Not all older whiskies are created equal. Whatever the reason behind it, there are simply some whiskies that age more gracefully than others, reaching a profoundness in maturity that others cannot quite achieve. Similar to some of the questions that I posed in a recent post about a Guatemalan coffee from Stumptown, I’m sure there are factors that play into the aging equation that some distilleries approach differently than others. Perhaps it’s the type of cask used, where the whisky is aged, or some step in the distillation process. But in the end, the reality is that some whiskies just age significantly better than others.

Glenfarclas is one of those.

What’s more, Glenfarclas is a whisky that expresses deep, enticing flavors throughout it’s lifecycle. From their basic 10-year bottling all the way up to the older, single-barrel bottlings, such as the 1968 single-cask that they released several years ago, Glenfarclas whiskies are singularly unique, and very good. But it’s really in their old(er) age that these whiskies hit their stride. I’ve tasted several that have passed the 30-year mark, and all were superlatively delicious.

Why is this? Why is it that this one distillery manages to so consistently produce and bottle such great whiskies?

Part of it surely has to do with their heritage and ownership history. Glenfarclas is one of only a handful of family-owned, independent distilleries, and has been in the Grant family for several generations (since 1865 to be exact). Instead of being part of a corporate portfolio, this is a whisky expressing the values and vision of a family whose heart lies within the distillery walls. Thus, careful attention to detail and a commitment to producing a consistently wonderful finished product are par for the course.

Another part of the explanation is their barrel program. Glenfarclas uses mostly Oloroso sherry casks, an increasingly rare feat in today’s whisky world. Whereas sherry barrels were more commonly used by Scotch distilleries in the not-too-distant past, due to issues with the quality of the barrels their use is more rare these days. Alongside a distillery such as Aberlour (who uses a high proportion of sherry casks, along with bourbon casks), Glenfarclas is one of the few dedicated to using such a high proportion of sherry casks. Furthermore, for their whiskies that will be released as single malts, Glenfarclas uses only first and second fill casks, and for the whisky that will be sold to blenders they use third fill casks.

Why does their barrel program make such a difference? Sherry casks lend such a different character to aging whisky, and I personally feel that whiskies in sherry casks age more gracefully than those in bourbon casks. Or perhaps it is that sherry cask whiskies just show more beautifully at older age than those in bourbon casks. Too, their dedication to using only first and second fill casks ensures that their oldest whiskies spend their whole lives aging in fresher barrels that will impart more character to the whisky, producing complex, layered whiskies after a decade or three.

But after these two obvious reasons, we really have to begin reaching, drawing conclusions that are little more than hypotheses. Does it have something to do with how they distill their whisky? Or the warehouses they age it in? How about the natural ingredients? The malt they use, their water source?

In the end, we can only really conjecture as to why Glenfarclas whiskies age so wonderfully. What we can do with certainty is enjoy the whiskies themselves!

Interesting tidbit: All of the male members of the Grant family are named either John or George. The current chairman is John L.S. Grant, and the current brand ambassador is his son George S. Grant.

Tasting Notes

The color of this whisky is an alluring deep golden with auburn tints. The nose is rich and sweet, and just goes on and on displaying notes of figs, red fruits, honey, and beeswax. The palate is medium textured, soft and supple without being heavy. There are velvety notes of salted caramel, creme anglaise, marzipan, rum-soaked fruits, and mesquite honey, all underscored by a layer of dry oakiness. On the finish, some citrus makes its way into the picture, accompanied by honey and fruit.

Overall, this is a very sweet, fruity, and fairly full bodied whisky, and an absolute pleasure to sip unhurriedly. It’s very gentle, and (unsurprisingly) I wonder what it would have been like at cask strength. The Scotch Malt Whisky Society occasionally offers older bottles of Glenfarclas, which of course are all single-cask, cask-strength bottles, and while I’ve never tried one, they are invariably one of the whiskies among their offerings that always arrests my attention. One of these days, I’ll have to take the plunge and order one. Hopefully before this bottle is kaput, as a side-by-side tasting is definitely in order.

As time has passed and I’ve had the good fortune to taste a wide range of whiskies, from new make spirit all the way up to 44-year olds, I’ve developed a real respect and affection for older whiskies. While I appreciate and enjoy the brash energy of young whiskies, it’s the greater complexity and stateliness of older whiskies that really has the power to mesmerize me. Time brings lots of benefits to whisky, among them more presence in the glass, and a ripe, richness that comes across as a much different characteristic when the whisky is younger.

