TNR: 1990 Salon?

WINE TALK
1

Anyone have one recently? How is it drinking?

I am thinking about opening a 1990 Champagne tonight for a celebratory dinner - have not had a '90 Salon in quite a while and thought it might be a good choice. My alternatives are '90 Cuvee Winston Churchill and '90 Dom both of which I know are drinking very nicely…

Thanks,
Dan

2

Good bottles are excellent and it has entered into the beginning of its intermediate drinking evolution, but I’ve run into more than one or two off bottles of it.

3

Thanks, Ray. Sounds like it is worth opening, but I should bring one of the other bottles as a backup.

4

I’ve had many, many more good than bad bottles of 90 Salon though damaged bottles are definitely out there. I don’t think it suffers the same problems of variation that older vintages seem prone too. What is a bit different with the 90 Salon is that it started off very tight and young and has aged much more rapidly than most expected. It isn’t a favorite of the house though I currently like it. I completely agree that you should take a backup just to be safe especially if you are not completely sure of provenance.

5

Excellent on the KA ™ scale? That’s a bit underwhelming… newhere

Kidding aside Ray, where would it place in your list of favorite 1990s?

Cheers
Peter

6

Even if well sourced, there is a good chance that the bottle will have a fino Sherry element to the nose and palate - not a flaw just a characteristic of many bottles.

7

Bob,

I agree. It is this sherry/spicy oxidative/pre-mature characteristic that can be off-putting to some. I haven’t had it on all bottles, but it is coming on more and more. Salon agrees that this is something this particular vintage of the wine shows and they aren’t completely happy with it.

8

Brad/Ray, I love Salon when it is on; adore it. Unfortunately, I am batting about .500 with so many oxidized or cooked bottles that it is heart breaking. I now hesitate to purchase as I am afraid of very expensive, shot bottles (for eighties bottlings I have had four epic bottles and eight ruined ones). Where is a reliable source? Less problems with nineties bottlings, but still…

9

Ben,

I no longer purchase pre-1995 Salon for various reasons:

  • non-storage/provenance high variation of pre-1988 vintages; I don’t like gambling
  • the 1979 and 1980s vintages didn’t sell well and often saw poor storage in the US ; combined with the above general variation (which Salon acknowledges) this creates a big gamble IMO
  • I’m not a huge fan of how the 1990 is developing

Salon is a great wine and “on” bottles are amazing; I just think the hit/miss rate is too high for me personally and I don’t go after older bottles. I will purchase young vintages on release and I don’t have any worries about general non-storage variation of the 1990 and onwards vintages (which is the first vintage produced after Laurent-Perrier purchased the house).

10

I’ve not encountered much variation for the '79 and older vintages of Salon.

But, like you I am not a buyer of post '79 through '90 Salons. However, if I were, ocb’s would be a prerequisite and based on experience swing the odds much more heavily in your favor.

11

Ray,

I agree that the 79 is much less likely to be damaged/off then the 82-88 vintages, but there are a few reasons for this:

  • 79 was the first vintage of the modern era where there was really a movement to import and market Salon in the US (thanks to the success and price of Krug’s 79 CdM)
  • Not nearly as much 79 came into the US as the following vintages and it isn’t as likely to be damaged as the 82-88 vintages because not as much was left sitting around in shops
  • IMO, it suffers the same non-damaged variability as other Salon vintages.

Overall, my experience (from tasting both away from and at the house) is that all pre-90 vintages suffer higher than normal variability even with perfect storage. The 85 and 88 vintages are especially bad due to a combo of bottle variation and bottles that sat unsold for years.

Again, I will say, that when you have a bottle firing on all cylinders, I don’t blame anyone for thinking that buying 6 bottles for 2 or 3 good ones is well worth it.

12

Brad’s thought was borne out by a bottle of '88 Salon I popped a little earlier today. While my last several at bats with this wine were disappointing, this bottle was stunning.

If Salons of this era were financial securities, they would be call options - capable of either attaining huge upside or expiring worthless.

It seems to be a common theme with Salons of this period: you pays your money, you takes your chances…

13

I’ve had the '90 twice within the past year, most recently, several months ago. My most recent CT note: “Nice mousse with aromas of almonds, honey, biscuits, hints of caramel. Quite balanced with nice acidity and a long finish.” I did not get the caramel notes on the previous bottle, but loved them both and rated them the same score. I personally don’t mind a bit of oxidation on older champagnes. So, whether this is bottle variation, or just a sign that the wine is advancing quicker than expected, I’m not sure.

14

my experience as well … but that’s an Australian experience and the bottles were not cellared by me.