Krug 2008

Have you realised how fast central banks are printing "money"? Not restricted to Champagne, although it has been a large beneficiary. If you look at price increases in certain grower champagnes, the grand marques look mild in comparison over the last year and have been very strong since 2016, and the market is literally awash in freshly printed over the last 18 months.
Unfortunately my main income is salary, not investment :confused:
 
Clearly, although I would certainly take Selosse or Peters LC at those prices... last 2 bottles of VO I bought this summer were 200 euro retail and even at those prices they don't languish on shelves.

Prevost Beguines 35->65
Collin Maillons 35->60
Agrapart Mineral 35->70
 
Well VO is 86 now direct.

Collin have directed almost all stock to restaurants these days, significantly increasing retail and consumer demand.

I wonder where that idea came from. :D
I think much of that is a conviction that, on the one hand, restaurants are where fine wine belongs; and, on the other, that being represented on top wine lists is the ultimate validation for a wine producer. Obviously this is a very French point of view that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of how wine is consumed in other markets (or even in France for that matter). But one of the best selling points an importer can offer a French winemaker is generally that they will get their wines on all the best wine lists.
 
I guess we are buying different things, clearly prices are up but I don’t feel gouged, and in the prior 5 years most of these hadn’t moved much at all.

In 5 years

Lilbert 32->39
Selosse vintage 137->185
Vilmart Coeur 62->69
Peters Chetillons 48-61
Diebolt Fleur 52 ->70
I think of those only the Lilbert is available to new customers in the last few years. The rest aren’t even taking new customers. Though obviously much kudos for spotting these early and removing yourself from the secondary market game. :)
 
Location
SW1X
Well it turns out there is a Krug 2008 and this is absolutely stunning. Opened to celebrate the closing of a significant personal deal. Surprisingly enjoyable already with lots of nutty yeasty development. None of the screeching acidity that was seemingly evident in the 96 at this age. Great length and certainly not a crime to drink now. Many points.

5EF897C2-4D4B-4012-B939-04F80B37AA50.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to join the forum to comment here. With 2008 you have to give Krug the benefit of the doubt in not knowing if they would release a vintage. It was not clear from the beginning which route vintage 2008 in general would take in the champagne region. Many producers told me, that it took a really long time just to taste past the stone wall acidity, 2008 took a very long time to show itself. There were no critics that came out and said straight off the bat, that it had the potential to be a massive vintage, Also I feel a lot of 2008s are shutting down, in the grower producer genre, Egly's 2008 was incredibly open from the beginning but now I think it has lost its initial inertia and will need a good few years to show its true potential and if it is really a 100 point champagne. The same applies to a number of grower producers. I would compare 2008 to 1996 and given time i believe the 2008 Krug will be a benchmark bottle.

On a similiar vien look at 2016, Lecaillon from Roederer has compared it to 2012, 2002, 1964 and 1949. I have no experience of the latter two, but I would certianly agree 16 is a big vintage, not at the level of 2008
 
I really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to join the forum to comment here. With 2008 you have to give Krug the benefit of the doubt in not knowing if they would release a vintage. It was not clear from the beginning which route vintage 2008 in general would take in the champagne region. Many producers told me, that it took a really long time just to taste past the stone wall acidity, 2008 took a very long time to show itself. There were no critics that came out and said straight off the bat, that it had the potential to be a massive vintage, Also I feel a lot of 2008s are shutting down, in the grower producer genre, Egly's 2008 was incredibly open from the beginning but now I think it has lost its initial inertia and will need a good few years to show its true potential and if it is really a 100 point champagne. The same applies to a number of grower producers. I would compare 2008 to 1996 and given time i believe the 2008 Krug will be a benchmark bottle.

On a similiar vien look at 2016, Lecaillon from Roederer has compared it to 2012, 2002, 1964 and 1949. I have no experience of the latter two, but I would certianly agree 16 is a big vintage, not at the level of 2008
Donald,
Great to have your comments.
It may be just me but I can only recall the Champenois lauding 08 to the rafters from the off.
Certainly most seem to have closed sown though I think Cristal has continued to give pleasure, but it is a few weeks since we had Paul Day's regular Cristal Wednesday check in.
 
