Community Tasting Note

• dod Likes this wine: 80 points

  January 1, 2013 - Way over priced, I much prefer Vilmart 01/03 for the money.
  clean but no body

  2 people found this helpful 20,949 views

10 Comments

• drycab commented:

  9/10/13, 7:55 AM - I believe that reviews should be based solely on the qualities of the wine, not based on its price. Therefore, based on the wording of your review, your review has absolutely no value to me.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  9/10/13, 5:16 PM - DOD, I hear you on price, but also concur that their are many wines that are over-priced. Did you have time to slowly consume multiple glasses over time with this, or was the bottle cellared for a couple years or fresh of the shelf? Was this from a 375ml or standard 750ml or magnum. Many of these are huge variable with Krug as they age the base wine in oak, then go from there. I have had good bottles of MV Krug, and great bottles. I also have some of the new release each year at my local store. The new releases sometimes are just bubbles, oak and fizz. Fruit is often found only after hours and hours of air time. I get that you were less than impressed, but a 78 is less than good, like it was flawed in some way. Did you note the notation on the cork, as if it was flawed, then it should have been returned. I think you probably should read up on the wine when this pricey so as to get the best experience possible, which is why so many of us cellar. If it was a free glass, then chalk it up to a new experience. I would recommend try NV Duval-Leroy. It is quite good upon release and really shows well when opened right after purchase. Krug is quirky and meant for holding. There are loads of other great less expensive champagnes, but all seem to have different drinking windows.

• sandwich commented:

  9/10/13, 6:37 PM - I can respect different opinions, but you need to give this another chance. For me, it doesn't get better than Krug.

• dod commented:

  9/10/13, 11:58 PM - Perhaps my comments were a little short, I have over the last four years had around 15 bottles of this and it is simply not Krug of old.
  In around 1988 when I first tried Krug it was simply the best nothing was close then some time after that the grand cuvée arrived and it was good, these days I feel it is lacklustre, the bottle was not flawed, just not as good as it should be. I will read up re ratings as perhaps my choice was too low, don't get me wrong it is a nice bottle of champagne, just not Krug as it should be. Whilst a different wine the Krug 88 is how Krug should be, I can't get expressive over something that is simply not outstanding.
  Hence my comment re price, many people don't get to buy this stuff often, I feel the grand cuvée is simply a name and not how they used to do it.

• Champagneinhand commented:

  9/11/13, 1:16 PM - Vintage 1988 will set you up for disappointment almost every time. What a great vintage. I don't buy much of the Grande Cuvee any longer, as I like buying vintage Champagne, because then I have a better idea of what to expect from any given champagne based on the aspects of each vintage. When I do buy NV/MV it is usually something where I know the house style very well and am almost never disappointed. Vilmart is a good choice. I really like Duval-Leroy, Moet and really like Bollinger and Veuve Clicquot. They may very from time to time but never as much as some of the other houses. I agree that their have been several disappointing releases of the Grande Cuvee, but maybe they were meant for cellaring, or so I have told myself at tasting over the past few years. I will be opening a mag of Grande Cuvee in Charleston next week, and hoping that it shows well, as its been cellared for over 7 years. I probably will only but Krug GC in splits from now on, and when they are on sale sub $65. I hope they will aged faster. You are also correct that there are so many other grower and smaller houses that make very good champagne routinely. Henriot is priced so well and it great. VC Gold Label is at a great price range, but I do love LGD so much, its hard not to buy 1 bottle per vintage. Dosnon & Lepage also make an excellent NV for under $50. Champagne can be very frustrating. I try to open each bottle a couple of hours and let it sit in the ice bucket, and hope it will come together in the glass. I find this help them show off their stuff better as well as drinking the champagne out of chardonnay glasses or even large bordeaux glasses. Cheers.

• Thirsty1 commented:

  9/12/13, 5:30 AM - Dod admits Krug is and has been a special wine. The real issue here is the numeric value assigned to the wine. Had this review just been a few quick, non-descript comments with no numeric score, no one would have taken notice. The score is subjective, the comments should attempt to be as objective as possible. A numeric score in the 70s states a wine is below average. I find that hard to believe in this case.

