Galloni and 19 Napa Reviews

[John_Glas]

LPB also seemed to indicate this wine had smoke taint…Why do these wineries keep pushing out wines with smoke taint.

simple the average consumer buys every vintage based on the winery. They will sip and swallow and will think it is great.

Orin Swift all day , baby !!

Just had my allocation overnighted as it was cold in MN.

[Wes_Barton]

I’ve just read through this thread and it is a hilarious microcosm of the larger Wine Forum re scores, critics, favorites, excuses, stylistic preferences, experience v. professional criticism, etc. A fun ride.

I have a few thoughts. First, there is absolutely a prevalent style in Napa. It may not be as big and jammy as it was, but it’s 14.4-14.9% abv, copious new oak (like 60-100% new french), in a fruit dominant but structured style. Some go bigger. Some go a little bit leaner. But this idea that there are so many exceptions to the norm is probably true in number of wineries and number of pieces of marketing material that suggest that, but it certainly has not been my experience drinking high end Napa cabs over the past 15 years. There has certainly been a correction AT CERTAIN WINERIES that used to be over the top and are now a bit more restrained, but “bit more restrained” still has little in common with wines being produced in 1991, and probably more in common with big bombers from the late 2000s than the wines from 1991. This thread debate reminds me of when people list off traditional napa cabs and mention Forman without somehow acknowledging that for years they’ve been producing 15% abv bombers.

Second, I would like to see Galloni run a second round blind tasting in which half of the bottles are second reviews of wines he panned, and half are bottles that scored well during his first review. If he has the same opinion on a second go around in a semi-blind setting, then keep em panned. If he changes his mind, let it be known. I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve had days where I just suck butt at tasting. Can’t smell well, can’t taste well. Three days later I might be spot on. I still remember being on a trip with my dad 11 years ago and on day 1 I could just not get anything from the wines we drank. He was gushing and I was just not on. Great wines, perfect condition, and I couldn’t get much at all. Change of location, temperature, allergens, you name it. Day 3 I was back and it was fun again. Maybe a root day and a fruit day? Lol. Or hell, maybe Galloni and I brushed our teeth too close to tasting appointments that day, or maybe we burned our mouth on a cafe americano.

Third, I think it’s great when critics hammer a bad wine. It’s good for accountability. If it’s over the top, kill it and say so. If it’s a gross underperformer, kill it and say so. You have paying customers who want your honest opinion. You have an ethical obligation to provide it. I own some Alpha Omega wines, and I am willing to believe that Galloni’s note is spot on for the 2019 ERA. I’m trying to get off their list. They’re 15+ % abv oak bombs. Sometimes their Beckstoffer To Kalon and Las Piedras can have a line of acidity and verve that balances out the size, but ERA is like everything to 11.

So, the prevalent style of all Napa Cabs is the same as the prevalent style of “high end” Napa Cabs? Isn’t it true the old school-style producers tend to get much lower scores on their wines? That “high end” is defined by self-promotion and high scores and all that? We aren’t that far past an era where the quality of Napa Cab was pretty much the domain of one critic, James Laube. How often did he rate a classic styled wine above 92? Why would any producer who wanted to make that style create a business model that depended on scores? And, of course, it would be very difficult for them to charge outrageous prices without the critical buzz. But, if that’s your preferred style, perhaps you like a (now) $80-120 wine over some $500+ extreme IPA wine equivalent or $250 blueberry milkshake. Not “high end”?

On point#2, I can’t speak for all publications, but some notify the winery of the rating enough before publication that they have a chance to re-submit. So, there is a sort of appeals process. Also, some request two bottles of everything (though it sounds like some Napa stuff is done via small sample bottles?), so critics can investigate any apparent anomaly.

[Wes_Barton]

I think all the comments about ‘reviewers not being afraid to call out wines on the lower scale’ is valid . . . but when you find a 15 point difference, especially when others are rating the wine 95+, the discrepancy should definitely make one wonder. Were these bottles not representative of what others tasted? Or were there other issues at play here?

