how?
Brown cow
Tried a couple from my case last year and was massively underwhelmed. Sold all my bottles and mags when they released the crazy 08 mag offers. Glad it has shown well for others but not remotely worth the tariff for me.
well, it’s one of three things—the wine isn’t that good, or it is good but doesn’t appeal to a particular taster, or it goes through plenitudes like Dom claims. The idea of the old Oenoteque program, renamed the ridiculous P program, was that the wine closes and opens, changing over the years. Nobody else talks about this. Maybe it was caught at a closed time.
From many reports there is a lot of bottle variation. I’m not sure of the cause. My first bottle was off the charts good at a 1996 horizontal in 2016, a head above Comtes, Dom, Dom Oeno, and Peters Cuvee Speciale. Other folks have reported oxidized or flat bottles echoing your frustration. If I were you, I probably would have sold as well.
Alan could also be right about phases although I’m a little skeptical of it being shut down at this age. But possible. It does need air to open.
I think the plenitude program is for wines still on their lees, late disgorgements. Not that Champagne does no go through phases once disgorged but I think very different processes.
my understanding of the DP P series is like Kelly says - different plentitudes as it ages on lees, rather than just aging in bottle. Otherwise it’d just be a library release of a back vintage
Here some stuff about the Plenitudes:
Moet & Chandon rebranded their former Oenotheque in 2014 by calling each of the 3 stages of release Plenitude as in P1, P2 and P3. P1 refers to the first release about 8 years after harvest, P2 is about 15 years and P3 20-30 years. The P2 will spend 15 years on its lees as opposed to 6 years for P1. P1 is sealed with a crown cap which gives a steady and predictable oxygen transmission rate, at least for a decade and P2 is corked which seems to preserve the freshness better. Also, P1 is dosed at 7 gpl whereas P2 is at 4 gpl.
More: As older vintages rest on the lees in the cellar, it does not improve steadily as might be expected and as many wines do. Instead it remains relatively flat for years at a time and then when nature has had her ways, makes a quantum leap to a new quality plateau, where it again remains flat in terms of improvement for many years. Internally, the staff at Dom Perignon refers to these leaps as “plentitudes,” and have concluded that they occur just 3 times. The 1st plentitude takes about 7-9 years and results in the Dom Perignon most of the world knows, having made its first big improvement. The 2nd happens after another 10 years or so, the 3rd in another 10 years or so (these times are very subject to nature). After the 3rd, there are no more leaps but rather a slow and steady improvement, at least up to the nearly 100 year point they are still trying. Dom Perignon that is not resting on its lees never experiences the 2nd or 3rd plentitude.
I’ve been lucky with the 1996 Salon, all of the (too few) bottles I’ve had were lovely. I’ve felt some of the older vintages were more variable.
-Al
I’ve been lucky enough to have had the '96 Salon many times. I did experience some bottle variation early on but I reckon the last 6-8 bottles have all been stellar. This is one of the greatest young Champagnes I have had.
I like stellar. Happy that’s been your experience Jeremy.
Sold all mine as well. Every time I’ve had it it’s struck me as a very good Champagne with very little of the personality that makes Salon taste like Salon. I decided it wasn’t worth keeping when it reached the same age where other Salons were at a high point but still tasted like it was released 5 minutes ago. I express no opinion on its future but Champagne isn’t a category I can muster up that kind of patience for, considering that if you want something mature you can just walk into a store and pick up a Dom P2 or whatever.