Lunch with Krug, Krug 2000 and Krug Clos du Mesnil 2000

A KRUG LUNCH AT HTTP://DELCAMPODC.COM/ - Del Campo Restaurant (1/21/2014)

champagne.gif

Esquire Magazine named Del Campo among the best restaurants in the US in 2013. I totally understand after sampling their cuisine today in Washington D.C. for a wonderful lunch on a snowy January day. Impeccable service and elegant surroundings set the stage for culinary delights, and I thank Maria Denton for inviting me to lunch. Maria represents Champagnes for LVMH and the theme was Krug. Two D.C.-based journalists joined me for this novel moment, a lovely way to get away from the cold, snowy weather. We enjoyed Krug Grande Cuvee, Krug 2000 and later on I sampled Clos du Mesnil 2000.

I last had the two latter wines at a vertical organized by Decanter Magazine in London: Krug: the King of Champagne – Connections to Wine.

The Krug Grande Cuvee NV - always a blend of many vintages dating back some 12 years or more - varies according to the blend. For example, in 2012 in London, the Krug Grande Cuvee was made from the base vintage of 2003. Today, its base vintage was 2006. It was disgorged recently after sitting on its lees in bottle for some 6 years. Quite an impressive blending and aging, which explains the attention to detail and very high quality - and high price. But very much worth the ticket of admission! Even in vintage editions, Krug uses all three grapes authorized in Champagne: not just Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, but also Pinot Meunier. The jewel of today’s trio was the Clos du Mesnil Blanc de Blancs 2000, made from 100 per cent Chardonnay of course.

  • 2000 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut - France, Champagne
    Although Krug does not stand for hierarchy, often serving first the vintage, then the grande cuvee (as we did for this lunch) this vintage wine has more aromatic substance and complexity than the grande cuvee. The 2000 combines fleshiness and energy in one bottle. The density is there, with focus. Citrus, mineral, wet stone, soft spicy ginger notes, hints of pastry. But what beguiles is the wine’s mid palate substance and structure. Less Pinot Meunier here, the wine is dominated more by Pinot Noir from the 2000 vintage and it has an almost red wine corpulence. So much so that I almost ordered a steak but went for the prawns instead. It could easily go with a steak. (95 pts.)
  • NV Krug Champagne Brut Grande Cuvée - France, Champagne
    Krug two days in a row? That’s not a bad idea. Thanks to Maria Denton, I was invited to a lunch today at the excellent Washington D.C. restaurant Del Campo to drink Krug. The evening before, we had enjoyed this same wine, but from an earlier cuvee - with a base wine from the 2005 vintage, which I preferred just slightly. The back label from Krug gives you basic information and a “Krug ID” (in the burgundy colored box) that you can type into the Krug website to obtain more information about the wine in the bottle. For example, when I typed in 113006 - the bottle we had for lunch - I learned that this particular bottle "left the Krug cellars to receive its cork in winter 2012-2013. That that was the last step after more than six years of aging in the cellars to acquire finesse and elegance - and that this bottle is an “extraordinary blend” of 142 wines from 11 different vintages, the oldest from 1990 and the youngest from 2006. It seemed to have a more youthful profile than the bottle last night, but was not quite as opulent on the mid palate. Still, it exuded wonderful precision and verve. I absolutely loved it and how it was able to stand up to the savory foods at the restaurant, from meat and mushroom empanadas to large prawns and spicy sausages. (93 pts.)
  • 2000 Krug Champagne Clos du Mesnil - France, Champagne, Le Mesnil Sur Oger, Champagne
    I tried this for the first time ever almost two years for a vertical in London, organized by Decanter Magazine. Still displaying a pale straw color, with small and focused bubbles. Ripe pear, light apple, lemon peel and floral notes on the nose, subtle depth, and less brioche or toast that I had detected in 2012. What impressed me most was a laser like focus that balanced the soft and racy elegance of the Chardonnay coming from Mesnil’s famous walled vineyard. About 6 grams of residual sugar perfectly integrated. (98 pts.)

A fantastic experience and yet more proof that Krug is among the very best Champagne money can buy.
Posted from CellarTracker

Thanks for the note on the 2000. There’s a couple resting in the cellar.

Panos, I can’t help but admire your stern dedication to business notwithstanding the lousy weather. I’ll be really impressed if you do another tasting today!

Greetings Randy! Lunch with Krug? Well worth driving in snowy weather :slight_smile:. Today will meet with a web designer to start setting up a new wine website, so coffee and discussion instead of wine. I am sorry to be leaving soon although it will be interesting to head back across the pond. It was great to see you and all our wine buddies here in D.C.

Thanks for the note on Del Campo. I’d been leary of the pricing but seeing as it’s only three blocks away, I’ll have to give it a shot.

Panos - Thanks for the notes, sounds like a great Krug lunch. I am a big fan of Krug, my favorite house. We had the 2000 vintage Krug recently in our blind Champagne tasting and it came out on top. I was very impressed with the 2000, I actually liked it better than the 1998 vintage Krug from two years prior. It is a really well made wine and should age beautifully. I have not had the 2000 Krug Clos de Mesnil, sounds wonderful though.