I know I’ve brought up SQN in the past - substitute Saxum or Alban or whoever you know of that always gets wonderful scores. If one of the top 4 or 5 reviewers was an ‘outlier’, one would wonder, especially if there score was 10+ points difference.

Cheers

About two decades ago WS did an article with a blind taste-off of OR PN vs Burg with their two respective critics. Wines were in pairs. They had to guess which was which, rate and score them. Often wrong on the guesses. Some had point disparities at least as much as 15 points.

Great article, but a little too much “men behind the curtain” kneecapping of the publication’s ultimate wine authority status, so they never repeated it.

But, as I often point out, about 3/4 of wines in our blind tasting group get both first and last place votes. Some of those wines have great love-hate disparities that would equate to 25 points or more.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

LPB also seemed to indicate this wine had smoke taint…Why do these wineries keep pushing out wines with smoke taint.

simple the average consumer buys every vintage based on the winery. They will sip and swallow and will think it is great.

I know but still you would think the wineries would have the smallest amount of pride for what is being sent out…I understand they need to survive but still…

That is one of the worst issues with smoke taint. The molecules that are bound up within the wine unbinds slowly over time, and wines that appear fine, show the smoke taint later on. This can take up to 3-4 years to happen.

And while there is testing that can be done, the compounds tested for do not correllate with perception of smoke in the wine 100% of the time(or anywhere close to 100%).

[David_Bu3ker]

Of course the more people pound on the idea of taint, the more people will think it’s there, even when it is not.

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

We have board members that I respect who believe winemakers are part of terroir. I don’t agree, but if winemakers are part of terroir, then surely smoke effects are, also.

I just hope everybody is upfront with it.

Honestly this is the first time I have ever heard for smoke taint to be acceptable, however I do agree if it is part of the terroir then as long as they are openly admit it, I suppose it could be ‘accepted’. However as a distributor I would not distribute smoke tainted wines

Thank you.

I don’t see a disaster like a fire as being part of terroir. I can see how someone might go for it, just like drought, rain, frost, etc…but smoke is taint, not terroir…to my definition, which may be my error!

I sure hope fires and smoke don’t become part of California’s terroir.

[Scott_Brunson]

simple the average consumer buys every vintage based on the winery. They will sip and swallow and will think it is great.

Orin Swift all day , baby !!

Just had my allocation overnighted as it was cold in MN.

Ain’t no way that stuff is freezing.

[Ian_Dorin]

Maybe Galloni’s taste is changing away from the prevalent Napa style?

He LOVES Colgin, and they are still as quintessential as any in Napa.

[Ian_Dorin]

Out of curiosity I checked a few of the really low Galloni scores against WA reviews. Galloni gave the Rudd Oakville Estate an 85. LPB gave it a 98+. That is a crazy difference in reviews. [I don’t think I have had one of their wines in a decade so I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other on which of those reviews is accurate, though I tend to find Galloni’s reviews more helpful.]

The [2018] Rudd Estate reviews are an interesting example. Here’s Antonio’s note:

“The 2018 Red Oakville Estate is similar to the Samantha’s in this vintage in that it lacks fruit as well as body. An aggressive finish does not help.”

Here’s Lisa’s:

“Deep garnet-purple colored, it sashays out of the glass with flamboyant scents of candied violets, red roses, black raspberries and fragrant earth over a core of cassis, wild blueberries and Morello cherries with a waft of pencil lead. Medium to full-bodied, the palate is an exercise in poise, featuring beautifully balanced velvety tannins and seamless freshness framing the opulent black and red berry layers, finishing very long and perfumed.”

There is no way that these are comparable bottles. This goes way beyond differences in palate. AG’s “lacks fruit as well as body.” LPB’s has flamboyant fruit and an opulent body. There’s just no way trained tasters could be that diametrically opposite unless the wines they tasted were diametrically opposite.

