Last week, we looked at sparkling wines in a Champagne style, but on a smaller budget. Today, I say we blow the budget and go deluxe. Are the top Cuvées really worth it, what should you choose and how much should you spend? Do you know your Cristal from your Comtes de Champagne, and can anything compare to Krug?
Krug is a blend of 120 different wines from ten different vintages, and it’s aged in oak barrels adding a luscious quality and depth to the wine. It really is quite unique. It’s also very food-friendly, working with everything from the poshest seafood to eggs benedict at breakfast time.
Krug Grande Cuvée NV (Waitrose, £135). This is a remarkably good price for a bottle that will almost certainly change your life. I’d suggest calling ahead to make sure your local store has stock, as availability is always limited.
Krug Grande Cuvée NV half bottle (Inverarity One to One, £81.49). Krug are one of the very few houses to offer their deluxe Cuvée in a half bottle.
Krug Grande Cuvée NV magnum (Inverarity One to One, £400). And they do large bottles too.
Most other Champagne houses focus on elegance and finesse with their deluxe expressions. You’ll often see ‘blanc de blancs’ on the label, which simply means only white grapes have been used in the production of the wine. In Champagne terms, this means it has to be Chardonnay, and Chardonnay from the Champagne region is amongst the most elegant in the world.
Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs Brut 2007 (Waitrose, £129.99). This was James Bond’s favourite Champagne in the Ian Fleming novels, and it featured in the movie From Russia with Love. If it’s good enough for James…
Dom Ruinart Blanc de Blancs 2002 (Inverarity One to One, £140). Ruinart is the oldest Champagne house, and one of my long-term favourite producers. The Blanc de Blancs 2002 is, quite simply, the finest expression of the style that you’re likely to come across. It was a perfect year for the Chardonnay grapes, and the purity of fruit in the glass is astonishing. You can drink this immediately, or put it away for another few years. Cheers!
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here