1996 Salon Champagne Brut Blanc de Blancs- France, Champagne, Le Mesnil Sur Oger, Champagne (12/31/2009)
This is one of the most stunning wines I’ve ever tasted. Gorgeous nose of citrus zest, lemon, minerals, green apple, and brioche. In the mouth, amazingly youthful, profoundly concentrated, and supremely complex. This is like the ultimate Chablis, with greater complexity – and bubbles. It’s winning all around, with a seemingly sharp but utterly weightless and precise palate presence. Bracingly beautiful, with amazingly pure fruit, but layers of complexity that change with each sip. Excellent acidity. And then this takes it into the ethereal plane on the finish. It’s endless and details each aspect of the wine – fruit, minerality, toasty notes. There is a creamy sensibility to the finish, too. Just tremendous. A memorable wine that makes you feel privileged to have drunk it. A+
2000 Perrier-Jouët Champagne Cuvée Fleur de Champagne- France, Champagne (12/31/2009)
12.5% alcohol. Medium yellow color. Very nice nose of yeast, apple, and minerals. In the mouth, seems older than its age, with a slightly mature edge to the otherwise bright and tasty apple, yeast, and citrus notes. Strong acidity and a very solid finish. Very nice, if not truly profound. A-
1998 Pol Roger Champagne Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill Brut- France, Champagne (12/31/2009)
Youthful and still not showing its full hand, but impressive and delicious. Lovely nose of brioche, yeast, apple, pear, and minerals. In the mouth, strikingly refined, with no hard edges. Structured but giving at this stage, with plenty of fruit, excellent complexity, bright acidity, and a terrific finish that unfolds layers of flavors. A-/A
2002 Louis Roederer Champagne Cristal Brut- France, Champagne (12/31/2009)
True to its pedigree, this is a big, brawny Champagne. Toasty and creamy apple-laden nose that has a pleasant mineral and smokey aroma. In the mouth, less refined than some of the other heavy hitters in the lineup. Brash and in-your-face, with big fruit; it’s a big-boned wine all around. Strong acidity. Impressive finish, but this wine overall lacks a touch of the complexity you would hope. A-
N.V. Henriot Champagne Brut Souverain- France, Champagne (12/31/2009)
12.0% alcohol. Nice wine, with plenty of creamy and toasty notes framing green apple fruit. Round in the mouth, with bright acidity. Somewhat clipped on the finish. A bigger-boned Champagne for sure. B+
Great notes Tom. Maybe you should change the title to “Gutting gives an A+” since it’s such a rare occurrence. That 96 Salon was still in my dreams a few days later. Wasn’t the Winston Churchill the '98 though? I also really enjoyed the Andre Clouet lineup and one of my favorites, Egly-Ouriet, very much too. Kudos to Block 7 for putting this on.
Jeff Nowak was the one who opened up a 1996 Salon a year or so ago, to this day is the best Champagne ever. It was not aired or decanted or anything and I thought was incredible. But maybe being in his presence made me appreciate it more!
Another Champ that is fantastic is the 2002 Dhondt, not at the same level, but also different.
It’s significantly more expensive than my normal upper limit on wines, but at some point I have to pony up and pick up some 96 Salon. Not only does it receive gushing praise, all descriptors suggest that it’s a wine right in my wheelhouse
All these ecstatic notes on the 1996 Salon are really confusing to me. I’ve had it a few times and each time it’s been so young and unexpressive there was barely a reason to open it - almost no “value over replacement bubbly” to appropriate a stathead term. And Salon when it gets some age on it is one of my favorite wines in the world - the 1982 is in my all-time top 5 - so it’s not like the style isn’t my cup of tea. No doubt a lot of people who purport to flip over it are grading on “potential,” but for those who think the wine is performing like a rock star right now, what exactly are the characteristics you’re reacting to?
Every time I hear about the 82 Salon I cringe. I found it on a wine list for $195 and when it arrived it was horribly oxidized. I chatted with the sommelier about it and he said that that as “how it was supposed to taste” and that’s how all their bottles taste. Needless to say, I opted away from a replacement bottle and drank a red burg instead…
Had the '96 Salon for my B-Day back in August and thought it was good with the ability to be great later on down the road. In the past five months I have had the Krug, Salon and DP from '96 and the one that I preferred the best was Krug followed by Salon and then DP. I think a horizontal would be an awesome event to schedule a fried chicken dinner at Ad Hoc around.