• dod commented:

  9/12/13, 9:08 AM - I have changed the rating to 80 - simply Good, it is a good champagne but not worthy of more than good, my review/notes are simply to allow a person that doesn't buy Krug often to perhaps spend a little more on a vintage.
  as I say krug is still the best overall, but not the NV cuvee not by a long shot

• Champagneinhand commented:

  9/12/13, 1:30 PM - Thirsty1 I do think you are wrong on this. A TN is always "Subjective'" not objective. Its based on ones opinion and impression of the wine that was consumed. I'm just fine where he has put this. The Gran Cuvee changes more than the average house wine and even the professional note this. Like I have said earlier, the last 2 annual tasting of new release MV Krug GC, were basically not great at all, mostly because it was so young and the champagne had not come together. Almost solid oak, some tannins that were out of place, acid and almost no fruit showing. That being said, I only had a small 75ml, or so, poured into my glass and I didn't have an hour to swirl it around to see if it would come together. At these events there are almost 50 different champagnes being poured and loads of other sparklers. It just isn't a fair method of critiquing other than stating a quick impression of the wine as it was in those first five minutes or so. I have switched almost completely to vintage champagne, unless its for a specific celebration where I need to figure in guzzling and costs. I will usually go with Duval-Leroy in those cases. Always a crowd pleaser and very good right from the bottle. I myself do like NV Moet and NV Clicquot as well as Dosnon & Lepage, but cellar space dictates I don't have room for many NV. Bollinger Sovereign is also really good, and better with aging.

• Thirsty1 commented:

  9/12/13, 3:32 PM - Mr. Inhand - I must respectfully disagree with your comment. I believe the numerical valuation assigned to a wine is the the subjective perspective. What the value of the wine is TO YOU as the consumer. Not unlike art or music, you can like or dislike something you see or hear or taste. But you can not argue that the performer is playing a guitar, weather or not you like the song. That to me is what a tasting note shoud be.
  
  I find no value in a numeric score from any critic or consumer. But I will read all the tasting notes on a wine.
  
  post script - great dialog

• Champagneinhand commented:

  9/12/13, 5:33 PM - Very good conversation, I agree. We talk about this on the forum a lot, and on other wine message board. Numbers are indeed stupid, and while many people use some kind of guide, see the Grafstrb notes. He has a full laid out formula, as do so many others, but you are correct in that everything is subjective. The TN should offer descriptors, but since its an open forum, opinions are there as well. The way this comes up on our screens is because we have common wines. If I looked through your eyes and saw the sky as pink, while you see the sky as blue, we would both be correct, though everybody would be very confused by this. Sorry about nonsensical analogies.
  
  I think the whole point of posting "tasting notes", is supposed to be how a given individual perceives how a wine looked, smelled, tasted, and finished. When you find a person that has similar notes then we click on them as fans/friends and sometimes we do it because we value their input.
  
  All people really do see the world from their own vantage point. Mocha to us, may taste bitter to those who dislike dark chocolate and coffee. So we may not gain any advantage by following them, but I find it useful to also star/fan or friend people who sense,smell and taste almost exactly opposite of me. The things also change with more exposure to foods, smells wines and more things like beer/ ales and Peary. Its similar to how many when having younger palates really like fruit forward wines like Zinfandel/Primitivo then the become less favorable, and often this comes back full circle.
  
  I think we got DOD to elaborate a little, which helped everybody understand. Finding that he has had Vintage Krug 1988, it going to be hard to match that, even with 1990 or 1996 wines as they were so different. I like them all for what they are. Their unique, and each vintage and MV release tastes different as it ages, or declines. Such is the games of sensory perceptions.
  
  Again great comments to open up discussions. Thanks everybody and DOD please don't think we were picking on you, wine discussion is about passion for a lot of consumers who repeatedly follow specific types or styles of wine. Nothing personal about the discussion.

Add a Comment