The bottle of Krug 1971 Champagne had been properly stored by myself
since shortly after release. The cork was still good, and carbonation,
although reduced somewhat as would be expected in an old Champagne,
was still adequate. The bubbles were fine and slowly released as the
glass of wine was consumed. The color is fairly light yellow, a little
darker than when young. It is typical Krug, being fairly full and
complex with a toasty, complex character. It is not their very best
year, but I can not find anything serious to complain about. Although
the Krug is over 1/3 century old, it is still holding quite well. Some
of the very best vintage Krugs can last over 50 years, and some Krugs
from the late 1920s were reported to still be drinking well a few
years ago. The cork likely is often the limiting factor in how long
very top Krugs will hold up, provided they are stored well. If I were
forced to select only one Champagne to drink, it would be Krug.
However I like to drink other Champagne for variety, and others may
well like another Champagne more than Krug. Unfortunately the price of
vintage Krug now runs in the hundreds of $US, even for a fairly recent
vintage, and their multiple-vintage is not far behind. The bottle I
had still had the price sticker - US$ 27.89. That was a high price in
the 1970s, but inflation since then only explains part of the price
increase for Krug.

So, you would say it had verve? :-)


"cwdjrxyz" > wrote in message
...
> The bottle of Krug 1971 Champagne had been properly stored by myself
> since shortly after release. The cork was still good, and carbonation,
> although reduced somewhat as would be expected in an old Champagne,
> was still adequate. The bubbles were fine and slowly released as the
> glass of wine was consumed. The color is fairly light yellow, a little
> darker than when young. It is typical Krug, being fairly full and
> complex with a toasty, complex character. It is not their very best
> year, but I can not find anything serious to complain about. Although
> the Krug is over 1/3 century old, it is still holding quite well. Some
> of the very best vintage Krugs can last over 50 years, and some Krugs
> from the late 1920s were reported to still be drinking well a few
> years ago. The cork likely is often the limiting factor in how long
> very top Krugs will hold up, provided they are stored well. If I were
> forced to select only one Champagne to drink, it would be Krug.
> However I like to drink other Champagne for variety, and others may
> well like another Champagne more than Krug. Unfortunately the price of
> vintage Krug now runs in the hundreds of $US, even for a fairly recent
> vintage, and their multiple-vintage is not far behind. The bottle I
> had still had the price sticker - US$ 27.89. That was a high price in
> the 1970s, but inflation since then only explains part of the price
> increase for Krug.

On Jan 1, 7:49 am, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> So, you would say it had verve? :-)

I think we both read a recent post by someone else :-). I likely would
not use "verve" in my description of a wine and would be more inclined
to use "verve" in the description of a person.

> "cwdjrxyz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The bottle of Krug 1971 Champagne had been properly stored by myself
> > since shortly after release. The cork was still good, and carbonation,
> > although reduced somewhat as would be expected in an old Champagne,
> > was still adequate. The bubbles were fine and slowly released as the
> > glass of wine was consumed. The color is fairly light yellow, a little
> > darker than when young. It is typical Krug, being fairly full and
> > complex with a toasty, complex character. It is not their very best
> > year, but I can not find anything serious to complain about. Although
> > the Krug is over 1/3 century old, it is still holding quite well. Some
> > of the very best vintage Krugs can last over 50 years, and some Krugs
> > from the late 1920s were reported to still be drinking well a few
> > years ago. The cork likely is often the limiting factor in how long
> > very top Krugs will hold up, provided they are stored well. If I were
> > forced to select only one Champagne to drink, it would be Krug.
> > However I like to drink other Champagne for variety, and others may
> > well like another Champagne more than Krug. Unfortunately the price of
> > vintage Krug now runs in the hundreds of $US, even for a fairly recent
> > vintage, and their multiple-vintage is not far behind. The bottle I
> > had still had the price sticker - US$ 27.89. That was a high price in
> > the 1970s, but inflation since then only explains part of the price
> > increase for Krug.