to the wine. Cedric Bouchard, Jerome Prevost, Selosse, Savart, etc come to mind in being able to rival the grand marques while young.
Depends on how much you value orange hued plastic crinkly wrap.
I would reiterate the points made by Kevin, Mark, and Ryan that there are stylistic differences between the two in that at younger ages the Cristal can come off as fresher, the Krug richer.
In the early years the Cristal can be more immediately accessible and Krug a bit more of an acquired taste. So if you have not had both try Cristal first and when you are searching the something new move on to Krug.
P CDGoisses deserves a second mention in this thread, and Piper Rare a first.
To the OP: try all of the wines listed here over some years to shape your own determination of which is best.
Thanks to all those who offered thoughtful, very useful replies. I am currently exploring Champagne more on the side of the growers and have very little experience with the Tete de Cuvees of the big maison, so I was curious to get opinions here.
I am currently reading the excellent book by Peter Liem who addressed this point directly. Let me quote:
“It’s tempting to think that the current trend is somehow a renaissance, or a rediscovery of terroir—Champagne going back to its roots. (…) Somewhere in the latter half of the 20th century, champagne became a wine of process rather than of place, and the Champenois today are rectifying this error and rediscovering the identities of their vineyards.
But does the increased production of single-vineyard or single-terroir champagne mean that these wines are intrinsically better? I believe, emphatically, that the answer is no.
(…)
There is a place for single-vineyard champagnes, and they offer us an unprecedented opportunity to explore the vineyards of Champagne in a more detailed fashion. But there will also always be a place for the complexity and completeness of a blended champagne, and the quality of these will increase as their vineyards are rejuvenated.”
Some time soon I will also start exploring the tete de cuvees mentioned in this thread.
While I understand the original question, I think it is important to note that Cristal is two wines (Blanc and Rose) in the Louis Roederer range. Krug is an entire range of Champagnes - Grande Cuvee, Rose, Vintage, Clos du Mesnil, and Clos du Ambonnay. I do agree that Krug has a stylistic streak that runs through the wines, but all are quite different. Louis Roederer also has a stylistic streak that go through all of their wines although not as apparent IMO as Krug’s.
As to which is better, it really comes down to personal taste. Krug is going to hit you with richer, bolder, slightly spicy flavors that people tend to either really enjoy right from first taste or not quite get and I think folks stay with this opinion. Krug’s Grande Cuvee is the wine that really opened my eyes to Champagne and made me fall in love with it - it was love at first taste. Cristal is a wine that took me a lot longer to understand and wrap my mind around. It is more about fruit, balance, integration, and intensity. Some instantly love Cristal and some don’t get it, but for those who don’t get it, I think the wine can grow on you over time and before you know it, you like it.
I adore Cristal just as much as Grande Cuvee, but it was a slower journey for me to get there. Where Krug was instant love, Cristal was more of a longer term courtship.
Also, as many have mentioned in this thread there are lots more Champagnes out there that are of top pedigree than just Krug and Cristal (and Dom P). Try as many as you can as you never know where your love will fall. Along with Krug’s range and Cristal, I am just as or almost as big on Dom Perignon, Vilmart’s Coeur de Cuvee, Philiponnat’s Clos des Goisses, Lilbert’s Vintage, Selosse’s Millesime, Bereche’s Reflet d’Antan, Taittinger’s Comtes de Champagne, and Pierre Peters’ Les Chetillons.
Always appreciate your input Brad. What is your position on the Krug/ Cristal conversation for their wines from the 80s and older as to how they are holding up presently, what changes in character have occurred, extended longevity predictions for the better vintages and any other insights you can share? Thank you in advance.
I have far more experience with Krug going back to the 1950s than I do Cristal. In fact, I have more experience with most of the big name prestige Cuvees going back to the late 50s/early 60s than I do Cristal. I’ve had plenty of Comtes, Dom Ruinart, Dom P, Grande Dame, Krug, Grand Siecle, Clos des Goisses, and Salon stretching back that far, but with Cristal, I have had less from the 1950s through 1980 than the others (heck, I think I have probably had more Roederer vintage from this era than Cristal). Additionally, I have had a lot of damaged bottles of Cristal that showed poorly (due to improper storage which is made easier by the clear glass). Add to this, I was not all that moved by the older Cristal that I had in the early 2000s and my attention went elsewhere. I have had some very nice older examples of Cristal, but in general, for older top wines, I find more to like in some of the other top prestige wines from the 1950 - 1980 era. How much of this is due to storage, I am not completely sure.
As far as Cristal goes, I think the wine really went to the next level with the 1999 vintage which was the first helmed 100% by current Chef de Cave Jean-Baptiste Lecallion. the wine has continued to get better and better since then and is consistently one of the top wines of the vintage when it is released with the Rose often being other worldly.
Things have changed at lot at most producers now vs. 40-60 years ago and the wines are better than ever today and many drink very well young and have long term aging potential. Better vineyard practices, wiser harvesting choices, winery hygiene improvements, more use of winemaking variables, more optimum lees aging, etc… have led to much better wines. You no longer have to wait for the best of the best vintage to make a worthy prestige wine. As far as older wines, I now see anything pre-2000 (you could probably even claim a more recent date) as risky unless you know the provenance of the wine since release. With every decade you go back before that, you get even more risk and the way mature Champagne tastes also becomes a big personal preference.
Overall, I would say yes, but the best vintages of the 50’s - 80s were amazing especially through 1976 (the post 1976 period is a step down IMO). Tribal knowledge led to a lot of this success and made the great vintages, extra great, but also the lesser vintages, extra lesser. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt and I tend to talk in generalizations when the truth is far more complex than that.