Je soutiens souvent que Salon, dans sa jeuness comme sa maturité se déguste mieux sur 2 ou 3 heures plutôt qu'une vingtaine de minutes, mais ce luxe nous ne pouvons pas toujours l'implémenter.
Peter Liem, journaliste et ecrivain américain, s'est donné les moyens et le courage de sacrifier quelques années (le temps qu'il faudra) pour découvrir le Champagne en Champagne. Cela fait bientôt deux ans qu'il subit le climat culturel et cultural champenois pour mieux comprendre les facettes de l'appellation. Son blog est un journal intime de ses expériences, et il y donne une analyse très intéressante de Salon 1997.
I really think that Salon, when young or mature should be tasted over 2 or 3 hours rather than over a meer 20 minutes. I guess this goes for most wines, but time is a luxury.
Peter Liem, journalist/writer took up the courageous task of moving to Champagne to better understand the wine it produces. It has been nearly two years since he arrived and he has the scars to prove it. Peter's blog is a journal of his experiences here, below a very interesting analysis is made of Salon 1997.
Extraits : click to read.
"The 1997 Salon is, in a word, magnificent. The nose is full and creamy in aroma, with notes of hazelnut and lemon peel, and despite its richness it feels elegantly balanced and discreetly composed. With its bold depth of fruit, one might expect it to be very ample and plush on the palate, but in fact it is surprisingly restrained, demonstrating a marvelous clarity of fragrance and a keenly focused, incisively pure minerality. It’s more approachable than the 1996 was at the same stage, although it’s hardly a forward wine: after the initial burst of fruit on the front of the palate, the minerality comes very much to the foreground, and the fruit retracts coyly into its shell. Yet as usual with Salon, the finish is a picture of finesse, harmony and grace. Tasting this wine with lunch over the next two hours allowed the fruit to re-emerge and develop more complexity and nuance, but over that time the minerality grew even more pronounced, dominating the wine with its pungent and inimitably chalky grip.
Overall, this feels like a very classical vintage of Salon to me, more so than either the 1995 or 1996, which were more muscular and powerful. If I had to compare it with a previous vintage I might say the 1988, but with a bit more overt fruitiness (and just as much chalky minerality). It’s thrilling now for its mineral expression, but as with any vintage of Salon, it really needs another decade (or two) in the cellar to show its best."