Log In / Join Now

bruce sanderson decanted

A Krug Comparison

Photo by: David Yellen

Posted: Jun 29, 2007 10:28am ET

I recently received an e-mail from Tom Stephenson, general manager of Crush Wine & Spirits in New York. The store was holding an informal tasting for select clients and press that would include the Krug Grande Cuvée as well as the Krug Brut 1996 and Brut 1995.

I welcomed the opportunity to taste the ’96 and ’95 side by side. I had tasted both wines with Olivier Krug when they were launched in the United States in 2007 and 2006, respectively, and then again during my annual blind tastings of Champagne. I had never tasted the wines together.

I primed my palate with the Grande Cuvée. This is a non-vintage brut, or multi-vintage brut, as Krug promotes it. In fact, there’s a lot of reserve wine in the blend, and there’s a good chance that some of the 1990 vintage is a component. Most cuvées have at least 35 percent reserve wines and some may have up to 50 percent. It is unusual for Champagne houses to have this extensive blending palette.

In addition, Krug Grande Cuvée is aged a minimum of five years, much longer than other non-vintage cuvées; in reality, it's a prestige cuvée.

The wine had a fine mousse. The nose was elegant, with a grainy depth from the first fermentation in barrel, a hallmark of the Krug style. Aromas of citrus, toast, ginger and vanilla made it complex and inviting. On the palate, the Grande Cuvée was full-bodied and rich, with a creamy texture, great balance and a long finish.

On to the 1995. What a nose! This wine had really opened up, revealing coffee, toast and multigrain bread aromas. It’s less evolved on the palate, with racy acidity driving citrus, malt and candied berry flavors. Still very firm, it ended with a smoke and mineral aftertaste. It’s more developed than I remember it a year ago, yet the ’95 still needs time for the nose and the palate to integrate.

As elegant and impressive as the ’95 was, the '96 was more powerful, weightier and longer. The nose was more marked by the barrel fermentation than the ’95, with grain and malt aromas. In the mouth, I got the impression of more immediate flesh and intense toast, citrus and ginger flavors. It’s deeper and longer than the ’95 at this stage.

Based on this comparative tasting, the '95 will develop more quickly, while the '96 will be the long-distance runner. However, great wines take on their own lives and character and each bottle is different, especially as they age. That’s the joy and the mystery of wine. It will be interesting to see how this pair evolves.

Chris Lavin
Long Beach, CA —  June 29, 2007 2:20pm ET
Lovely! I look forward to doing a similar tasting, perhaps throwing in the '90 as well just for S&G. After visiting Krug last year and having lunch under a tree at the Clos du Mesnil - I get excited everytime I open/taste/drink a bottle of anything Krug. I'm featuring Krug Grande Cuvee (375ml) right now @ $85/btl and more and more guests are stepping up and sharing a bottle as an opening wine before dinner or with their first few courses. SALUD!! Happy 4th of July.
John Miller
Windsor, CA —  June 29, 2007 2:47pm ET
Bruce,I love it! You "primed your palate" with Grande Cuvee? You must have the best job in the world! I haven't tasted the '95 or '96, but I tasted the Grande Cuvee blind at a recent tasting and thought it was one of the best bubblies I have ever had. Interestingly, I ordered a '96 Palmes D'or for the same tasting, and I loved this wine the previous time I had tried it, but the distributor sent me a '97, which I grudgingly accepted without reading your review. It was the least favorite wine by everyone and I was extremely disappointed. I wish I had read your review first, although I think you were kinder to that wine than I would have been. It found it far inferior to the '96.
Anacleto Ludovic
paris france  —  July 4, 2007 11:45am ET
bruce, what about the clos du mesnil?
Bruce Sanderson
New York —  July 5, 2007 9:36am ET
The Clos du Mesnil was not offered. I recently rated the 1996 (July 31, 2007) at 96 points. It's an elegant, harmonious Champagne and drinking beautifully already!
Chris
Edmonton, —  July 5, 2007 5:16pm ET
My faincee and I have a 1990 Dom Perignon left in the cellar and are wondering how it is drinking. Has anyone had this recently and can tell me a bit about its maturity level.Thanks
Bruce Sanderson
New York —  July 6, 2007 9:17am ET
Chris,I have had the Oenotheque bottling recently and it is fabulous (96 pts. late last year). This is a more recent disgorgement of the inventory. The original release was very tight when young, but should be drinking well. DP ages well and 1990 is a great vintage, so there is no rush. It will make a fine "special occasion" bottle over the next 10-15 years.

Would you like to comment? Want to join or start a discussion?

Become a WineSpectator.com member and you can!
To protect the quality of our conversations, only members may submit comments. Member benefits include access to more than 315,000 reviews in our Wine Ratings Search; a first look at ratings in our Insider, Advance and Tasting Highlights; Value Wines; the Personal Wine List/My Cellar tool, hundreds of wine-friendly recipes and more.

WineRatings+ app: Download now for 340,000+ ratings.