A great champagne only achieves perfection through the harmony of its components: In particular, through the blending of different origins and grape varieties. Champagne Salon first rebelled against this dogma at the beginning of the 20th century. It is probably the first commercially produced Blanc de Blancs. It is also a mono cru, i.e. from a single commune, and always produced as a vintage. Only 37 vintages were produced in the 20th century, but in the 21st century there will be significantly more due to the good vintages. Nevertheless, prices on the secondary market have exploded. When a vintage like 2008 is then only released in 8,000 magnums and as part of a “Limited Edition Œnotheque Case”, this does not exactly cool the situation down. FWH Fine Wine Handel went to a lot of trouble and expense for this evening’s vertical at “The Cord” restaurant in Berlin. The reward was a truly memorable tasting.
Champagne Salon and its style
The myth of Salon begins with its founder, Eugène-Aimé Salon, who was born not far from Le-Mesnil-sur-Oger in Champagne. He made a career as a fur trader in Paris and became a big name in Parisian nightlife at the turn of the century. Inspired by his brother-in-law, a cellar master on the Côte des Blancs, he came up with the idea of creating a champagne. The first vintage in 1905 was a great success and thanks to the exclusive distribution partner “Maxim’s”, the champagne was soon literally “on everyone’s lips” in Parisian high society. After the death of Aimé Salon, the small champagne house changed hands several times (you can read the interesting history in my champagne book) until it was taken over by the Laurent-Perrier Group in 1989. As a result, some production steps are no longer carried out in Le-Mesnil, but in Tour-sur-Marne.
The grapes for the Salon still come from 20 plots from Mesnil-sur-Oger, some of which are very old, according to the formula developed by Salon’s brother-in-law before the war. One of these – “Le Jardin” – is owned by the house and the grapes from the other 19 come from a small cooperative in the village. Only the “Clos de Mesnil”, as it is known today, was dropped in 1971 after the site was sold to Maison Krug. For decades, the former ageing in wood has given way to stainless steel. Together with the blocking of malolactic fermentation and about ten years of bottle fermentation, this is one of the main stylistic characteristics of Champagne Salon. Only a single cuvée is produced, and only in very good years. Otherwise, the sister house Delamotte uses the base wines. Older vintages are occasionally offered in a “late disgorged” version, which is matured for longer and less fortified.
The tasting
The tasting got off to a strong start with the first trio. 2013 showed green reflections in the glass, the nose still sparse with lots of citrus, apple and brioche, the perlage delicate. In contrast, the acidity was laser-sharp with a slender, sinewy body, immediately reminding us that the Malo is blocked at Salon. A rough diamond from a cool year that will be polished into a shining jewel over the decades. 2012 is completely different: creamy, lush and full of pressure, but still with some noticeable baby fat. The 2008 magnum was again as strong as the big 2008 tasting. The 2007, on the other hand, irritated me with its almost raw acidity, which currently stands completely apart from the wine. A bottle that I had tasted for my champagne book was completely different. At the time, I noted: “very nice acid backbone, with an almost lush mouthfeel”. 2006 from a polarizing vintage (from the Œnothèque Case of the 2008) was quite mature and seemed rather unspectacular in this range due to its lack of precision.
For all its richness and opulence, 2004 was seamless and very precise. Basically, this initially underestimated vintage is currently showing its full greatness. 2002 and 1999, on the other hand, more clearly embodied the classic, creamy style ideal of the turn of the millennium with a comparably high dosage. 1997, on the other hand, was another highlight: fully developed, but extremely vital, full of tension and yet balanced. The 1996 was a miracle of complexity. Despite its maturity, it still has a hint of primary fruit, is vinous on the palate and has a very delicate perlage. But aromatically fully developed, very pure and with present acidity.
After the cork-impaired 1995 (which nevertheless still had some greatness), the 1990 was still lively and in good form, even if the grip was beginning to fade somewhat. 1988, still produced in the Pernod Ricard days, had aged well, with inner richness and good acidity, but also some harsher phenolic notes. 1971 was a mystery with its “erased” vintage on the label. Fitted with a modern cork, it was an obvious fake.
Image rights
Stefan Pegatzky / Time Tunnel Images
