Krug Champagne at Auction: Grande Cuvée, Vintage, and Single Vineyard Prices
Krug auction price history from 2021–2026. Grande Cuvée, vintage Krug, and Clos du Mesnil prices with year-by-year performance data.
Krug is Champagne's most serious investment proposition — its range from Grande Cuvée to single-vineyard Clos du Mesnil spans two orders of magnitude in price.
Over the five-year period from 2011–2026, Krug wines sold across 994 lots at fine wine auction houses worldwide. The average hammer price across all wines and vintages was $3,828 per bottle. The portfolio's 55.9% compound annual growth rate substantially outpaces the broader fine wine index and inflation, reinforcing the domaine's status as a top-tier collectible. The strongest-performing vintage at auction has been 1973, averaging $13,850 per bottle.
994
Total Lots Sold
$3,828
Avg Price / Bottle
1973
Best Vintage
55.9%
Avg 5-yr CAGR
Price Trend: 2021–2025
Prices have dramatically risen from $963 in 2011 to $9,879 in 2026 — a 926% increase over the period. The softest year on record was 2013 at $785 per bottle.
Average hammer price per bottle, all lots and vintages combined. Source: WineAuction.ai — 994 lots across 9 houses.
Wine-by-Wine Price Performance
The table below breaks down performance by individual wine and vintage. Krug, Clos d'Ambonnay (2000) delivered the strongest appreciation at 297.7% CAGR, while Krug, Collection (1988) saw prices retreat 19.8% annually — the portfolio's weakest performer. The most expensive wine in the portfolio is Krug, Clos d'Ambonnay (2006), currently averaging $13,500 per bottle.
| Wine | Vintage | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Lots | CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1985 | $3,350 | $2,000 | $1,808 | $7,367 | $2,537 | 30 | 27.6% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1990 | $1,728 | $2,080 | $3,611 | $4,118 | $3,923 | 52 | 38.4% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1986 | $1,875 | — | $1,893 | $1,529 | $2,514 | 24 | 37.4% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1998 | $1,500 | $3,000 | $2,401 | $4,319 | $2,119 | 41 | 31.8% |
| Krug, Collection | 1989 | — | $881 | $1,000 | $875 | $1,150 | 18 | 69.7% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1995 | — | $1,500 | $1,300 | $2,131 | $8,355 | 28 | 77.3% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2000 | $1,283 | $1,400 | $1,328 | $4,466 | $1,253 | 44 | 26.2% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1988 | $2,000 | — | $2,406 | $5,801 | $3,774 | 57 | 43.5% |
| Krug, Collection | 1976 | $1,645 | — | $2,267 | $3,500 | — | 11 | 63.5% |
| Krug, Collection | 1981 | $2,100 | — | — | $2,167 | $2,033 | 13 | 43.4% |
| Krug, Collection | 1985 | $1,100 | — | $1,267 | $5,700 | $3,262 | 30 | 34.4% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1989 | — | $1,600 | $1,692 | $6,250 | $1,344 | 17 | 47.5% |
| Krug, Collection | 1990 | $775 | $900 | $750 | $958 | $1,050 | 22 | 3.9% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1996 | $1,550 | $6,000 | $7,227 | $6,585 | $2,400 | 69 | 56.2% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2002 | $1,493 | $1,929 | $3,350 | $4,110 | $2,182 | 121 | 6.0% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2003 | $976 | $1,750 | — | $3,153 | $3,117 | 57 | -0.9% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | NV | $110 | $400 | — | $2,100 | — | 4 | 167.3% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1982 | — | $2,250 | $1,933 | $5,467 | $1,753 | 15 | 66.3% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2006 | — | $1,533 | $2,150 | $2,750 | $1,842 | 77 | 23.5% |
| Krug, Collection | 1961 | — | — | $4,200 | $3,500 | — | 3 | -16.7% |
| Krug, Collection | 1969 | — | — | $6,000 | $6,000 | $4,750 | 7 | 10.1% |
| Krug, Collection | 1971 | — | — | $6,500 | $6,000 | — | 3 | -7.7% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1979 | — | — | $4,250 | $4,421 | — | 7 | 74.0% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 1983 | — | — | $4,400 | $4,967 | — | 8 | 34.2% |
| Krug, Collection | 1988 | — | — | $1,333 | $1,069 | $858 | 13 | -19.8% |
| Krug, Clos d'Ambonnay | 1996 | — | — | $10,042 | $6,660 | $6,996 | 18 | -16.5% |
| Krug, Clos d'Ambonnay | 2002 | — | — | $1,550 | $6,600 | $1,842 | 15 | 14.6% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2004 | — | — | $1,006 | $2,125 | $1,679 | 74 | 6.0% |
| Krug, Clos du Mesnil | 2008 | — | — | $2,000 | $4,095 | $2,118 | 49 | -5.9% |
| Krug, Collection | 1973 | — | — | — | $2,200 | — | 4 | 240.5% |
Prices are average hammer prices per bottle. CAGR calculated from first year with data to most recent. Lots with fewer than 3 sales may show volatile averages.
Most Frequently Traded
Liquidity matters as much as price appreciation for investment-grade wine. These are the Krug wines that appear most often at auction — the easiest to buy and sell if you need flexibility.
Key Takeaways
- →Most liquid wine:: Krug, Clos du Mesnil has appeared in 784 lots — the most frequently traded in the portfolio and the easiest to resell if you need to exit a position.
- →Best investment return:: Krug, Clos d'Ambonnay (2000) has compounded at 297.7% annually — the strongest performer in the Krug portfolio by growth rate.
- →Recent momentum:: Prices rose from $3,018 in 2025 to $9,879 in 2026, suggesting continued collector demand heading into the current market.
- →Inflation hedge:: At 55.9% average annual growth, this portfolio has comfortably outpaced US CPI inflation (averaging ~3–4% over the same period) while producing a tangible, enjoyable asset.
Related Articles
Dom Pérignon Auction Prices: P1, P2, P3 — Is the Plénitude Premium Worth It?
Complete Dom Pérignon auction price history from 2021–2026. Compare P1, P2, and P3 plénitude prices by vintage — is the aging premium justified?
Read article →Cristal vs Blanc de Blancs: Which Champagne Has Better Auction ROI?
Compare Roederer Cristal, Salon, Clos du Mesnil, and Krug Clos d'Ambonnay auction ROI. 5-year data reveals which Champagne style appreciates fastest.
Read article →Salon Champagne Auction Prices: The World's Most Investable Blanc de Blancs
Every Salon vintage tracked: auction prices from 2021–2026 showing appreciation by year. Why this single-vineyard Champagne is treated like Burgundy grand cru.
Read article →Vintage Champagne vs Non-Vintage at Auction: 5 Years of Price Data
Compare vintage Champagne vs non-vintage auction prices from 2021–2026. Data shows vintage appreciates while NV stays flat — the investment case explained.
Read article →