I think 09 Cristal is drinking fantastically right now.
1 Like
More WB-induced purchasing, thanks to this thread… (I blame you, Alan!)
Just ordered 3x 2012. Really looking forward to trying these in a few years.
Mag of 2009 I opened two weeks ago was delicious, but with a bright firm tension that likely keeps it fresh for many more years. It started out lean and nervy and then really blossomed later in the evening. It had this wild citrus rind bitterness I really loved.
The 2012 is awesome as well for its richness vs 2009, but I do prefer the 2008 overall as best maybe ever. My 2013’s have been paid/ordered and word from reputable retailer says it may beat out the 2012 when reviews come out, but I really don’t know factually. I have only had the rose a couple of times and it is unbelievable, although can’t recall the vintages off hand.
Alan I agree with you they’re really hit a stride the last 10 years. But don’t sleep on the old ones either. 90 Rose a few days ago was absolutely stunning. The perfect combination of the darker, sweeter flavors of maturing champagne cut with stunning red fruit flavors. Like a vinous dark chocolate coated strawberry. It left me really dumbfounded. For blancs, the 89 has been my sleeper pick for a long time. Just glorious. And if you haven’t tasted an 08 rose, it’s worth opening one. Greatest young champagne I have ever tasted (I have not tasted 08 DP Rose or CdC Rose though).
I have not yet had the 2013 Cristal in final release format so I cannot officially comment on it. What I can say based on what I have tasted is that it is well worth buying and continues the incredible run of amazing recent Cristal releases. In general, 2013 is a more classically built vintage that favors Chardonnay. It is not nearly as forward as 2012 or 2009 and doesn’t have the intense, coiled potential of 2008. What it does have is very classical lines and should age well. There will be far worse things than comparing and contrasting 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2013 Cristal.
1 Like
was hoping you’d opine though I’m sure it cost several of us some serious coin! Thanks.
2009 taught me not to curb my purchases of Cristal to wait for a “better” vintage.
I finally saw a review of the 2013. William Kelley gave it a 96 (the rose version got a 99). He gave the 2012 a 97+ for comparison, so the 2013 sounds pretty close in quality.
1 Like
OPEN one. With 5 in the hole, you owe to yourself to see where it is now and then decide how and when to track it. I’ve had 3 in mag format plus 5 or 6 750s and all have been superlative AND I’ve not noticed that much difference between the two sizes which I expected there to be.
Sorry for the thread drift Alan. I want to know about the 13` too.
1 Like
Totally agree
Alan,
Brad Baker opined that it’s classically built and needs time, although his original note years ago suggested it should also drink well young. I think William Kelly wrote much the same on WA; better in 10+ years, but no harm in drinking now. That’s how I’m approaching both the 2009 and 2013. I hope to save several for the long haul, but will open some while I wait on the '08s and '12s. I bought more '08 and '12 than '09 and '13, but I ended up back-filling the '09s as it was a much better vintage than I had initially thought.
Bottom line; decide which vintage you want, then disregard that decision and buy them all.
Cheers,
Warren
sounds like commonly followed advice on this board!
I had the 2008 yesterday. I was pleased to see that the overtly “lemony” stage had passed. While pleasant enough, it wasn’t offering any real complexity. I trust that it’s just in an awkward stage.
Plenty of offers now for the 2013 and even a few “deals”.