Don, I have exactly one bottle of the 2002 vintage. Now? Wait?
Also interested in this question, as a just picked up a 6 pack of 02s. Managed to get a good deal on them along with two 6 packs of the 164e, which I’m obsessed with.
Wait on 2002.
elaborate.
Agree with Adrian. Neal said he has one bottle. If he’s not planning to buy more, 2002 is a baby and should be cellared. It will get better.
So everyone is gaga over the 164 because it’s not Kruggy? Hope that’s not true. I’ve yet to open one.
I have had the 2002 Krug. I’m putting the rest away for at least 5 years, probably 10.
Agree with Adrian. Third time with this and the nose is a dead ringer for several Special Clubs I’ve had and not Kruggy like the 2002 Krug. The searing acids concern me with both of these Krugs even though hits hard not to love the voluptuous fruit. Both of these Krugs don’t seem to be as well balanced as the sexy and seemless 2006 Comtes de Champagne.
I had a similar experience with the one bottle of 164 I’ve tried so far…I liked it, but I wouldn’t have guessed Krug. It did strike me as exceedingly young though, so I’m setting these aside for a few years with high hopes down the road.
For those who have had this and agree that it departs from Krug’s typical house style, any thoughts as to why?
Sounds like it’s less round, oxidative and bready ect. More acid possibly too which is exactly why I went deep. My wife loves Krug for the classic notes but I typically need more acidity and verve. I’m hoping with some age 164 will just find that absolute sweet spot with the right amount of everything
Had it last night. Don’t have enough Krug experience to say if it’s away from the house style or not. But the wine was fabulous. A lot of freshness, with just a hint of fresh bread and nuts. Seemed more youthful than other “young” Krugs I’ve had.
+1
Had my first bottle last night. Great drinking although the acidity runs quite high. Reminds me of 1996 in a way. Bought quite a few and will look forward to watching them evolve over the years.
My 164s in 750 are laying in storage for the time being, but ran the code in some 375s I bought a while ago, which turn out to be 164s as well (although this is not noted on the front label). So I may crack a bottle it two in the near term
I am sensitive to acid, so pretty much what is being said here is what made my last venture with this wine less than stellar. Still a bunch in the cellar. Tucking WAY back there.
I know this is the conventional wisdom. This is such a terrific drink right now. Depends more on the occasion to me. FWIW. I don’t find this one tight right now like the 164eme.
Test drove one last night thanks to you all. A fresh, lively set of bubbles. Went back for three more.
Had 6 bottles of this now over the last month or so. My advice would be to serve immediately once opened. With more air, the acidity really starts to come to the fore too much. Bodes well for a long life, though not sure how that will happen in our household at 6 bottles a month!
Checking out the 164 in the Gabriel Gold…a match made in Heaven! The delicate weightlessness of the glass makes you feel like you’re holding the bubbles at the tip of your fingers! Absolutely the PERFECT glass for Champagne! 
164 is rocking in this bottle…more classic ox and darker caramel…still with the intense citrus(lemon pixy stix) energy blast! ![[worship.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/9/99a8907a1d5b3c023582052741dc72dc9823c044.gif "worship"){kind=small}
Assuming the two bottles were purchased and stored together, the color difference of the wine from 5 months ago and the one today is quite striking.