Keith- As Tom’s note points out, the characteristics are the wine’s laser-like precision, incredible acidity a la GC Chablis, a very long finish, etc. We tasted this immediately before the '98 Winston Churchill and the 02 Cristal and also followed with many other nice champagnes. My point is that regardless of how young and tight the wine may be, it is still head and shoulders above a typical higher end young champagne experience. I think the fact that it is great now and will only continue to improve is an even stronger indication of the wine’s overall greatness.
Having only had aged higher end champers on a few occasions, my perception of this wine was definitely not based on potential since I really have no reference point. I compared it to young champers and can say that it’s the best young champagne I’ve ever had. I guess we just had bottles showing differently.
I definitely think it was performing like a rock star right now. I’m one who prefers Champagne to be a bit younger, though. I don’t want older, maderized or oxidized notes in my Champagne as much. For the 96 Salon, what struck me was the absolute purity and clarity and depth of the Chardonnay fruit, but it also brought in those classic bread-like (in a very fresh way) notes of Champagne. And it did so with power and concentration that just went on.
Perhaps it’s something to chalk up to preferring wine at different stages. I can certainly say, though, that this 96 at 13 years old tasted more youthful than the 1988 at 13 years old. Very impressive, and, yes, I unequivocally love it right now. Haven’t had the Krug 96, but I love the Dom 96, although I’d put the Salon a hair ahead in terms of preference. Both phenomenal wines, though.
But the thing is, those are characteristics that describe pretty much any decent young blanc de blancs. What makes Salon distinctive to me are the array of flavors they start to offer at around 15-20 years old, but the 1996, last time I had it, didn’t even show a hint of them (nor would you expect it to; the '90 on release didn’t offer anything besides typical primary blanc de blancs flavors, either). So for my taste there are Champagnes a fraction of the cost of 1996 Salon that, if you drink them now, give you everything the 1996 Salon gives you, if you drink it now. (Someone will inevitably ask me to post examples, so I’ll mention the Jean Milan NV “1864” Grande Reserve BdB as a wine I drank recently that tastes remarkably similar to how the 1996 Salon currently tastes.)
I guess my perspective on this is colored by the following. It seems to me that when we talk about outstanding wines there are really two kinds - 1) wines that fit into a clear peer group or genre all of which taste like they’re made of pretty much the same stuff, only some are a little better, and 2) wines that are so distinctive and individual they barely seem like they could belong to any peer group at all; they just seem like their own thing. And my most memorable Salon experiences have all been in category (2). So when I experience a young Salon that gives me more of a category (1) experience at best, my conclusion tends to be “shouldn’t have opened it, needs more time,” rather than fishing in the subtlest of subtleties for clues about its incipient grandeur. Yes, others have responded to the wine so ecstatically that they obviously don’t feel the differences on display vis-a-vis '96 Salon and a typical BdB are subtle at all; that hasn’t been my experience and I can only say that this is the kind of disagreement that can only be settled by tasting blind. But not my bottles… I won’t touch 'em for another 5-10 years.
I wouldn’t say this Salon was anything like just a “typical” BdB I could have picked up for $35 or even $60. This was an extraordinary wine, in every respect. Perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes, much like Pinot lovers who prefer the primary characteristics of the grape as opposed to those secondary and tertiary notes of the older wines. I certainly do prefer my Pinot with age on it, but Champagne I prefer on the younger side for a greater verve, intensity, and less of what I term madeira notes or aged notes.
I’m surprised that so many people feel wines like '96 Salon and Krug currently offer up nothing other than potential. And surely nobody would accuse me of not liking maturity in the champagnes that I consume.
Keith,
For me '96 Salon shows significantly better than most other highly regarded champagnes of a similar age, no less a “typical” BdB. And I agree with you that the best and only real way to tell for sure is to taste them blind. I’ve tasted '96 Salon in a blind line-up at least seven or eight times and for me it has always been one of the best wines. Blew away '96 Selosse BdB three different times. Has always come ahead of '96 Taittinger CdC. The only BdB it can’t/hasn’t topped is Clos du Mesnil.
![[dontknow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/2/259bbc27e64baab255bbf586025626180d3e97e8.gif "dontknow"){kind=small}