1998 Krug Champagne Clos du Mesnil- France, Champagne, Le Mesnil Sur Oger, Champagne (9/9/2012)
This was one of those “Great… but…” wines. Having been blown away by a stupendous magnum of 1990, I was expecting fireworks from what was supposed to be perfect year for Chardonnay in Champagne. However, while immensely impressive, this 750ml was so far from ready that it was difficult to completely enjoy even after 3 hours in the glass. What it did have though was a beautiful nose. There were layers of deep aromas - white meat and earth, bread and yeast, ripe apple flesh, touches of toffee and caramel, a bit of toasted vanilla bean - absolutely lovely. The palate was far less complex though, coming across far more youthfully than the nose led on. Here, the wine showed a really fine mousse embedded in deep white-fruited flavours, with fresh green and red apples and a muscular underlayer of earth and mineral. Nice stuff. However, from attack into the midpalate and beyond, this was still primary, still a bit monolithic, with a spine of fresh, bright acidity running through the body of the wine and keeping it ramrod straight and completely, almost austerely focused all the way into a finish of superb length, where more exuberant flavours fresh lemon and green apple emerged. There was such great precision and purity here. However, what was most impressive was the depth on the wine - powerful yet lithe at the same time, there was an immense reservoir of strength and presence behind all those rather one-dimensional flavours. Here indeed was a white wine with enough structure and grip to shame many a red - it absolutely stained the mouth with each sip and lingered and lingered past morsels of food, gulps of water and even sips of other wines, only to remerge on the palate when everything else faded away. This one needs a lot of time yet. I have no doubt it will one day be a brilliant Champagne, but that may well be a decade into the future. (94 pts.)
Fantastic note, Paul! It is a joyous but rare time when I can participate in a Krug thread knowing I have actually enjoyed some of the wine!
The '98 Clos du Mesnil and '00 Vintage were my standouts in the incredible Krug tasting at the Wine Berserkers event in Telluride. I had no time to sit and write notes, but recall both Jen and I loved the Clos du Mesnil. I recall in detail those aromas you outline, and I think as a room we had more consistency throughout the bottlings since Carl and Olivier were there to check each bottle before it was poured for the attendees. Bottle variation is the only disappointment with Krug, as it is with any ultra premium wine. I don’t recall the acidity and youthfulness you mention, however, but perhaps that is because it was open for more than 3 hours, I believe, and because of the low oxygen levels at altitude. Still, if ever given the opportunity to enjoy it again, I’m first in line! Thanks for letting me relive it through your TN!
Thanks for the note Paul, same experience with the; 2000 Krug Clos du Mesnil & 1995 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay, impressive wines that needs decades to develop to its full potential.
However, the 1989 Krug Brut Collection;
Deep golden mature color. Blew out of the glass, very complex nose of honey with spices, truffle, earth. Incredibly layered palate: pear, green apple, citrus fruits, marmalade, a touch of earth with a finish which goes on and on with undertones of minerals and spices. Amazing stuff !
Thanks for the responses guys - when Krug hits the spot, it really hits the spot. This was unfortunately the only bottle that we had access to. I should be so lucky if someone pops a bottle in the future.
I like the wine, it is very good, but in the big picture of Clos du Mesnil, it isn’t one of the best. I rate only 1980, 1983, and 1986 behind this wine. That isn’t to say this is a bad wine, because it is very good and easily worth $100-$200, but it doesn’t really rate at its current price point north of $600. Other than that, the only thing I will add is that 1998 wasn’t a Chardonnay year in Champagne for most growers and producers; it was much stronger in Pinot Noir. That isn’t to say that good Chardonnay wasn’t made, but it wasn’t known for it.
Got a vicarious thrill out of reading this thread. Clos du Mesnil has priced itself out of my league, but I do have a few bottles of the 1988 in the cellar. Any thoughts on that one? Planning to open one for our 25th anniversary next year. Wonder how long it’s safe to cellar the others.
My choice as greatest Clos du Mesnil ever (others may choose the 79, but I disagree), the best Krug I have ever tasted (I haven’t had the 1928), and easily one of the best Champagnes of the 20th Century. It drinks well now and will also be good on your 50th anniversary so it is a good thing that you have more than one bottle. I do miss the $200-$250 price tag that I recall the 88 coming out at in my area.
Thanks for the valuable comments Brad. My mistake about the Chardonnay perhaps - I was told at a Krug event that 1998 was an outstanding year for Chardonnay, hence a higher concentration in their cepage for the vintage Krug for the year. Was that marketing spiel or house specific?
More a comment on just how good, powerful, and forward the Pinot Noir was in 98. Chardonnay wasn’t bad by any means, but the Pinot Noir was really good - in some cases too good that it through off the blend to the point where some producers couldn’t find the balance they were looking for. This is why Roederer didn’t do Cristal in 98.
Well after the 88 Clos du Mesnil, the best Krug I have tasted is the regular 1988. The 85 is darn good too. Not in the same league as the 88 duo, but almost nothing is. The 85 is more mature than the 88, but both are going to drink well for a very long time. Enjoy - you will be drinking three fantastic wines and the 88s are bound to become legends.
What I meant though was that Krug had more Chardonnay and less Pinot Noir than usual in their cepage for the 1998. The explanation given was that they thought Chardonnay did better than Pinot in 1998 - was wondering whether that was house specific or some marketing talk to explain away something. Any thoughts?
Sorry, if I wasn’t more direct with my answer. In my opinion it is marketing talk as they needed to use more Chardonnay than normal to balance the wine. The high proportion of Chardonnay did not have anything to do with how good it was (even if it was quite nice). In general with a blend like Krug’s if something is very powerful and expressive, you need to pull it back a little. 98 Chardonnay was good at doing that with 98 Pinot Noir.
Interesting Brad, we had a discussion like this at dinner last night and others claim the 66 and a number of older vintages to be ‘better’, I don’t know about that but 88 is where my bet is placed, I have more 88 (vintage nor CdM) than all other bottles combines.
I can understand those comments as vintages like 1966 have already delivered and while they will continue to live on, I don’t think they will get any better. With the 88, the potential is amazing and I am factoring that in. I can’t wait to taste an 88 Collection - that will be something special and I would love to see an 88 Collection Clos du Mesnil.
If you don’t factor in rarity, I take the 88 over any other Krug post-1960. I don’t have tons of Krug experience pre-1960 to talk about things, but from those that do, 1928 stands out as the one wine that is really up there. The best part about the 88 Krug is that it is still affordable (relatively speaking)
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}