From magnum. Outstanding quality, especially for the price. Very fine mousse, with a generous amount of orchard fruit, followed with a slightly toasty note without veering into anything too bready or yeasty. Clean and rounded, but lacking just that extra sense of concentration and cut.

Absolutely fantastic champagne, showing very youthfully right now and lacking the layers and depth of the more aged vintages today. This has plenty of electricity, with a bright, tart citrus note that is really enjoyable. A chalky texture on the finish, even though the midpalate has a mild cremy texture, this showcases the verve of 2007 chardonnay so well. Ample weight and concentration to support the high acids here. In the same vein as the 2006/2007 Comtes de Champagne pair, the 2007 is just so obviously the better wine.

Certainly the least interesting of the Salon vintages we tasted today. A bit of a whiff -- muted on both the nose and palate, sadly. This is distinctly mushroomy and shows a lack of acidity relative to the other wines in the lineup. A bit flabby (again, context) without the brightness and vivacity on the palate that all the other wines had. This is nevertheless a very nice bottle of champagne but doesn't play anywhere close to what should reasonably be expected of something at this price point. A consensus disappointment.

This seemed like a carbon copy of the 2007, but kicked up a slight notch. It's not that much appreciably better, but the maturity here seemed to give this a little more roundness and complexity on the palate. There's a lot of the same orchard fruit notes, but they come across a little sweeter, and there's a honeyed tone to it as well. On the palate, this has incredible, bright acidity just like the 2007, but with just a little more maturity to round it off.

I've kind of waffled about this wine a few times, trying to figure out whether it drinks at the same level as the legendary 1996 or not. Today, I think this bottle was flirting very close to that level. The nose shows nascent secondary notes, with a hint of stone fruit supplementing the more typical orchard fruits (which I use as shorthand for myself to refer to maleae). Complex and layered, with a delightful chalky texture, this is starting to show some maturity, and while it doesn't feel like it has the racy, intense acidity of the 1996, it makes up for it with its broader, more expansive texture on the palate.

Hands down the wine of the flight, even if I felt that the 2002 was encroaching a bit on this vintage's glory. A phenomenal bottle of champagne, and probably one of the best bottles of champagne that has been made in my lifetime so far. This really has it all. It kicks the concentration and intensity up to max -- it's a wine that's almost painful to drink quickly because of it. Mature, with developed secondary characteristics but still with plenty of exciting, primary acidity. It's really the complete package. With regards to bottle variation, the bottle today was likely sitting around my average.

Quite an entrancing wine -- it's not as dirty as the old Maume's reputation would have led me to believe. Definitely some autumnal, mulchy qualities, but the fruit is red, lifted, and distinct here. On the palate, this has a bit of a watermelon note that's quite odd, but otherwise this comes off with a little less (typical) fruit than I would expect and like. The tannins are resolved, this is one I would drink up sooner than later.

Funky to the point I wondered if it could have been slightly corked (it wasn't). The fruit here is really lovely, and there's a depth and richness that I really like. I just wish that this was a lot cleaner. Autumnal in its damp leaves and mushroom notes.

Impressive, old Burgundy. Despite the age, the fruit here shows generously and brilliantly, and there's a good mix of sweet red fruits in a slightly pot pourri sort of way here. Certainly there are the typical autumnal notes, but they are more accents than the sole feature. Despite starting to thin from age, this still has impressive weight and definitely shows the expected grand cru power.

This suffered a lot from being next to the Salons -- "failed Champagne," as our host called it. It's definitely a very different beast and shows chardonnay in a very different light -- weighty and oaky and very broad on the palate. The contrast causes the oak to show through much more than it would if this bottle were at the table by itself. Not as complex as the best bottles of Ramonet I've had, it's hard to fairly evaluate this bottle because of the stylistic contrast.

Disgorged October 2021, 3 g/L dosage. Just not my type of champagne. Lean with a nice white fruit streak, but lacking in breadth on the palate. Comes off a little thin, with a bit too much acid versus the dosage and fruit.

From magnum. I have to wonder whether El Maestro Sierra is in fact my favourite sherry producer. This bottle was incredible. It's so lifted, elegant, and light, with just a hint of sotolon. Lots of salinity and freshness here, with vibrant acidity that makes this a dangerously easy sherry to drink. I could readily see this as a table wine, it's so light and lifted. Delicious.