For me it has to be “funk”. It clearly means many different things to many different people so I usually have no idea what aroma people are trying to convey. And to add insult to injury some people use it to describe brett so if it is used it makes me worry the wine could be bretty but there is really no way to know since the term is so imprecise,
Any word in French that is used when there is a perfectly acceptable English term for it, and the rest of the note is written in English. Each of those French words simply mean ‘pompous ass’ to me, a la ‘pain grille’
The thing I hate the most, and there is a specific critic who is really bad with this, is the piling on of nonsense superlative adjectives e.g. “glorious” “staggering” “mind-boggling” etc. to indicate the intensity of a wine. That’s just bad writing and really difficult to read.
But if you’re looking for a flavor descriptor, I’m going to have to go with with “burning embers,” or if you want one that’s mostly IMO lost its meaning, “minerality.”
I’d say that the vast majority of the times I’ve encountered its use, “ripe and oaky” appear to be what the taster is in fact suggesting (e.g., “a very modern tasting Cali PN.”) I personally take issue with the term due to its interpretive ambiguity. According to Merriam-Webster, “modern” is defined as “involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas.” While I can very well see picking grapes at higher brix and 100% new oak-ing wine up the wazoo fitting this definition, one could counter that the more recent swing towards stem-inclusion, whole-cluster fermentation, higher acid, and lower alc seen in various wines could, temporally at least, be considered more modern.
I simply think that the word “modern” is a cop-out and a generalization.