Seeking opinions of those who may have experience with the 2002 Salon.
The 1996 Salon remains probably my favorite Champagne ever, have been lucky enough to have it five times and every time it just hits a grand slam.
Opened my first 2002 earlier this year. It seemed…blah. It just didn’t wow me at all like the 1996 does. It was good, and certainly there is going to be an influence due to pedigree, but I was left thinking “and?..”
Had a second bottle a week ago at the request of a friend who wanted to try it. Same initial impression. However, there was lots of good wine flowing and the partial bottle remained open to oxygen for about 5-6 hours, noted as we finished it off that it was gaining weight and picking up vibrancy. So is it just in a “dumb phase?” If so, this thing is moving at glacial pace.
Had been pondering bartering off a couple for something else after my first bottle, but now leaning toward ignoring another 5 years and seeing where it goes.
We had this on JAL a few years back and had the same impression both at initial opening and after almost 14 hours open. This was massive and powerful and very wound up. It came across one dimensional at first like a mountain of chalk but at the end of the flight it had added an enormous amount of intrigue
As with most Salon, there is bottle variability, but I have never had a bottle of 2002 that has been tight - not on release, over time, or when I last had it a month ago. In terms of Salon and Le Mesnil-sur-Oger Chardonnay, I have found the 2002 Salon to be a quite forward wine that has been fairly easy to drink since release. Not especially complex, but fruity, forward, and rather easy to enjoy. Not worth the price in my book and not nearly as good as the 1996 or sleeper 1997 (I even prefer the 1999). Laurent-Perrier purchased Salon after the 1988 vintage was in the cellars and certainly cleaned things up in the winery and eventually how the wines were cared for on export/distribution, but the wine has changed and outside of the 1996 (and maybe 1997), this has become a shell of what it once was.
The bottle we had was impossibly tight; so much so that one of the participants at our tasting questioned whether she’d suddenly developed COVID because there was absolutely NOTHING on the nose upon first pour.
I think there is a difference between tightness and lack of expression. To me, tightness is when a wine is coiled and full of potential. 1996 Salon was and is still tight. 2002 Salon is neither tight nor coiled.
I would agree that the nose on 2002 Salon isn’t exactly outgoing and is more on the simple or non-expressive side. The nose opens up with air and warmth, but I’ve never had the nose grab me on this wine. The palate does have a rather fruity expression and is more enjoyable, but it isn’t particularly complex or full of potential. If you are looking for an intense core, loads of structure, and lots of potential (as you find in the 1996 Salon) or an array of complexity (like the 1997 has), you are not going to get it with the 2002.
Overall, 2002 is not tight in my book. I think some might find the wine disappointing especially when you compare it to 1996 Salon, the mystique behind the house/label, and/or the price this now demands. I can also see others finding it lacking depending on how you relate nose and palate. What I don’t see is 2002 suddenly spreading its wings and changing into a different animal. 2002 Salon is what it is - at least in my book.
Idk, pretty much everyone at this dinner thought it was 4/4 in the flight for the first 3-4 hours, then later it opened up and was great.
Maybe it’s bottle variation but I thought it was probably by far the worst initially then 2 behind 02 Krug but others thought it was by far the best after 4 hours. Only Cristal LR may need more time than the salon. P2 was firing on all cylinders.
I don’t know - it could just be palate differences, serving temperatures, variability, environment. Even on release or just before release, this was an outgoing Salon in my book. The last time I had this was at a blind tasting of 2002s and it took wine number 2 of the night by the group. I had it as my number 3as it drank well and didn’t appear to need any more time. The wines were all served at cellar temperature and warmed up from there. This showed very well to the group (round, fruity, creamy, bright) and really stood out. A couple of folks remarked that they finally found a Salon ready to drink and not overly mature/oxidized.
* Edited to correct where Salon ranked during the tasting mentioned - I initially had it placed one spot too high for both the group and myself.
Brad, by tightness it sounds like you’re describing many of Bouchard’s wines these days, which I describe as “nervy” and which often benefit from a quick decant. (Great wines.)
02 Salon sounds like 02 DP for me? I’ve never been able to get much out of 02 DP…super high razor sharp acid, tight, coiled… Although I haven’t had one in a few years. The 02 Salon at release was a dead ringer for 02 DP for me.
It definitely changed after 5 hours and it was good enough at that point that I am seeking out a few cases. Don’t know if that means it was tight/coiled or something else. Maybe it will never open up?
The bottle in question was bought in 2018 from Union Square Wines in NY, so not immediately upon release but I think they are responsible/trustworthy and got a bunch of OWCs in at once, and it was properly stored in the cellar until that dinner. Previous bottles that I’ve had of this wine including from the same OWC a year earlier have been more open, but I echo the comments of Michael and Andrew.
Other non-Salon 2002s that I’ve had this year have been similarly shy, including a Dom Perignon P2 last week. Is this vintage just shutting down? After these experiences I’m sending the rest of my 02s off to storage and plan to not revisit for several years. And agreed with Andrew that it was good enough to seek out more.
