Why Glenfarclas? Why not begin with something a little more stereotypically suited to the initial foray of a person into whisky? I picked it because I wanted something affordable, interesting, and most of all because I wanted to like Speyside. I have had several bottles of whisky, and many drams in various bars prior to starting this series, and not once have the Speysiders charmed me. I recall once thinking a Glenfiddich 12 year old was so insipid I threw the remainder of a slow-sipped double down like a shot, and promptly made a fuss of ordering a Laphroaig from a new bottle, given there appeared to be so little in the bottle on the bar. The one double Balvenie I've had was pleasant but given the quality of the other whiskies in said bar (Oban, Lagavulin, Highland Park, Talisker, Laphroaig, not to mention Black Label, Maker's Mark, and Woodford Reserve) it lacked interesting qualities. However, a bottle of Glenlivet 18 year old went down very well last summer, and particularly given recent experiences with the Linkwood of previous fame, that is something impressive. I have not got any notes other than vague diary mentions, but it seems to have been a good follow up to the previous whisky.
The problem I had was that the next two single malts I bought, the first two I kept proper notes for, were absolutely stellar, in very different ways. The first was a Highland Malt, Clynelish 14 y.o, and the second was Springbank's (Campbeltown) entry level 10 year old bottling. In comparison to the Glenlivet and even Highland Park's acclaimed 12 year old, they absolutely triumphed. There was so much scent, flavour, and texture that both bottles were great and varied experiences totally unlike any previous purchases. Therein lay the problem, however, that Speyside whiskies almost became pigeonholed in my mind because of previous experiences, they lacked the power and grandeur that I had come to seek in whisky. Perhaps a little fortuitously, the previous Linkwood did not do this. What it offered was very different, but no less intriguing than it's fantastic predecessors. The bottle suggested Speyside whiskies could be great too.
A little context.
Glenfarclas is an independent family owned and operated distillery famous for producing traditional style sherry matured Scotch whisky. Uniquely, it is the only distillery on Scotland to have been owned and run by the same family (the Grants) throughout its existence, and their ownership has been marked by an informed and outspoken attitude to developments and changes in the whisky industry. Take their requirement that all Glenfarclas whisky bottled and sold by independent bottlers cannot be sold with the Glenfarclas name on it. This is not only good business acumen because it keeps profits (particularly from 'collectors whiskies') in house but it highlights their understanding of how important the independence of the brand is to quality product in a market dominated by large multinationals, which have previously been the target of criticism over their quality standards. (See Jasonsscotchreviews for his thoughts on Johnnie Walker Gold Label reserve for an idea of what I mean here) I appreciate directness, because the welfare of customers is dependent on the communication between producer and consumer. No one wants to spend their money on a luxury, only to find it wrong for what they expected from their purchase.
Glenfarclas is widely recommended across the web, and perhaps that more than anything was why I picked it. Like I said, I wanted to find that level of interest and quality in a single malt that I had previously enjoyed, and from the commentary, it appeared to be a good place to start.
First Impressions
Nosing:: spiritous, malty, thick. I had an impression of nutty figs with a slight citrus cut, with a hint of spiced fruits, like homemade spiced mulled wine.To taste, this started slightly sweet, moving to a pleasant light spice like in the nose. Drying sherry lingered in the mouth, with notes of hard bonfire toffee coming through on the nose. Honeyed fruit, like stewed apples, followed by a not unpleasant lingering malty dryness- moreish like marzipan, but somehow drying without being sharp or harsh. As the malt sat, I also tasted rum soaked sultanas, dates, cherries, and dry wholemeal bread. Little hint of candied fruits.
This to me was a moreish whisky. It didn't initially seem to wow me, there was no breath-catching moment like unexpectedly meeting eyes with a striking girl, no brutally elegant power like the current Springbok XV(sorry Scotland!).I couldn't identify what made me want another sip, but the more I sipped, the more the taste and texture grew on me. I went as far as to have a second glass, which provided an outstanding companion to a good book.
Further thoughts.
I have to say upon coming back to it, that this has changed very little in the month or so since I last tasted it. This is very pleasant stuff, eminently quaffable, and indeed proof that Speyside has something to offer me too. I like the light body and colour, like that of straw stubble at the onset of autumn. It presents a nice little contradiction to the mindset which says that a darker a whisky is, the stronger the flavours within. This compares favourably to my two star-compass malts when one remembers that it is only bottled at 40% as opposed to 46%, particularly Clynelish. I do wonder what this would be like at a higher strength, but to my mind there's a lot to be said for 40% whiskies. In this case, I think that the lower strength makes it an accessible and easy drinking dram, something that is pleasant to enjoy whilst in a relaxed state rather than being relaxed for the purposes of whisky enjoyment.
Finally, at only £30, this bottle has been excellent value for money. All whisky is a luxury, and it's very important that one gets a quality product whatever their budget, because if not then there are other luxuries which people might start to prefer to spend their money on. This bottle has undoubtedly been worth the outlay however, and I'm happy to pass on the recommendation of a friend to me.
Next up, the new Macallan Gold.
First Impressions
Nosing:: spiritous, malty, thick. I had an impression of nutty figs with a slight citrus cut, with a hint of spiced fruits, like homemade spiced mulled wine.To taste, this started slightly sweet, moving to a pleasant light spice like in the nose. Drying sherry lingered in the mouth, with notes of hard bonfire toffee coming through on the nose. Honeyed fruit, like stewed apples, followed by a not unpleasant lingering malty dryness- moreish like marzipan, but somehow drying without being sharp or harsh. As the malt sat, I also tasted rum soaked sultanas, dates, cherries, and dry wholemeal bread. Little hint of candied fruits.
This to me was a moreish whisky. It didn't initially seem to wow me, there was no breath-catching moment like unexpectedly meeting eyes with a striking girl, no brutally elegant power like the current Springbok XV(sorry Scotland!).I couldn't identify what made me want another sip, but the more I sipped, the more the taste and texture grew on me. I went as far as to have a second glass, which provided an outstanding companion to a good book.
Further thoughts.
I have to say upon coming back to it, that this has changed very little in the month or so since I last tasted it. This is very pleasant stuff, eminently quaffable, and indeed proof that Speyside has something to offer me too. I like the light body and colour, like that of straw stubble at the onset of autumn. It presents a nice little contradiction to the mindset which says that a darker a whisky is, the stronger the flavours within. This compares favourably to my two star-compass malts when one remembers that it is only bottled at 40% as opposed to 46%, particularly Clynelish. I do wonder what this would be like at a higher strength, but to my mind there's a lot to be said for 40% whiskies. In this case, I think that the lower strength makes it an accessible and easy drinking dram, something that is pleasant to enjoy whilst in a relaxed state rather than being relaxed for the purposes of whisky enjoyment.
Finally, at only £30, this bottle has been excellent value for money. All whisky is a luxury, and it's very important that one gets a quality product whatever their budget, because if not then there are other luxuries which people might start to prefer to spend their money on. This bottle has undoubtedly been worth the outlay however, and I'm happy to pass on the recommendation of a friend to me.
Next up, the new Macallan Gold.
