I thought Frankenwein was from Bavaria…
Nothing to do with wine, but I thought I would throw this in anyway.
Describing the great British Formula 1 commentator, Murray Walker
Clive James hit the nail on the head: “In his quieter moments, he sounds like his trousers are on fire.”
Yes, I would say this Smith & Hook wine on Winebid does overdeliver.
92Wine Enthusiast
Truly a wine that overdelivers, this packs molten fudge cake, vanilla-laced black-currant syrup and chocolate pudding with a fresh sprig of mint on the nose. The palate is soft and dynamic, with ripe black currants given complexity though licorice and butter-softened roasting herbs, all wrapped in tannins that keep the flavors steady throughout.
Butter-softened roasting herbs on fudge cake/chocolate pudding with vanilla-laced blackcurrant syrup. Yum, yum!
When Black Forest cake simply isn’t enough.
I wonder if that was supposed to make it sound like the wine’s good? Because to me that sounded like a wine I’d find pretty repulsive! 
Hard to imagine a more grotesque sounding wine!
When I read the above note, I immediately thought “sounds like Matt Kettmann”, and sure enough, he is the author.
I sometimes find his descriptors to be esoteric and/or hyper-specific, but his preferences are easy enough to infer and the style of a wine is rarely in doubt.
The description is so vivid in this example, that it’s easy to ignore the score and parse out whether one would enjoy this wine. Of course, he could have said “expertly produced full throttle Cab with primary flavors of black currant, chocolate vanilla” and conveyed a similar message. But he has a style, and has to keep it lively I presume.
But this will sell the snot out of that wine to the audience to which he is writing
You are a generous man.
I certainly agree that “the style of a wine is rarely in doubt.”
2018 La Gaffelière, St-Emilion
99 points Vinous: “The 2018 La Gaffelière is hands down one of the wines of the vintage. Towering in its stature and vertical lift, the 2018 dazzles > right out of the gate> . Inky dark fruit, mocha, spice, licorice and leather all run through this deep, wonderfully pliant Saint-Émilion. The 2018 is rich, deep and beautifully resonant, with tremendous depth and tons of stature that builds, all framed by beams of supporting minerality that confer vibrancy. La Gaffelière is distinctive, alluring and arresting > right out of the gate> . It is another magnificent showing from this reborn estate. The blend is 63% Merlot and 37% Cabernet Franc. Magnifique! (AG)” (03/2021)
My kingdom for an editor!
Where to start?
“Hands down one of the wines of the vintage.” Well, yes, you could say that about any vintage wine. Sounds like something an ironic Brit would say about a mediocre wine.
“Towering in its … vertical lift.” Say, what?
“Tons of stature that builds.” Say, what?
“Beams of supporting minerality that confer vibrancy.” Minerality supports? Minerality conveys vibrancy?
“Distinctive, alluring and arresting.” [Puts away thesaurus]
Oh, and two “right out of the gates.”
And two “statures”!
#winning
Towering tons of stature!
But, oddly, no pedigree.
Michael Jordan reference for the NBA market! Well played AG, well played.
Oh snap! NBA players are into Burgundy…
Comes now:
2017 Oddero Barolo
“The 2017 Barolo is a very pretty, elegant wine and one of the few straight Barolos in this vintage that is truly finessed. Translucent and so > expressive> , the Oddero Barolo is wonderfully > expressive > > right out of the gate> . Crushed flowers, sweet red berry, mint and cinnamon all grace this super-expressive Barolo.”~Antonio Galloni
Two “expressives” plus “right out of the gate.”
What? “super-expressive” doesn’t count? 
I’m not a native English speaker. So honest question here: What is wrong with “right out of the gate”? I so far read it like this (in critics and CT notes): It tells me that the wines doesn’t need time to open op, that it is more an “in your face” wine (and not a subtle, “slowling creeping up on you” one which needs time to unfurl and show all its nuances). I found that information, that expression usually quite helpful as I love the other category (hence I passed on the La Gaffeliere).
I’m inclined to go easy on two “right out of the gates”, can you imagine having to write one zillion tasting notes in a week or two without repeating yourself or having an editor? Feels like some weird circle of hell.
But in general this is a good example of why I just don’t trust critics. Show of hands for anyone who really believes that the 2018 La Gaffeliere is a 99 point wine that is “hands down one of the wines of the vintage” – which I interpret as meaning on some kind of comparable level with Lafite, Latour, Cheval Blanc, etc. Do you believe that? Does Galloni? The hype train feels just absolutely out of control.
Now maybe I’m too cynical because I’ve been into Bordeaux for a long time and remember La Gaffeliere as kind of a meh OK producer, maybe they have magically transformed into the equivalent of a first growth thanks to a new consultant or something.
If it makes you feel any better, Jeb was the low critic with a 93. Most critics were in the mid-90s. Antonio was a bit of an outlier.
This La Gaffeliere is exactly why you should follow critics! They 9 in the bottle ratings I have show a pretty consistent high score of 95.8 on average, i.e. the wine is punching above its weight. Galloni is the highest with 99. Parker (LPB) and Wine Enthusiast scored it 97. Decanter, Beck 96. Martin, Suckling 95. WS 94 and Dunnuck 93. Pretty consistent high ratings considering how much this wine costs. I’m not a fan of the winery either but if so many critics get to such high score, this really has to punch above its class in 2018! I agree that one critic with one tasting of one bottle might be wrong sometimes, but a consensus of critics which tasted all the same wine, independently from each other and on top it’s not even a wine which gets free “brand” extra points (a Mouton or Margaux would get)… This exact La Gaffeliere 2018 might be one of the stronger cases one could present why a wine lover should follow critics. Without the critics many consumers would miss this potential bargain.
My advise would not to get caught up in one single rating of one critic (unless this critic really hits the nail for you 9 out of 10 times but I haven’t found this critic yet and I don’t think it exists).
There’s nothing wrong with the phrase, but it’s a cliche, so it should be used sparingly. Using it twice in the same review is very sloppy writing.
There is no way to avoid using “tannic” or “cedar” or “mocha” frequently if you’re reviewing Bordeaux. But reusing cliche metaphors like “out of the gate” and endlessly using clunky (or meaningless) expressions such as “beams of tannin,” “closing shades of nuance” and “in all its dimensions” – or closing dozens of reviews with “It’s as simple as that” – shows a tin ear for language and repetitiveness.
A 99-point St Em not called Cheval Blanc raises major red flags to me. A modern critics’ darling raises major red flags for me. This is a pretty glossy Chateau. Look who owns it. This is precisely why not to listen to many critics, especially the one that wrote this pretty bad note.
1 Like