Krug 2008 is 92-93/100 wine for me, drink 2023-2027.
Steve, but 92-93 isn't a bad wine. It might be a bad value, but not a bad wine. I think the two need to be differentiated and addressed separately. You could also throw in whether it is a great or weak Krug. You can have a very good wine, but one that is still a poor value and a weak Krug. Comtes 2011 is a wine in a similar situation for me.
I have 2008 Krug at 90-92 for drinking today with 92-94 potential over time. Grande Cuvee 164 is clearly drinking better right now and has more potential as does the 165. The 2006 vintage is also very enjoyable today (much more than the 2008) and the 162 Grande Cuvee is absolutely wonderful right now with the perfect mix of orange, cream, and freshness with just a touches of chocolate and nutty spice.
I share your opinion on 1990 and 1996 as both wines started out as acid monsters in their youth and have seen a lot of bottle variation as they have matured. I have had great bottles of both, mature bottles of both, and acid bomb bottles of both. 2002 just seems closed down right now to me though it was quite open on release. Alone and staring at the label, I really like the 2002, but in every blind tasting I have done on the 2002 vintage, it has never finished better than middle of the pack for me and has never stood out as something truly 'special' though it always did appear to be a wine with the reserves to further develop.