nouveau / liquid assets / preview / review
aged remarkably well. Spirited, beautifully scented, rewarding “old” bubbly—a delight. | 93
2004 Salon (Disgorged Q3 2015; dosage 5g/l)
At 12 years old, this remains very pale. Tight and youthful to smell, too, a very light yeastiness and a gentle floral background. Moderately rich and generous; fresh, and very fine-bubbled. Dry, even, long, and graceful to taste; Chardonnay-delicate in texture, very aromatic and scented to finish. Despite being a tightly closed bud aromatically, this tastes very well cushioned already. In Salon terms, it is a relatively easy expression for its tender years. 2004 is without the density of many vintages, but it is a fine, gentle beauty that will be particularly comely from around 2020. And of course, with no problems mellowing and blossoming across the early 2030s. | 94
2002 Salon (Disgorged Q2 2015; dosage 6g/l)
A very pale 14-year-old; light, fresh, hawthorn-floral on the nose, still young-seeming. Rich yet contained on the palate, fresh and vibrantly minuscule- bubbled. Bone-dry, long, aromatic, and graceful; particularly fine in mousse, very prolonged across the palate, with a very long, fresh, Chardonnay- perfumed finish. Packed with ripe fruit—to taste and to finish—but that ripeness is perfectly poised and delineated by its acidity. So long, so graceful, so effortlessly complete and subtle, and with great length in all aspects, this is an immaculate expression of Salon. Excepting 2008, it’s difficult to imagine better. A perfection of harmony, freshness, intensity, richness, and delicacy. Magnificent. Currently the absolute star in this lineup reaching back 50 years. Now to 2040+. | 98+
Four years later, at 20 years of age, with good friend Alan Horan, at his London flat in September 2022. His treat—and treat is the word! Pale gold, with fine, continuously rising bubbles. A nose, at two decades, just bordering on a bouquet, youthful and mature at once, brioche-tinged, with a marine, iodine aspect and a white-peach fruit. To taste, this is full, rich, and elegant, luxuriously mature; almost fleshy and yet still so freshly defined and effortlessly light. The mousse texture with the beautiful, superfine bead of pure Chardonnay is a constant, gently energetic presence behind the succulently dry-yet-ripe flavor. And then there is this extraordinary aftertaste of exceptional volume and length, a mirror to all the fruit fragrance on the initial bouquet. Every bit as magnificent as it was on its release in 2014—a Champagne to make you wonder. Splendor already, decades to go. Just approaching its plateau of perfection.
1999 Salon (Disgorged Q2 2015; dosage 4.5g/l)
With 17 years in bottle, this is pale lemon in color; a fine, subtle, fruit-ripe, nutty bouquet, which is most seductive. Moderately rich, generous, still very fresh. Dry, delicate in flavor, soft and broad in mousse; long and palate-flattering to taste, ample in its nuanced, limestone-tinged aromas, very long in aftertaste. This is a graceful, gratifying, warm- vintage wine. A lovely, soft ripeness, both fresh and sumptuous—in as much as pure Chardonnay
72 | THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 79 | 2023
can ever be such. And with great length. Immense charm and immediate appeal, without any loss of class. Is the pure Chardonnay mitigating the high-yielding, very ripe, low-acidity profile of many 1999s? Lovely now; doubtless a decade and more to go, if perhaps not a really long-term Salon. To 2030+? | 95
1997 Salon (Disgorged Q3 2010; dosage <3g/l)
Very pale gold. At 19 years old, this has a soft, creamy, gently biscuit-and-honey bouquet. Full, surprisingly firm, very fine in mousse. Bone- dry, with the flavor still marked by its acidity, which gives it a somewhat austere profile. And that slight lemony edge defines the overall impression, lingering as part of the farewell on the finish, too. A sort of youth and maturity combined. The characteristic fineness of mousse is there, of course, but were the grapes in some way less than absolutely, ideally ripe? In any case, I’d wait until 2022, its 25th birthday, though I’m not sure how much it will ever really harmonize. I suspect its bones will always show—just a tad. Ripeness touched by angularity? 2022–40+. | 93+
1996 Salon (Disgorged Q1 2016; dosage <3g/l)