Most excitingly, it’s always fun to dive into a really old whisky to see what it has to offer. Because Scotch whiskies past the 30-year mark can be an unpredictable mixed bag, you never really know what you’re going to get. At this point, the whisky has been in the barrel for quite a long time, and so the characteristics that it had when fresh off the still have long since been subsumed and transformed into a unique, profound relationship with the barrel that it’s been resting in for so long. The impact and role of the barrel are therefore predominant in determining the quality of the finished whisky. A bad barrel can ruin what would have been a remarkable whisky, and a great barrel can raise the same whisky to stunning heights.

Them there is the role of the bottler, who has a handful of decisions to make. Blend several old casks into a single bottling, or go single-cask? What proof? Cask-strength or diluted? If diluted, how low do you go? 46? 43? 40? Chill-filter? (shudder…) I’ve definitely tasted a number of old whiskies where you could just tell that bottled at cask-strength or as a single-cask it would have been an amazing whisky. But bottled as it was, well…something had been lost along the way.

In my experience, many of the older whiskies from Gordon & MacPhail experience a fate such as this. Their typical approach is to blend casks of older whiskies together and dilute at bottling, to either 40% or 43%. I can understand the rationale behind both decisions, but don’t empathize with it. Yes, 40% or 43% makes for a very drinkable whisky, but a rather tame one as well. And if I’m spending the money on such an older whisky, I want the choice as to how much water should be added to my whisky. I also have such a strong affinity for single-cask whiskies, that it’s simply too hard not to speculate longingly about how stellar some of the casks that went into the final blend must have been.

That being said, G&M offers a wide range of older whiskies at very reasonable prices, so it’s hard to take them to task too much. It’s more like buyer-beware: it’s important to know how they typically bottle older whiskies, so that you can have appropriate expectations. They’re all very nice whiskies, if not overly remarkable or inspiring.

This Linkwood 33-year old was one of the whiskies at we featured at the Old Whiskies tasting at Amherst Coffee this past March. It was the only one of them bottled at 40%, and it showed. Overall the whisky was quite good, but very understated.

Linkwood produces a fair amount of whisky each year, approximately 2.6 million liters. But what makes this whisky pretty darn exciting is that it was produced in 1969, 2 years before the distillery was expanded from 2 to 6 stills. So this particular whisky was distilled at a time when Linkwood was a much smaller distillery, and likely producing a slightly different spirit.

Tasting Notes

The whisky is the color of burnished gold with subtle amber tints. The nose has soft notes of red fruit reminiscent of sherry cask aging, alongside butter cookies, poached pears, candied lemon lime rind, and spun sugar. The whisky’s texture is very soft, gentle, and mouth-coating. The spectrum of favors is similar to the nose, with subtly sweet and gentle elements of pears, caramel custard, shortbread cookies, wheat and grain. The one note missing is the red fruit flavors, but these are compensated for by a buttered rum note that becomes more prominent as the whisky warms. The medium-length has flavors of genoise cake and soft, ripe fruits.

Very nice whisky. Rich and interesting, and quite drinkable. The flavors came across a bit soft, which is the impact of the 40%.

The one caveat to these notes, is that all of the flavors were very gently pronounced and subdued, not quite as profound as they sound in writing them. Nonetheless, this is a nice whisky. I remember distinctly at the tasting that the reception was very similar: this is a nice, very drinkable and enjoyable whisky, but without loads of character in the glass.

Still, pretty cool that it was distilled 41 years ago’ eh?

Dufftown is one of the distilleries included in the famous saying,

Rome was built on seven hills, but Dufftown is built on seven stills.

Named eponymously after the town it resides in, Dufftown (the distillery) was the 6th distillery to be established in town. The saying initially referred to the following distilleries: Balvenie, Convalmore, Dufftown, Glendullan, Glenfiddich, Mortlach, and Parkmore. After three of these distilleries closed (Convalmore, Glendullan, and Parkmore) and three new distilleries opened, the saying came to mean: Balvenie, Dufftown, Pittyvaich, Glenfiddich, Mortlach, Glendullan, and Kininvie. Today, five distilleries remain in Dufftown, so I suppose that we should sadly give up on the wonderful saying altogether.

