Otto Nieminen wrote:Appendix: Krug 1995 was fine. Sure it is oaky, but it is harmoniously so and I feel that it will integrate with time. It is bright and expressive with a lime marmalade nose, figs, flowers and even a touch of petrol! The mousse is utter perfection. The acidity is divinely high. Though the fruit is rather shy at the moment, but there is lots of it. The aftertaste is interminable and surprisingly mineral. I liked it. Not enough to pay the price it goes for, but still - it was a dashed fine drink.
Otto Nieminen wrote:
MV New Label
Though I have read from many sources that the new label of the MV is inferior to the old, I liked it more. ... Preposterous price, though.
Jenise wrote:Oh boy, I'm really out of date here. Old label vs New label? Are there two labels with a new wine in a new style, or did the old non-vintage label change in style AND get a new label? Oh, and MV, vs. NV, Otto? It's not like you to make typos, but I was presuming that MV means NV, for non-vintage, until I read your last note with uses 'NV'.
Otto Nieminen wrote:...... It used to keep up my mental health in some situations. Once I threw out a person from our book shop because he was acting a bit aggressively. The next day he was pacing outside the shop with a woodplank with nails sticking out of it and shouting that he would kill me when I came out of the shop at the end of the day. He went to jail for such threats, but I still needed a half of Krug to feel better. With the preposterous pricing, what Champagne will I turn to now if something like it happens again?
David M. Bueker wrote:Otto,
Try to source some Vilmart. It's a lot cheaper than Krug and stands in decently well.
Laura is a true Krugiste. No matter how high the price goes I have authority to buy it. The vintage that is...she's not a fan of the MV.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest