Glenfarclas 17 Year

GLENFARCLAS SHOWDOWN Glenfarclas 10 Glenfarclas 17 Glenfarclas 25 Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve not yet reviewed: and while these are each quite different expressions, and thus should contain noticeable differences, they are the only Glenfarclases I have in my collection, and the “Glenfarclas” aspect is a common denominator for comparison. I’ve tasted each of them previously, several times, and my recollection is that Glenfarclas is somewhat subtle across the board, which is a bit unusual for a sherried whisky. Let’s see if my recollection is accurate. Glenfarclas 10 Color is a clear Pantone 153. The fragrant nose was immediately apparent upon pouring, with clear sherry notes: dark plums, carrot cake, dark butterscotch, and warm mulled cider. There appears to be a very thin, almost parrafin-waxy mouthcoating aspect in the mouth. The palate has some honeyed sweetness, some char, and a surprising spice for the 40% ABV. There is an almost smokey burnt orange on the finish, which is in-between short and medium in length. But keeping the mouth closed, inhaling and exhaling through the nose, an almost petroleum, tar-like phenolic element appears much later: subtle, but lingering very long (the aforementioned paraffin wax is also a derivative of the petroleum process; obviously there’s no petroleum here, but the two may be related in some way). I’ve written many times about the economics of 80-proof whisk(e)y: it is the bare minimum proof that is allowed. A distiller dilutes the distillate from the barrel with water to reach a particular proof (ABV); thus an 80-proof whisky will give the largest amount of whisky allowable from the same amount of “raw” whisky, thus increasing yield and number of bottles. That being said, this is Farclas’s entry-level whisky, and given the bottle’s age statement and the brand’s otherwise traditional, old-school craftsmanship, I can look past this shortcoming a bit. Would I prefer the more standard 43% ABV / 86 proof? Unquestionably. But as is, the whisky is complex, aromatic, and flavorful. It is without a doubt the best 80-proof whisk(e)y I’ve ever experienced, and far more complex than I remember. This is a whisky which, like Oban, would appeal to the entire spectrum of consumers, from neophyte to connoisseur; it is approachable, pleasant, and yet complex. Widely available, and priced around $50. Would I buy it again? Without question. Solid 4.0 on the Distiller scale. I feel certain that I’d rate the 12-year higher, given its 43% ABV. I can’t wait to try it. Chill-filtered; uncolored; 40% ABV. Glenfarclas 17 Surprisingly, the color of the 17 is a clear Pantone 153, despite the longer maturation; perhaps the sherry-cask aging component is of the same length as the 10-year. The initial impression is similar to the 10, but a bit more muted on the nose: it begins with both pomander and stewed cinnamon apples, unexpected strawberry jam, Christmas cake, vanilla, and dates. Whereas butterscotch was evident on the 10, it’s not nearly as noticeable here. The entry is smoother, with some caramelized sugar sweetness and a gentle espresso bitterness, and the higher alcohol is kept in check. The finish is medium in length, with a soft, wet-oak element, and a smidgin of woody tannins; but it lacks that lingering petroleum aspect that was evident with the 10. The 17-year-old Farclas can be found for around $125. It is a different whisky than the 10-year, as it should be; but the overall impression is one of more subtlety and smoothness rather than overt “betterness” per se. Would I buy it again? Not as quickly as I would the 10-year, but I’d like to think that I would, despite the significantly higher price. The extra age is always a positive, even if only intellectually. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Chill-filtered; uncolored; 43% ABV. Glenfarclas 25 The clear Pantone 153 color is identical to the 17 and 10, which seems unusual given the older age. This is different: the tar that I noted on the 10-year has returned, this time on the nose, along with dark honey, apple cider, and warm spice cake—with a pat of now-melted butter (perhaps the extra wood exposure introduces some diacetyl). Like the 10-year, the butterscotch has returned, but this time it’s not Brach’s candy, but some sort of imaginary artisanal, rare, perfected butterscotch—if such a thing exists. Cocoa. Vanilla. Espresso. Chocolate-covered cherries. There’s no real viscosity on the palate; the smoothness is not in the creaminess of the mouthfeel, but rather in the flavor integration. Sweet, but not cloyingly so. Lots of sherry on the finish, as well as some drying, leathery notes. The closed-mouth, inhale-exhale tar aspect returns, having skipped a generation (the 17-year), though not as pronounced as the 10-year. There’s something special about drinking a 25-year-old whisky. Time cannot be substituted or rushed. I purchased this particular bottle a few years ago, and who knows how long it had been sitting on the shelf; the combination of these three items mean that it was distilled well before the millennium. The Farclas 25 drinks like a 25-year-old First-Growth Bordeaux: the age is apparent, but there’s plenty of gas in the tank. It’s the same “iron fist in a silken glove” that is often applied to a quality, aged Cabernet or meritage blend. Glenfarclas has 40- and 50-year old expressions available; and while I don’t know if I’ll have the opportunity to experience them, I’m willing to bet that my overall impression with be similar—a combination of youthful exuberance and aged experience, imparting the best of both worlds. Would I buy it again? I’d like to, though I’ll savor this one for some time. I’ve shared it with one or two friends on special occasions. I don’t recall exactly what I paid for it—I think it was around $150 a few years back. An Internet search reveals that it can be had for $200-250 currently. That’s certainly not inexpensive, but if you can swing it, and can take the time to delineate complexity from ostentatiousness, the answer is a resounding yes. 4.5 on the Distiller scale. Uncolored; 43% ABV. Overall summary Glenfarclas is a traditional, family-owned, old-school distillery. To my knowledge, they don’t produce NAS whisky. They also don’t employ the marketing hype or fancy packaging of some other distilleries; they just produce damn good whisky that achieves an objective goodness on its own merits. It is priced relatively lower than other whiskies with similar age statements; perhaps that’s a function of not being owned by one of the corporate behemoths like Diageo or Pernod Ricard. I’ve not enjoyed any of my three Farclas bottlings in some time—a lapse in good judgment that I’ll rectify in short order. Each of these expressions is outstanding—the 10-year in particular, given the 40% ABV, and the fact that it is the youngest of the three. Given the quality of the 10-year, I would actively seek out the 12-year: while it only possesses two extra years of aging, it has the higher 43% ABV, and I would expect an even more enjoyable flavor profile. And I’d love to have the Glenfarclas 105 cask strength, which I see rarely in my neck of the woods, and have yet to purchase. I’ll be keeping my eyes out for it. The Glenfarclas range, or at least these three bottlings, represents a different sherry-cask influence, in my experience: they’re a bit more youthful. Whereas a whisky connoisseur commonly associates dark fruit, stewed fruit, and more intense baking spices with sherry-casked drams, each of these Glenfarclas expressions emit a younger fruitiness. These aren’t sherry bombs like Aberlour A’Bunadh (which I adore) or Edradour (which I also love); nor do they exhibit the refinement of a sherry-finished whisky like Macallan 18, which, while expensive, is nevertheless a high quality benchmark. Glenfarclas to me is a bit more rustic, though certainly not rough; think “gentleman farmer” to Macallan’s urbane refinement. There was a time a few years back in my drinking experience where I was purchasing every release of Aberlour A’Bunadh, which is a cask-strength offering. Perhaps its high-octane experience jaded my palate somewhat to Glenfarclas when I would taste it (not side-by-side, but sporadically during the same period). Glenfarclas represents old-school balance—think pre-Parker overextracted wine, or pre-whatever overhopped IPAs—and is a benchmark of what a sherry-finished Highland single-malt should be. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