Raymond said,

Donald,
Great to have your comments.
It may be just me but I can only recall the Champenois lauding 08 to the rafters from the off.
Certainly most seem to have closed sown though I think Cristal has continued to give pleasure, but it is a few weeks since we had Paul Day's regular Cristal Wednesday check in.


This is very true with the Champenois, but I don't think they really knew where the vintage would go or at the time they did not have the perspective we have now and personally with the Grande Marques, I think we will really have a true perspective 10-20 years down the road.

Maillart released a 2008 at the beginning of this year, interesting but extremely tight, 10 years aging is what it needs is his prognosis, so we are looking at 2032 and I think this is sensible.

I am in the champagne business just for clarity. I just do not buy into critics tasting vin clairs and making pronouncements on the vintage, for we are talking about three aging periods with completely different effects upon a champagne.
 
Isn’t the decision to release a vintage basically made at the point of bottling, rather than commercial release.

How many vintage wines are but back into blending tanks post secondary fermentation?
I think more than one realises. The CIVC controls every champagne and decides if it is worthy to be named a champagne or not. Does not happen often, but if they are not happy, back to the drawing boards, the champagne becomes reserve wine.
Dehours, who always released millésimes regardless of the vintage has now adopted a situation where he is going with the Perpetuelle idea but keeping the door open for exceptional vintages. 2015 is a good example, an extremely hot vintage, lacks the acidity, the critics pounced on this as a great vintage based on the vin clairs, but great champagne needs acidity and this is lacking in 2015.

We have a producer, Tellier, really interesting champagnes, he did a charge of champagnes where the corks were not clean, just has to be a speck of dust. When you opened the bottle a third of the champagne shot out. All the bottles with those corks, had to be opened and back to scratch.

Guiborat is the same with his Mont Aigu, 2013 was the last vintage, with the 14 they intended to do a millésime and then with trial tastings they realised that the climate change had made the site to warm, bottles open then blended with champagnes from the north side.
 
I really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to join the forum to comment here. With 2008 you have to give Krug the benefit of the doubt in not knowing if they would release a vintage. It was not clear from the beginning which route vintage 2008 in general would take in the champagne region. Many producers told me, that it took a really long time just to taste past the stone wall acidity, 2008 took a very long time to show itself. There were no critics that came out and said straight off the bat, that it had the potential to be a massive vintage, Also I feel a lot of 2008s are shutting down, in the grower producer genre, Egly's 2008 was incredibly open from the beginning but now I think it has lost its initial inertia and will need a good few years to show its true potential and if it is really a 100 point champagne. The same applies to a number of grower producers. I would compare 2008 to 1996 and given time i believe the 2008 Krug will be a benchmark bottle.

On a similiar vien look at 2016, Lecaillon from Roederer has compared it to 2012, 2002, 1964 and 1949. I have no experience of the latter two, but I would certianly agree 16 is a big vintage, not at the level of 2008

I'm not sure I would agree with you on the Egly 2008. I've had four bottles in the last couple of months, one in Spain, three from my limited stock (now down to one bottle). I am drinking it because it does seem to have reached a good level to me. That doesn't say it won't go on more, but for my taste I value freshness more than depth and I don't need to risk aging it further to find out.

The problem with Krug 2008 isn't just giving it the benefit of the doubt. It's giving it the benefit of the doubt, praying that even if it has the potential to become a great wine then it also it ages with fewer variability issues so that it can realise that potential.
For me issues have beset (e.g.,) 1988 (all bottlings), 1990, 1995 (including mags), 1996, 2004 CdM, ... which are all potentially great on a good day, but encounter too many misses. In the past, when premium Champagne was less expensive, one was perhaps prepared to take more variation and just ride out the misses. Now it seems crazy to expect anything less than very good given the pricing of the wines in the marketplace.

A related question. Does anyone have any clue how much Krug 2008 is left to release? I have heard that maybe as little as 10% has been released.
 
Top