Medium-bright straw yellow with a light amber hue.
Fresh champagne yeast is the first aroma out of the glass, followed by lemon and fresh salmon skin (a pleasant wild maritime meatiness). Fresh green apple and a touch of honeysuckle also apparent. Overall the nose suggests youthful freshness, though there is a latent light nougat quality present as well.
The first taste in the mouth is a spritz of bright saline water, quickly followed by pleasant carbonation and cheese rind qualities, with fruit notes of lemon and pomaceous fruit.
A prominent feature in the mouth is the elegant manner in which this wine gains depth, seamlessly but quickly sliding downward and gaining a fine chalky mineral substance, the progression though the palate like a the rapid dropoff of a tile-bottomed swimming pool as it changes depths.
And that depth (you lose interest in measuring the depth, so fine is the wine’s feeling) persists throughout the palate to a long, long, lingering finish.
More approachable early than some vintages of Cristal, this still has the stuffing to reward long cellaring.
94 now, 97 some point out in time if you hit it right.
It seems as though the primary attraction of 2009 is its early appeal. I am perplexed by Brad Baker’s comment that he thinks he will prefer the 2009 based Krug (165eme) over the 2008 based (164 eme) over the long run.
My two cents on the 08/09 vintage comparison is that the early appeal doesn’t mean that 09 won’t age well, just differently from 08. I’d be more inclined to bet on 08 over 09 ten or twenty years from now, but I don’t think 09 will be done, either.
My feeling is the difference between 08 and 09 is that the 08 champagnes will age the way we “expect” champagnes to age, with a prevalent rootedness, a kind of four square stolidity which provides an anchor as the wines age, but also limits the heights attainable, and those ethereal yet resl potential heights are what Brad senses and refers to.
Steel skinned fighter jet experience - impressive no doubt - versus diaphanous thin membrane with lots of through-shining light illuminating th internal brilliance, clean minerality, and coruscating lights.
That thinner skin quality makes it more approachable early, yet irt’a rarer to make a wine with that quality and the ability to age over a long period of time and still b transporting.
If that doesn’t make sense, open a bottle and try again!
I’m solidly in the 2009 camp. I view 2008 as a better 04 where 09 is richer and more opulent, while maintaining good acidity (although not as overpowering as 08). 12 will be better than both.
A lot of the attraction of 2008 is its classical quality - slow aging, lots of acidity, great structure, good concentration, precision, tight fruit.
2009 has similar concentration and structure, it has plenty of acidity too, but it also has bright fruit and is aging just as slowly as the 2008s. Yes, it is open right now, but having followed both 2009 and 2008 since the harvest, both are aging very slowly. As still wines and very young Champagnes, the 2009s were a bit flabby, but have become much more balanced over time with the fruit becoming more precise and focused.
I like both vintages. For vintage wines, the best 2008s will probably exceed the best 2009s. For NVs, I think 2009 is a better base vintage and it has the bonus of also getting some 2008 in the blend. You have to remember that NVs are very different from straight vintage wines.
As good as 2009 Cristal is, I think 2008 Cristal is a little better (though not as tasty now). For Krug, I think the 165 (2009 base) is better than the 164 (2008 base) .
Most decisions about skipping 2009 vintage wines (and limiting bottlings in 2009 in general) had much more to do with the economy and the fear of bulging cellars than it did the quality of 2009. A lot of folks who didn’t make a 2009 or made little of it regret it quite a bit today especially as the following two years (2010 and 2011) were nothing to write home about.
I communicated with Brad who communicated with Oliver Krug about this. Both 164 eme and 165 eme were produced at reduced levels, but at unspecified quantities.
Yes, the 165 (2009) was more limited than normal (though not the 10% of normal as some reports have published). 164 (2008) was also a lesser than normal production for this same reason though still larger than the 2009 bottling. Both the 163 (2007) and 166 (2010) were rather large releases of the Grande Cuvee so all evens out over these four years.