Here is the line-up we had for this last year. All of the wines were from Champagne, France, unless otherwise noted and were served in this order:

The line-up.
#1 - NV Tapiz - Extra Brut, Mendoza Argentina, $25.
#2 - NV Guy Charlemagne - Brut Reserve Blanc de Blanc le Mesnil sur Oger Grand Cru, $55.
#3 - 2004 Taittinger - Comtes des Champagne Blanc de Blanc, $180.
#4 - NV Charles Heidsieck - Brut Reserve, $55.
#5 - 2004 Louis Roederer - Cristal, $240.
#6 - NV Billecart Salmon - Sous Bois, $85.
#7 - 2000 Krug - Brut, $250+.
#8 - 2005 Vilmart & Cie - Cuvee Grand Cellier D’Or, $90.
#9 - 2010 Argyle - Brut, Willamette Valley Oregon, $25.
#10 - 2004 Bollinger - Grand Annee, $135.


After all of the votes were cast and counted as a group for the worst and the best, the wines ranked out in this order:

#1 - 2000 Krug - Brut, $250+.
#2 - NV Guy Charlemagne - Brut Reserve Blanc de Blanc le Mesnil sur Oger Grand Cru, $55.
#3 - NV Charles Heidsieck - Brut Reserve, $55.
#4 - 2004 Bollinger - Grand Annee, $135.
#5 - 2005 Vilmart & Cie - Cuvee Grand Cellier D’Or, $90.
#6 - 2010 Argyle - Brut, Willamette Valley Oregon, $25.
#7 - NV Billecart Salmon - Sous Bois, $85.
#8 - 2004 Taittinger - Comtes des Champagne Blanc de Blanc, $180.
#9 - 2004 Louis Roederer - Cristal, $240.
#10 - NV Tapiz - Extra Brut, Mendoza Argentina, $25.

While the 2000 vintage is a good but not great vintage for Champagne, the 2000 Krug Brut Champagne is an excellent and well made Champagne, with a long life ahead of it. The toasty fruit finish goes on and on in the mouth, long after you have swallowed it. This is just one of the many reasons why I love the Champagnes made by Krug. While I like many Champagnes from the different Champagne houses, the house of Krug continues to be my absolute favorite.

Over the 17 years that I have been doing this Champagne tasting, Argyle from Oregon has had the best results as a US produced sparkling wine against the French competition. Argyle produces some very nice wines in a range of prices, all are worth exploring. This was an interesting year for the tasting, as the wines that would normally present as a more feminine-style (soft, buttery, creamy) champagne, actually all skewed more masculine (doughy, yeasty, toasty), so there were far less polarizing results and hotly debated conversations than normal.

Here is the order on how I personally ranked the different Champagnes:

#1 - 2000 Krug - Brut, $250+.
#2 - NV Charles Heidsieck - Brut Reserve, $55.
#3 - 2005 Vilmart & Cie - Cuvee Grand Cellier D’Or, $90.
#4 - NV Guy Charlemagne - Brut Reserve Blanc de Blanc le Mesnil sur Oger Grand Cru, $55.
#5 - 2004 Bollinger - Grand Annee, $135.
#6 - 2004 Taittinger - Comtes des Champagne Blanc de Blanc, $180.
#7 - NV Billecart Salmon - Sous Bois, $85.
#8 - 2010 Argyle - Brut, Willamette Valley Oregon, $25.
#9 - NV Tapiz - Extra Brut, Mendoza Argentina, $25.
#10 - 2004 Louis Roederer - Cristal, $240.

A big surprise for the night was the fact that the Roederer Cristal came in next to last place in the group vote. While Cristal may not be the style of Champagne that I like the most in general, they are very well-made Champagnes. I am not sure what happened with the 2004 Cristal, it started off with very nice fruit but fell flat and very short on the finish. My guess is that this had to be an off bottle, which is a bummer. So, I guess I will have to revisit this Champagne.

Posted from exactwines.com 12-2-2013

Bob, I’m not sure that your 04 Cristal was an off bottle. I’ve had it about a dozen times, and it continues to perplex me. I love Cristal, and always try to like the 04, but I have yet to really “love” a bottle.

Brad - Not good. If that is the case, then I hope the '04 Cristal just has not bloomed yet. I normally don’t buy Cristal, since I prefer Krug for the money. The '04 Cristal got such rave reviews from Antonio while he was at the WA, I bought a have half a case, which is very unlike me. I guess I should have just doubled down on the Krug. Thanks for your thoughts.

Cheers,

I’ve had the 2004 Cristal twice, and both times it just seemed tight and unforgiving. I felt the same way about the 2002 at the same stage. In fact I have felt the same way about almost every vintage of Cristal at the same stage. I’m not a big buyer of Cristal, but when I do buy it, I let it age.

David - Thanks for posting and I appreciate your insight on the Cristal. I will keep my hands off them and let them sleep for another 5 years or so and see what happens. The way I figure, it doesn’t do any good to drink them now, when $55 bottles will beat it, so it can’t get any worse. If they don’t get better, then I have not lost anything special anyway.

Cheers,