Glenfarclas 1990 Sherry Hogsheads Cask Strength (Bottled 2018)

Tasted blind. Crisp yellow with very thin, quick legs. Nose: bourbon-esque wood, chocolate chip cookies, dried mango, funky library books, pomegranate. Palate: Lands a bit hot with lots of dark honey malt and leather moving toward some floral notes and then dark chocolate chip cookies with macadamia nuts. Body is thin to medium. Toffee shows up alongside the macadamia nuts on the finish. There’s a slight allspice tingle but nothing more than bittersweet. Finish: Very subtle with dusty, dark malt and bittersweet toffee and shortbread cookies. Impression: It’s nice to just experience straightforward, unadulterated malt flavors on occasion. This seems like the Master’s Keep 17y BiB equivalent of something like Oban or Glenfiddich 14 bourbon barrel finished. It has a “dusty” quality and bourbon influence (so basically wood) without the distractions of peat, smoke or a strong wine barrel finish. Nothing about this tugs at my heartstrings but nothing offends. This is a nice, grown up malt. Reveal: Glenfarclas 1990 (2018 bottling) CS So the math would make this a 28 year Glenfarclas! Those who are math savvy are disappointed but being numerically challenged and easily entertained I am fascinated at the difference between the standard 25 and this 28. For one I had no idea this was cask strength. There isn’t a sharp edge to it. The “dusty” quality helps showcase the extra aging and isn’t overwhelming in any way. The three years difference do seem to swap the sweeter raisin finish for that of a bittersweet, more “mature” finish. I personally enjoy sherry and will pour it after dinner on occasion. Whereas most younger expressions encroach upon a whisky-finished sherry the older expressions I’ve had are certainly more sherry-finished whisky. At this point in aging my palate can no longer appreciate the nuanced sherry influence. So far @Contemplativefox is really helping me cypher my ideal age window for scotch and it seems to be that 15 to 25 are the extremes (for my palate and wallet). This pour was a great experience but for now my palate just can’t appreciate anything much above 25y or $150.

Rating: 16/23 This was produced from 13 hogsheads released exclusively for the German market. I'm a big fan of Glenfarclas 25 and I hear that Glenfarclas reaches its peak between 25 and 30 years, so at roughly 28 and bottled by the distillery at cask strength I had to buy this N: Odd. I'm not getting a ton here. It seems kind of high proof, but also kind of light. There's some really dusty wood coming out along with cinnamon and sort of a tart apple. There's some grain, but it isn't especially malty. I eventually get a faint hint of smooth, somewhat bitter orange oil and mint The barrels used must have ben especially tired. This smells decent, but it's far from the rich Glenfarclas 25 that I love. I'm very confused. P: There's a big kick of the proof and I get a substantial amount of fruit, but the fruits are in the lemon to sultana range with some faint orange, not the rich, dark, chocolate ones of Glenfarclas 25. I do get some substantial bitter mint that borders on chocoalately at points, but it's a clean, start dark chocolate flavor. There's a big layer of dusty wood as well, with a substantial spicy kick of cinnamon and maybe white pepper to it. Where's the Glenfarlas funk? Where's the big richness and complexity? There's a light, dry toastiness to the barley and a little maltiness, but it doesn't taste particularly malty. This has more of the bite of Glenfarclas 105 with a profile more aligning with a well aged Glen Grant. This tastes like it might have been aged in some of the 3rd or 4th fill oloroso casks that Glenfarclas uses, but it just has nowhere near the same funkiness, so it's hard to believe that it was made from the same distillate. This is a really nice palate, but it isn't what I am looking for or expect from from Glenfarclas. It has a bite from the proof, but it isn't really harsh. It displays some mellow, mature wood character. It has a clean profile. But that big, funky Glenfarclas profile isn't here. The high proof does help with the fullness though and it's what allows that sultana flavor to come through. A little water brings out a tad more fruit, but water isn't really doing much here. It's easy to lose track of, but there is actually an intense fullness here from the proof. F: Some dry wood lingers a bit with faint sultana and some of that mint. Some vague, kind of numbing, spice mixes with a bit of tannins. That's about it. - Conclusion - This has a really unobjectionable profile that is easy to sip, aside from the heat, but it isn't what I'm looking for in Glenfarclas and I don't think it's an excellent scotch either. This is more at the level of Glenfarlas 21 or Càrn Mòr's 26 year old bottling of Glen Grant from 1992. This is less fruity and sharper than either the Glenfarclas 21 or the Glen Grant. This is definitely the driest and most restrained of the three, with the most wood presence - though it does have some of the malt make itself surprisingly known at times. Lismore 21 has a fuller richness to it with a bit more malty sweetness. I get a whiff more sulfur out of it, but it's not a lot. The Lismore gives me more the impression of a field of grain than the distilled grain whisky impression I get from this dram. I like them both, but I prefer the Lismore - and I think I prefer the Glenfarclsa 21 too. That's a bit disappointing considering that this is older, a limited release, and bottled at a higher proof. Unfortunately, I think this means that I need to pick a score in the range of what I gave the Glen Grant, though I actually think that the Glen Grant is a bit better. Side by side, this does have. a little bit of that Glenfarclas funk compared with the Glen Grant, but it's still not much. The Glen Grant seems to have improved a fair amount with oxygen, so I think that the 16 I gave it previously is low now. Sigh, another one to add to the re-review queue. I didn't expect to be commenting on Glen Grant here, but I can now tell that it's solidly better than Dalwhinnie 15, which I now think of as about a 15 or 16. I've considered a 17, but I'm going with a 16. I also briefly contemplated a 15, but there is enough maturity and complexity here that I can appreciate this. And there's nothing wrong with it beyond the disappointment of being so vastly inferior to the regular Glenfarclas 25 bottling.

My Glenfarclas journey continues with this cask strength 28 year old that was aged from 1990 to 2018. The nose starts with an alcoholic blast of sherry grape mustiness, chocolate covered raisins, then orange peel, honeysuckle, apricot jam leading to freshly baked Cinnabon rolls with vanilla maple cream cheese frosting, then spices of ginger, cloves, chestnuts, leather and old polished mahogany with high ethanol burn. The tastes is a viscous mouthfeel starting with a rich sherry caramel over chocolate covered raisins, then orange peel infused cream cheese frosting over Cinnabon rolls, honey dew, apricots then it descends into a bitter and spice flavor assortment with grapefruit pith, ginger, cloves, chestnuts, and black pepper with a high ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with sherry notes of chocolate covered raisins, cloves, chestnuts, grapefruit pith, leather and bitter old oak. This is a strong whisky, one that I probably should have put some water in to tone down, but my heavy hand usually overdoes it to create water with whisky flavors. It has many of the flavors of the 25, but also some of the bitterness of the 17 with grapefruit pith, oak bitterness and high octane alcohol burn coming in mid palate that overpowers the rest of the dram. This isn’t as balanced and masterful as the 25, it’s not as bitter as the 17, but right in the middle ground of the two. Big thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the taste and let me know if water unlocks the flavors on this one.