I recently did a tasting vertical of Glenfarclas 12, 15, 17, 21 and 25 along with the 105 NAS. I have full bottles of the 12, 17 and 105 NAS and got a sample set of the others to see what I was missing. My feeling is that I was not missing much. It seems like GF peaks at around 17-18 years with their production offerings. The 15 year old at 46% is really good and the extra abv helps. I suspect that any really good older barrels are being sold as single cask offerings. This 17-year old release really seems like the sweet spot of the whole GF production expressions in terms of price to quality. The nose is your typical strong sherried, dark fruits and spice The palate is carmel and plums. The lower abv hurts it here. Although it is fairly rich, it lacks the thickness and power of a higher abv offering. IMHO, it's not as good as the Balvenie 15-year sherry at 47.8% for example. Finish is typical baking spices, maybe some citrus and dark orange chocolate flavor. I have not had any of the Glenfarclas family selections or single casks but reading the reviews it seems like those are where all the high quality barrels are going and the regular expressions are where they use the rest of the distillate. This is a very cask-driven whisky. The flavor is consistent across all of the expressions but it is very much a low abv sherry flavor and not that much different from other low abv sherry expressions. I would have a hard time telling this apart from the 16-year-old Aberlour for example. It is kind of a generic cask-driven sherry scotch style. If you love that style, you will like this.

