Go 
|
New 
|
Find 
|
Notify 
|
|
Reply 
|
|
Admin 
|
New PM! 
|
Member
|
I'd take the Margaux. I consider Krug to be the most over-rated of all the Champagnes. These are heavy, clumsy Champagnes, virtually devoid of delicacy, elegance, and breeding.If you're looking for a white with this weight, try a Meursault. It's cheaper.
|
| |
|
Member
|
Am I drinking it tonight or cellaring it ? Do I have a lot of champagne in my cellar ? - Which I do I'd personally take the Margaux, for life ! Cheers, Mishy
|
| |
| Posts: 2738 | Location: Kelowna, BC | Registered: Oct 18, 2001 |    |
|
Member
|
Good description by GMT. If you like your Champagnes heavy, you'll probably love Krug.
|
| |
|
Member
|
1988 Krug Clos du Mesnil has just been released. I didn't try it, but considering in addition the quite severe character of the vintage by itself, I really would not BEGIN considering to uncorck this bottle before 5 more years.
I'd also consider that if Krug decided to postpone the 1988 release to the 1989, this choice should represent a clear indication in this sense: this wine needs -asks, wants, cries- for long time cellaring.
Clos du Mesnil is an impressive and umparalleled bottling. I have the impression that if you opened now a bottle of 1988, you'd be invested by such crude smells of pure bread yeasts that you'd wonder how long can this go.
I'd personally go, today, for a 1982, or if I really hadn't any better mature bottle, a 1985, but with a quite stinging sense of frustration: still a bit too young.
Obviously, I'm a fan of well "grown up" wines, I uncorck only in the strict range around the top of the hill, do consider this in pondering my opinion.
Best regards to everyone
|
| |
| Posts: 2036 | Location: Italy | Registered: Jan 19, 2002 |    |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© Wine Spectator Online 2006
|
|