That old broad

That paragraph could benefit from being maybe 3 - 5 paragraphs, but of course VC blows anyway. I will say it was the first champagne that taught me about texture in bubblies....a decent vintage will show that, but aside from the texture.....
 
I dunno what the first vintage of Krug made under LVMH management was, but the purchase was in 1999, so there has probably been much less influence over the vintage Krugs released to date than one can expect to see going forward. I had '96 Krug last week and can't complain (though I admit I've never liked vintage Krug as much as, say, DP, Taittinger, Salon, Bollinger RD, etc. etc.). I have serious complaints, however, about the Krug Grande Cuvee, which has been only marginally more distinctive than NV Veuve ever since the gold label replaced the purple one under LVMH's management. I had always gotten a sense that Krug took a particular pride in the Grande Cuvee and treated it as something of a flagship even though it was a bit cheaper than the vintage. That's clearly not the case anymore. On the plus side, if you buy two bottles, they come in a designer straw hatbox.
 
So the only bubbly you'll drink will be that of one or two Vouvray producers, on account of the price? By that logic, you could say that Marc Ollivier's wines cost far less than many other whites (including still Vouvray). Why as a consumer drink anything other than a really good but inexpensively procured wine? Well... maybe you want to drink more than one thing....
 
Not that I get to drink a lot of it, but I do think that the "new" Krug Grand Cuvee is significantly better with a couple of years on it. I had a bottle from a recently released stash & thought it undistinguished & cursed LVMH. Had a bottle from the same batch 2 years later & it was very much on form for Grand Cuvee.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
So the only bubbly you'll drink will be that of one or two Vouvray producers, on account of the price? ....
Click to expand...

"Thank goodness for Vouvray Petillant" doesn't come within miles of this statement.
 
The contention was that Veuve Clicquot was not good, and was expensive. You opined that we should be glad for Vouvray Ptillant. It was remarked that few of those were good. You were glad of the 2% that were. I noted that there were many grower champagnes that were, as well. You demurred, for reasons unknown. Qualitatively speaking, the only Vouvray Ptillant that can hold a candle to grower champagneHuet, and only the vintage; try the brut sometime (shudder)costs similar to grower champagne.

Explain your demurral, please.
 
To paraphrase a valued board member, this is a leisure board and not a court of law. I feel that I have hit a nerve, unintentionally, which is too bad, since I like and respect you. Reasonable people can disagree.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
The contention was that Veuve Clicquot was not good, and was expensive. You opined that we should be glad for Vouvray Ptillant. It was remarked that few of those were good. You were glad of the 2% that were. I noted that there were many grower champagnes that were, as well. You demurred, for reasons unknown. Qualitatively speaking, the only Vouvray Ptillant that can hold a candle to grower champagneHuet, and only the vintage; try the brut sometime (shudder)costs similar to grower champagne.

Explain your demurral, please.
Click to expand...

Sharon,
Huet ain't the only show in town. Foreau's Vouvray Pet is also a thing of beauty, and even the NV stuff is usually sourced primarily from one year and awfully tasty. Also, your access to grower Champagne far exceeds what we in the benighted Colonies can easily get our hands on, so cut us some slack... mmm'K?

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top