I should have reviewed this long ago. It's been in solid rotation in my liquor closet for about 3 years now. This bottle is 2/3 full and has been open for a few months. The pour is tasted neat from a glencairn. The color of this whisky reminds me of my son's rose gold trombone. On the nose this is sherry forward, rich, fruity and brassy over a frame of malty barley. The nose is splashy in an enjoyable technicolor way. Slightly complex, I find the aromas in the glass to be fully enjoyable. On the palate this comes off as tamer than its nose might suggest. The sherry is forward, its a bomb. Mouthfeel is rich, creamy even. There is very little ethanol heat, but there's a touch of cinnamon red hots on the mid palate. There's a really nice basket of orchard fruits ripe for exploration and enough complexity to keep one's attention for the full dram. There's a nice blush of wood and the malt comes in towards the mid and back palate. I also get some walnuts and sweet orange marmalade. The finish is short, sweet and warming. I like this Highland malt a lot. It's very easy to like. There's really nothing off-putting and overall this is just as tasty as I could ask for a sweet, fruity, friendly quaff. Nicely done. I rate on a simple scale where 1 = something I hope to not taste again and 5 = I can stop looking now because it's as good as good gets. I think most products follow a bell curve with the average mass market solution falling into a 2 to 3 range. Glenfarclas 17 is far better than that. This belongs between 3.75 and 4.0 .

N: Crisp red apple, both fresh and cooked, some medicinal notes, funky earth, touch of wood, splash of bubble gum, touch of burning leaves. Very fall appropriate. P: Baked apple, dark bread, cooked pear and peach, turned earth, seasoned wood, hay bales, allspice, cinnamon, maybe some paprika, definitely some baking spice with a touch of prickly heat, which plays tricks on the mouthfeel and mimics carbonation. F: Mint, cinnamon, cut grass, all the various fruits from above stewed in a boozy cider or even almost a mulled red wine (like a Glogg), herbal tea, black pepper. A touch pricey for what this is, but it does come in under some of the more traditional 18 year single malts, like a Glenfiddich or Glenlivet, and this just lives on a completely different world. It reminds of the Loch Lomond - and I'm not sure which whisky that's a better compliment to. This is more complicated and interesting, but also older and more expensive than any LL I've tried, so not a fair direct comparison. But the profile is similar. All that aside, this is tasty, interesting, and represents a different, earthier, funkier side of single malt. I like it a lot. ____________ Please come join an unofficial Distiller community on Discord: https://discord.gg/VSmCvzAQfH. We chat spirits (and other things) in real time while being a great resource to each other for recommendations, finding deals, and generally enjoying the journey together. (If the link is expired, please post a comment and I will provide a new one.)

Sitting in the glass this has beautiful lacy legs climbing up the sides of the glencairn. A swirl coats the glass and takes minutes time to settle. Nose is fruit heavy, with a backing of sugar. If you put pears, cherries, green and red apples and honeydew in a pot with a cup of brown sugar and tuned the burner on low, after 15 minutes it would smell like this. It’s so varied and balanced that it keeps me coming back, even when the glass is almost empty. Smooth, rich and creamy on the tongue. Obviously sherried, but not one-note. Dried fig, cherry, vanilla bean, caramel and honeysuckle dance across the palate before a rather quick transition to dry grass/straw keeps the sweetness in check. Like the nose - balanced. I like all of the Glenfarclas that I’ve had, but this is by far my favorite. If you see one, grab it; you wont be disappointed. Personal note - Review #200. Crazy blessed to be able to sample such a variety, not only by being in the right place at the right time with a little cash, but mostly because of the love and understanding of a wonderful wife who tolerates even my frivilous hobbies. Please note that I appreciate every comment left over the years, and I continue to learn from, and be humbled by, the vast knowledge so many in this community freely share with others solely for love of the craft and a desire to see it continue for future generations. Sláinte!

The nose starts with a light sherry and orange effervescent mixture, then lychee fruit, vanilla cupcake before spices of ginger, cinnamon and leather with no ethanol bite. The taste starts with a light to medium mouthfeel starting with that light sherry and orange effervescent mixture then lychee fruit before spices of ginger, cloves, mild chili pepper spice, and grapefruit pith with light ethanol burn that finishes short with grapefruit pith, lychee fruit and gingersnap cookies. This is an easy sipper with a mix of light sherry, citrus fruits, sweets and light spices with an enjoyable nose and taste, but the mid palate veers towards over steeped fruit water creating a very bitter finish. That bitterness of the grapefruit pith throws the balance of the dram off, overpowering the other flavors that I would have liked to taste more of and bringing this from a 4 to a 3 for me. I’m happy I was able to try this thanks to @ctbeck11, but a sample is more than enough for me.