Total opposite of creamy, maybe it’s the razor that you use to spread the cream(y)(Dom) onto your brioche (Krug).
Agree with Robert - Salon is defined by razor sharp acidity and tons of crisp, white fruit notes. Nothing creamy about this champagne at all.
Alan,
If you find Krug creamy and DP not creamy, we have two different definitions for the word as it pertains to Champagne.
+1
Alan,
You need to go buy some 2002 Piper Heidsieck Rare. That’ll be absolutely right up your alley. Also, if you can source it, try a 1999 Tatty Comtes instead of the 2006, and you’ll understand why folks love the fine mousse, lovely creamy character of a good Comtes. And that’s not a superior vintage, but it is a very good Comtes.
It sounds like you like richer styles of champagne. Prior renditions of Krug MV and most Bolly GA are rich, slightly oxidative, nutty, bready styles of champagne. But most Krug vintage is racier. Maybe look for some Krug 163 or source a 160. See if you really like that style.
Champagne of the vintage. Cristal second, Clos des Goisses third. IMO
IMO 1999 is fantastic vintage for Comtes. It’s not 1995 but then, what is?
Two very good recommendations above (Piper Rare 02 and Krug 160) that I have tasted, based on the described target. Well stored older NV Bollinger (mid 90s) is also very appealing as well.
In a similar style (broad, orchard fruits, fine mousse, creamy texture), and at slightly lower price points, I have LOVED Pol Roger’s 2008 brut & BdB, along with NV Vilmart’s Grand Cellier d’or, which gets a lot of love here I think.
I see that I’m going to have to do a little work and source a 95. I’ve never had it.
The 95 is great but I’ve preferred the 96 every time I’ve had it.
I have had the 96 Comte twice this year and it is fantastic.
The 1996 is fantastic and may some day surpass the 95 but imo the 95 is still better, at least as of last year.
Agreed and for me as of last month.
I will say that the gap has closed between the two, but for me, I’m don’t think the '96 will ever surpass the '95.
I`m a big +1 with both assessments.
Interesting. I love the 1996, but for me the 1995 is more complex and even better. 1996 Salon next to 1995 CdC would be great - never done that.
I’m a contrarian. After a few cases of both over the years, I much prefer the 96.
On Salon, the other factor to consider is that it doesn’t go through malo. By definition, it won’t be as creamy as those that have undergone mlf.
Had a second bottle of '96 Salon from a case I had in storage - still the greatest young champagne I have had, and just starting to really get in the zone, and 100% worth every cent…
Krug 160 was very tasty. I preferred that one over the 164 at a recent tasting.
Short answer is no - it’s fantastic but has its ‘faults’ like any other champagne house. Buy the vintage, not the house, is the mantra i’ve always believed in and it hasn’t failed me.