Dufftown (the distillery) was founded in 1895 when it was converted from a meal mill into a distillery. The conversion took a little over a year, and the stills began running on November 10th, 1896. The distillery then experienced a rather uneventful couple of decades before its owners went bankrupt during the Prohibition period in America, and were forced to sell the business, lock, stock, and barrels (literally, both the distillery and all existing stock were included in the purchase).

The distillery was purchased by Arthur Bell & Sons, and quickly became a principal component of the Bell’s blend, leading to decades of busy distilling. In 1968 the stills were increased from two to four, in 1974 from four to six, and in 1979 from six to eight. Today, the distillery has an annual capacity of 4 million liters, making it the 12th largest distillery in Scotland.

Interestingly, despite that massive production, a mere 1% of the whisky goes for single malt bottlings. The vast majority goes into the Bell’s blend, with a substantial amount going to other blends. This bottling, named The Singleton, is rather new, and was introduced a couple of years ago.

Tasting Notes

All in all, this is a classic Speyside-style whisky. Not a classic whisky, but in the classic style. The color is rich, burnished gold. The nose has poached pears, almonds, custard, wheat, and a slight grassiness. Quite round and pleasant. The palate is soft, slightly oily and very mellow, with flavors of hazelnuts, almonds, honey, vanilla wafers, and a subtle fruitiness. Very drinkable, in a pleasant, unexciting way. The finish is quite brief, with soft flavors of clotted cream, pears, and hints of citrus.

I like Royal Mile Whiskies description best: “a pleasant but undramatic whisky”. I think this really captures this dram perfectly. It’s thoroughly enjoyable, in an easy, unchallenging, friendly kind of way. Similar to my Maker’s Mark post of a couple days ago, this would make a great every day whisky for the scotch drinker (although, I have to admit that Maker’s Mark impressed me much more).

This bottle highlights my favorite thing about being a member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. Having access to single-cask, cask-strength bottlings of rare and unusual whiskies, or rare and unusual expressions of not-so-rare whiskies, is a real treat. The fact that all of the bottles are so uniformly good, and some simply outstanding, is just the icing on the cake.

The bottle in question tonight is a 10-year old Glen Elgin aged in a refill sherry butt. This is a distillery whose inauspicious start and the many bumps along the road that it has experienced during its history perfectly illustrate the very ups and downs of the Scotch whisky industry as a whole. That today it appears in the guise of a special bottling from one of the most reputed Scotch whisky bottlers is a testament to both its tenacity and the wrinkles that good fortune can bring.

This Speyside distillery was founded in 1898 at the height of the late 19th-century whisky boom. It was designed by noted distillery architect Charles Chree Doig, famed for the pagoda-style roofs he built atop several distilleries at this time, including Aberlour, Dufftown, Balblair, and of course Glen Elgin. After two years of work, the distillery began operating in early May 1900, only to close 6 months later when the whisky bubble burst and worldwide demand plummeted.

In 1930 the distillery was purchased by the major conglomerate Scottish Malt Distillers, and became a principal component of the White Horse Blend. As a result, the distillery experienced sustained success for several decades (barring a brief closure during World War II). It was thoroughly rebuilt in 1964 when the number of stills was increased from two to six, and has been in continuous operation ever since.

Until recently it’s rarely been found in single-malt bottlings. Instead, the vast majority of the whisky goes into various blends, most notably White Horse. Overall production amounts to 1.8 million liters a year, which is certainly a respectable figure. It’s owned by United Distillers who market the Classic Malts series that includes distilleries such as Oban and Talisker. Word is that they’ve chosen Glen Elgin as one of the next whiskies to begin including in this series. Their website does indeed include Glen Elgin, but I don’t recall having seen it in shops as of yet.

As most distilleries do who produce whisky largely for blending purposes, Glen Elgin uses both bourbon and sherry casks for aging their whiskies. Their four dunnage style warehouses are all onsite.

Tasting Notes

This is bottle number 85.20 from the Society, and has been named “Woweee!” by the tasting committee. It’s been bottled at 60.2% and is 1 of 650 bottles from a refill sherry butt that was filled in September 1999.