At 20 years old, this is a surprisingly young, pale lemon-yellow. Concentrated, fine-moussed, still vigorous in acidity—but it’s an acidity that is perfectly integrated, a harmonious part of the wine’s considerable concentration. Dry, refined, and graceful to taste, delicate yet intense; very long across the palate, with the year’s trademark bite, but also a profound balancing abundance of mineral-tinged flavor behind it. A wine of great intensity, positively fizzing with energy and tenacity. At two decades, there remains an almost painful tautness to this, but its quality potential is assured by its exceptional length across the palate and its markedly aromatic and persistent finish. Tall, statuesque, muscular, and still remarkably youthful. A wine still needing 10 years more to be really harmonious. An outstanding Salon in the making, to broach, ideally, well in its fourth decade. 2026–46+. | 97+
1995 Salon (Disgorged 2002; dosage 6g/l)
[At lunch with Howard Ripley—his treat; London, May 2014] Pale yellow-gold; a bouquet that is still full of primary fruit, with a light brioche autolysis. Remarkably youthful at 19 years; an elegant, medium-depth wine, taut, bone-dry, with very fine bubbles, long across the palate and with excellent, delicately fruity persistence. A slightly lean personality, perhaps, but particularly refined and still with decades to go. Now to 2040+. | 95
1990 Salon (Disgorged Q1 2016; dosage zero)
Less than lustrous mid-gold, its marked maturity clear to behold. A very mature bouquet of honey, lemon zest, and gentle oxidation. Medium-full, with a surprisingly vivid acidity given the evident maturity, but that’s both the Chardonnay signature pushing through in a ripe vintage, and also the flesh retreating from, and revealing, the bones. Ripe yet
dry, honeyed yet slightly austere, with the acidity now beginning to obtrude rather than invigorate, and with a touch of mature astringency, too, slightly pinching the finish. On the basis of this bottle, and given the highest of expectations, this is past its best, unless you like very old, somewhat crumpled Champagne. Drying out might be the technical description. Like many 1990 Champagnes, so richly seductive in youth, this is not making old bones. Sweetness and delicacy are there, but the glory days are gone, the smile is now wan, the posture stooped. Decline. Time to say thanks for the memories, and farewell. | NS
1988 Salon (Disgorged Q1 2016; dosage zero)
Pale lemon-gold. A fine, mature-Champagne bouquet of honey, roasted nuts, and citrus zest. Rich and ripe and concentrated, a richness and ripeness perhaps a bit at odds with one’s perception of the year (which is to say, austerity). Fine-moussed, vivid without being taut, long and fine in flavor, both ripe and lemony, but with a touch of astringency now detracting a bit from its overall class and harmony. Good, but perhaps a less perfect ’88 than one might have imagined from this very fine year. Pure Chardonnay struggling in a less than absolutely ripe vintage? Great aromatic length, supported by the acidity. And yet, and yet… there’s just a touch of sweet-and-sour. Edgy. It’s very good, but it’s not outstanding. Its acidity allied to richness will allow it to keep, but I’m not sure it will actually improve to taste. If you have it, I’d get on with it! | 93
1971 Salon (Disgorged Q1 2016; dosage zero)
Mature orange-gold. A quite splendid bouquet; a gentle, honeyed maturity, with a hint of caramel and toast—just lovely! A fine, still-taut, harmonious balance. Bone-dry, its bubbles now sparse but present, still full of ripe fruit at its heart. Pure, linear, intense, long in flavor, the supporting acidity still fresh and beautifully integrated, and very persistent in aftertaste, too. A ripe-Chardonnay profile of great delineation, definition, purity, with the merest hint of raisiny dryness on the finish. Immaculate old Champagne. At 45 years old, this is a wonderful expression of an exceptional terroir in an outstanding vintage, brimming with scent and subtlety in a very healthy old age. | 96+
1966 Salon (Disgorged Q1 2016; dosage zero)
(First bottle corked.) Mature orange-gold, slightly darker than the 1971; a honeyed, almost “meaty” maturity to smell, without the sheer class of the ’71. Concentrated and vigorous, dry yet still deliciously ripe-cored in flavor, with a now very delicate mousse, and fine, gently honeyed length. Not the overall harmony of the ’71, if a touch fruit-sweeter to taste. This, too, is a lovely old Champagne, at a very similar quality level to the 1971. I can’t choose between them and prefer each at different moments. | 95
A 50-year span, with wines of impeccable provenance. A great treat, a real privilege. Even better to have spent more time communing with just one or two of the individual personalities in the glass.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
