Vintage Brut Champagne Blend

Popped and poured; enjoyed in red Solo cups over the course of an hour. The 1995 continues to show slightly oxidative characteristics strawberry, white peach, citrus, nuts and marshmallow. Another really fine showing, nearly one year since my last bottle. Drink now through 2035.

Using Delectable library photo of Krug vintage. The one I tasted was 2006. A blend of 48% Pinot Noir, 35% Chardonnay and 17% Pinot Meunière. Quite a high % of Chardonnay for Krug in this warmer year. So balanced and thorough. The aperitif we had at a Burgundy dinner in Sydney on August 7. Only catching up with notes now.

Lovely

Popped and poured; enjoyed over the course an hour. The 1976 pours a golden color with a little, but quickly dissipating mousse. On the nose, sensational notes of toasted marshmallow, quince, apricot, boozy pineapple, fino sherry, chalky minerals. On the palate, the wine is dry with high acid. Confirming the notes from the nose where the chalky minerals played a role in the texture…in a good way. Such an elegant, regal bottle of bubbles. It’s a rare treat to drink old Champagne and even more special when it’s Krug. Drink now.

Presented double-blind. The wine appears straw in color with medium viscosity and, apparently, there lots of tiny bubbles so there are signs of gas, LOL. On the nose, the wine is developing with heady notes of ripe orchard fruit, red forest berries, marzipan, lemon curd, fresh brioche. On the palate, the wine is dry with high acidity. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish lasts for an eternity. The texture is ever so creamy. Wow…well, I was drinking something special. Had to be Champagne. Maybe vintage? Maybe a tête de cuvée? The style was similar to Krug. Called Champagne from a producer like Krug. OMG…the 1996 Vintage Brut?! Sheesh…someone was feeling generous! Admitted, I don’t often get to drink vintage Krug (for many hundreds of reasons!) so my experience is obviously limited. However, there’s clearly no question in this being true to house style and, now that I know the vintage, this is showing why 1996 is so special. As others have noted, this is fresher than the 1995 I had some months ago (though, that was very special too) and had greater acid. I would like to think this provides a crystal ball for the 2008 vintage that is sure to follow a similar trajectory. Drinking very fine indeed, right now and should continue to do so through 2046…depending on how you like to drink your Champagne.

The 1995 Krug showed a touch more oxidative and had more concentrated fruit than the ‘96 Pierre Peters that we enjoyed alongside. There’s a lovely mélange of strawberry, white peach, citrus, nuts and marshmallow. Similarly to the PP, there’s fabulous acid and a long life ahead.

Did not expect to use the descriptors energetic and fresh when describing a bottle of 34 year old champagne but that’s exactly how to describe this bottle. The acidity was a thunderbolt. Somehow this bottle managed to have that wonderful combination of freshness with the complexity that comes with age . A real eye opener.

My friend Fran put it all together, met up with our friends from Be Bubbly

The legend

Today notes, some sour apple, a sweetness of orchard fruit. Lovely balance, complexity and acidity.. delicious