In the glass the whisky is the color of polished gold, with alluring amber highlights. The nose has inviting notes of fresh forest air, followed by light citrus notes that lead to vanilla custard, grade A maple syrup, and lastly some dry, oaky notes. The dram takes time to open up in the glass and reveal all of its nuances, but it’s worth the wait. Don’t rush this one! The palate is velvety, warm, and viscous. The flavors are rich and warming, and include caramel custard, candied orange peels, warm brown sugar cookies, and an undercurrent of citrus and maltiness. The finish is medium length, tantalizingly lingering, fruity, and sweet.

Another impressive bottling from the Society. The whiskies I’ve loved most from them have been their single sherry casks, most notably a 24-year old first-fill Inchgower named “A Farmer’s Friend”. What a whisky it was! Deep, deep sherried whisky flavors – caramelized brown sugars, glazed spiral ham, red raspberries and rum-soaked strawberries. Wow, I still remember it vividly.

One note on the Society’s new bottles – I’m not sure I’m sold. The shape is not really to my liking, a bit too eccentric to me. Reminds me a lot of the Bowmore bottles that also turn me off a bit. But, what I do like is the design of the labels and the info they’ve included. Now is included the type of cask, the name and number of the whisky, the Committee’s tasting notes, the bottle count, and on the back, a pithy little statement that reads,

We, the Tasting Panel, verify that the Scotch Malt Whisky inside this bottle has been passed under some of the most scrupulous noses in the world and approved for release as a Society bottling. Only single cask whiskies that promise to intrigue, entertain, and delight our members are selected, true to our motto: ‘To Leave No Nose Upturned’

I’ve always loved the tasting notes the Society includes in their newsletters and bottling lists, and this statement sums up quite aptly the Society’s tongue-in-cheek style.

This Gordon & MacPhail Longmorn was one of the whiskies that we featured at last weekend’s tasting at Amherst Coffee. The event came off really well, full of great whiskies and great people. I definitely think fun was had by all. In the end, each whisky showed very, very well – even the “palate warmer” that we threw in to start things off. But then, a Murray McDavid 11-year Isle of Arran is no slouch!

I was very excited to include an old Longmorn in the tasting. All of the older specimens of Longmorn that I’ve been lucky enough to try have been outstanding. It’s undoubtedly a whisky that ages very gracefully, which is no surprise given its pedigree as a top-class malt.* And so it was with no lack of excitement that we placed this whisky next-to-last in the tasting, in order to give it some room to shine. (Our last whisky was a cask-strength, 25-year Strathisla. But more on that later…)

This whisky was distilled in 1979, and bottled in 2009. It was bottled at 40%, which I can’t help but feel is really a shame. It’s the one downside to Gordon & MacPhail’s otherwise excellent lineup of single malts, most of which are wonderful bargains given their great quality. But their tendency to bottle at such low percentages, 40-43%, is a disappointment. They also chill filter many of their whiskies, this one included. You can’t help but wonder how the whisky would have tasted otherwise, how much flavor and character was lost.

But, that being said. What we’ve got here is a very fine whisky nonetheless.

Tasting Notes

The whisky is the color of light gold. The nose has lemon drops and pears alongside sweet, grainy, floral notes. The palate is soft and delicate, with a buttery, mouth-coating roundness. Lightly sweet, oaky flavors of resin, honey, and vanilla are balanced alongside warm, malty notes of beeswax and brioche. Subtle citrus notes float around in this mix of flavors. The finish is dry and only lightly sweet, with prominent flavors of beeswax and bread. The finish is quite long and smoothyl transitions from initially subtly sweet to very malty and mellow.

All in all, this is a very balanced whisky, with it’s age showing in the combination of oaky dryness, balanced sweet and malty flavors, and buttery, mouth-coating texture. Actually, the thing I liked best was how dry it was. The flavors of brioche, bread dough, and beeswax were wonderful, and those were the ones that really lingered on your palate.

I would love to see this whisky bottled at a few points higher, and not chill-filtered, but in the meantime have to say that this is another good bargain from Gordon & MacPhail.

*In his Miscellany of Whisky, Charles MacLean cites a small group of top-class malts, whiskies that were highly regarded by blenders for their ability to add that last little bit of something to their blends. The full list included: Aultmore, Benrinnes, Cragganmore, Glen Elgin, Glen Grant, Glenlivet, Glenlossie, Glenrothes, Linkwood, Longmorn, Macallan, and Mortlach.