One of these two critics is currently unemployed…

FWIW, I struggled continuously with Lisa’s reviews. I found her inconsistent, and never included context. She also never included anything interesting that might have changed at the winery from year to year either.

[Ian_Dorin]

Setting aside the scores, I could certainly see how those two reviews could be about the same wine.

Exactly. I’ve been at tastings where people are in love with the perfect fruit of a wine and I’m thinking one more day in the fermenter would have meant vinegar.

I wonder how many of the wineries that received the out of box below 90 scores will host Galloni anymore. Not towing the line with 90+ score every year like a good little reviewer could lose him friends.

Galloni has said before that he’s persona non grata at a few places. Eisele, most famously — at least in Napa.

And Maybach.

But seriously, if I was making wine, and got a bad score from Galloni, I’d be doing some self reflection, not stopping him from coming back.

[Ian_Dorin]

Remember when Galloni gave Christopher Tynans wines scores in the 80’s or none at all? These wines are anything but the “typical” Napa wines so that debunks that theory.

FWIW I think he may have personal vendetta’s against some producers, or has reasons outside our knowledge to review (score) certain wines in certain ways. This is more and more apparent as the years go on… All good though - its his name/legacy and there are lots of different places to get informed, educated opinions on the worlds best wines.

Cheers

I’m sorry, but that’s an egregious accusation, and if he did, he would be out of business right now, not growing in strength.

And if you go back and read his reviews of Tynan, he actually notes in the reviews that he was fully expecting to love the wines because he liked his work at Colgin, and said some other glowing things about him too, so that’s not accurate at all.

[Ian_Dorin]

Re Bevan: What boggles my mind and what I can’t figure out is the discrepancy between the Harbison branded wines (88 / 90 / 91) and Bevan Cellars’ Harbison (97). Same vineyard (which is small in the base case), same winemaker. The objective only difference are the vineyard blocks and pricing. Can’t imagine blocks that close together would yield such different results. I had the 2019 Bevan Harbison at a tasting back in June and it was in line with AG’s 97.

I can, I frankly don’t like the Harbison wines. I like the Chardonnay and Pinot, but not the Cabs.

[Ian_Dorin]

Sounds like bottle variation to me.

I’m not specifically picking on you, as this had been said ad nauseam on this thread, but why is this the prevailing argument about Galloni’s reviews? Why can’t it be as simple as he tasted what he tasted, and reported as much? Galloni has a good enough palate to know when a wine is flawed and should not be reviewed, and clearly has an understanding of what to look for in terms of profile of smoke taint.

I got a lot out of this report. It’s clear that not all Cabs (or reviews) are created equal. His reviews of Quivet/Myriad are so much more inline with how I view them. I can make the arguments that people are overrating the wines. Are they good, well made wines? Yes, and also happen to be well priced, but they are not in the same arena as say Spottswoode in terms of quality. Giving both Myriad and Spottswoode a 100 point score blows my mind, and not in a good way!

[Cris_Whetstone]

I think all the comments about ‘reviewers not being afraid to call out wines on the lower scale’ is valid . . . but when you find a 15 point difference, especially when others are rating the wine 95+, the discrepancy should definitely make one wonder. Were these bottles not representative of what others tasted? Or were there other issues at play here?

I know I’ve brought up SQN in the past - substitute Saxum or Alban or whoever you know of that always gets wonderful scores. If one of the top 4 or 5 reviewers was an ‘outlier’, one would wonder, especially if there score was 10+ points difference.

Cheers

Or instead of insinuating Galloni has “other issues at hand” and agreeing with the person who claims he is paying off a grudge, why do you not question the routine 90+ pt scores the other critics hand out as if all the wines are unassailable? What does Galloni gain by doing this? What do critics get by constantly stroking high end wines?

[Wes_Barton]

Re Bevan: What boggles my mind and what I can’t figure out is the discrepancy between the Harbison branded wines (88 / 90 / 91) and Bevan Cellars’ Harbison (97). Same vineyard (which is small in the base case), same winemaker. The objective only difference are the vineyard blocks and pricing. Can’t imagine blocks that close together would yield such different results. I had the 2019 Bevan Harbison at a tasting back in June and it was in line with AG’s 97.

I can, I frankly don’t like the Harbison wines. I like the Chardonnay and Pinot, but not the Cabs.

Sounds like the discrepancy is he makes his in his style and he makes his client’s in that client’s style. Freaky.

[Brian_Tuite]

Of course the more people pound on the idea of taint, the more people will think it’s there, even when it is not.

[NealW]

Second, I would like to see Galloni run a second round blind tasting in which half of the bottles are second reviews of wines he panned, and half are bottles that scored well during his first review. If he has the same opinion on a second go around in a semi-blind setting, then keep em panned. If he changes his mind, let it be known. I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve had days where I just suck butt at tasting. Can’t smell well, can’t taste well. Three days later I might be spot on. I still remember being on a trip with my dad 11 years ago and on day 1 I could just not get anything from the wines we drank. He was gushing and I was just not on. Great wines, perfect condition, and I couldn’t get much at all. Change of location, temperature, allergens, you name it. Day 3 I was back and it was fun again. Maybe a root day and a fruit day? Lol. Or hell, maybe Galloni and I brushed our teeth too close to tasting appointments that day, or maybe we burned our mouth on a cafe americano.

I’d be hard-pressed to imagine that before giving a scathing review (sub 88) for an expensive and otherwise well reviewed wine that big critics don’t go back to samples, try a 2nd bottle to make sure it wasn’t flawed etc…Way to much on the line for both parties to not do so. But I’ve never seen that discussed.

[larry_schaffer]

Of course the more people pound on the idea of taint, the more people will think it’s there, even when it is not.

So don’t talk about it and act like it doesn’t exist?

[Brian_Tuite]

Of course the more people pound on the idea of taint, the more people will think it’s there, even when it is not.

So don’t talk about it and act like it doesn’t exist?

In this thread it is mentioned that two 2018 wines were called out for smoke taint. I’ll bet you more than 2 wines had VA, or Brett. Lots more were rated low for being over-ripe, unbalanced abominations. So yes, if you want to stir the pot have some worthy evidence. Because I don’t see anyone saying, yeah, I have lots of smoke tainted 2018s in my cellar. Just one person in another thread saying Outpost wouldn’t respond to his email to them about a wine having an issue.

That’s why I agreed with David’s post. Talk about it enough and maybe you can find it too. Whether it exists or not. So maybe don’t talk about it like it exists until it actually does or you’re liable to talk it into existence when it may not.?

[mike_pobega]

Second, I would like to see Galloni run a second round blind tasting in which half of the bottles are second reviews of wines he panned, and half are bottles that scored well during his first review. If he has the same opinion on a second go around in a semi-blind setting, then keep em panned. If he changes his mind, let it be known. I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve had days where I just suck butt at tasting. Can’t smell well, can’t taste well. Three days later I might be spot on. I still remember being on a trip with my dad 11 years ago and on day 1 I could just not get anything from the wines we drank. He was gushing and I was just not on. Great wines, perfect condition, and I couldn’t get much at all. Change of location, temperature, allergens, you name it. Day 3 I was back and it was fun again. Maybe a root day and a fruit day? Lol. Or hell, maybe Galloni and I brushed our teeth too close to tasting appointments that day, or maybe we burned our mouth on a cafe americano.

I’d be hard-pressed to imagine that before giving a scathing review (sub 88) for an expensive and otherwise well reviewed wine that big critics don’t go back to samples, try a 2nd bottle to make sure it wasn’t flawed etc…Way to much on the line for both parties to not do so. But I’ve never seen that discussed.

Search 2010 Maybach & Galloni.