Glenfarclas 1990 Sherry Hogsheads Cask Strength (Bottled 2018)

Score: 16/23 This was made from 13 hogsheads only sold in Germany. I really enjoy Glenfarclas 25 and I've heard Glenfarclas is best between 25 and 30 years old, so with it being around 28 years and bottled at cask strength by the distillery, I had to get this. Nose: Strange. I'm not getting much here. It seems quite high proof, yet also somewhat light. There's a distinct dusty wood presence along with cinnamon and a sort of tart apple. Some grain is present but it's not particularly malty. I finally detect a subtle hint of smooth, slightly bitter orange oil and mint. The casks must have been quite tired. This smells fine, but it's a far cry from the rich Glenfarclas 25 that I adore. I'm really perplexed. Palate: There's a strong impact from the proof and I get a good amount of fruit, but the fruit is in the lemon to sultana spectrum with some faint orange, not the rich, dark, chocolate notes of Glenfarclas 25. I do get a considerable bitter mint that sometimes leans towards chocolatey, but it's a clear, dark chocolate flavor. A significant layer of dusty wood is also present, with a solid spicy hit of cinnamon and perhaps white pepper. Where is the typical Glenfarclas character? Where is the significant richness and depth? 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 sharpness of Glenfarclas 105 with a flavor profile closer to a well-aged Glen Grant. It tastes like it might have been aged in some of the 3rd or 4th fill oloroso casks that Glenfarclas uses, but it lacks the same distinct character, making it hard to believe it came from the same distillate. This is a very pleasant palate, but it's not what I anticipate or seek from Glenfarclas. It has a bite from the proof but isn't truly harsh. It shows some gentle, mature wood notes. It has a clean profile. However, that signature, robust Glenfarclas character is absent. The high proof does contribute to the body, and it's what allows that sultana flavor to emerge. A touch of water enhances the fruit slightly, but water doesn't really change much here. It's easy to overlook, but there's a powerful fullness here due to the proof. Finish: Some dry wood lingers for a bit with faint sultana and some of that mint. Vague, somewhat numbing spice mingles with a hint of tannins. That's pretty much it. - Conclusion - This has a very agreeable profile that's easy to drink, apart from the heat, but it's not what I expect from Glenfarclas, nor do I consider it an exceptional scotch. This is more comparable to Glenfarclas 21 or Càrn Mòr's 26-year-old bottling of Glen Grant from 1992. It's less fruity and sharper than either the Glenfarclas 21 or the Glen Grant. This is certainly the driest and most subdued of the three, with the most wood influence - although the malt does surprisingly make itself known at times. Lismore 21 has a richer body with a bit more malty sweetness. I detect a touch more sulfur from it, but not much. The Lismore gives me more the impression of a grain field rather than the distilled grain spirit impression I get from this pour. I enjoy both, but I favor the Lismore - and I think I also prefer the Glenfarclas 21. That's somewhat disappointing considering this is older, a limited edition, and bottled at a higher proof. Sadly, I believe this means I need to assign a score in the range of what I gave the Glen Grant, although I actually think the Glen Grant is slightly better. When compared side-by-side, this does possess a little of that Glenfarclas character against the Glen Grant, but it's still minimal. The Glen Grant seems to have improved significantly with air, so I think the 16 I previously gave it might be too low now. Ugh, another one to add to the re-review list. I didn't anticipate discussing Glen Grant here, but I can now say it's definitively superior to Dalwhinnie 15, which I now rate around a 15 or 16. I've considered a 17, but I'm settling on a 16. I also briefly thought about a 15, but there's sufficient maturity and complexity here for me to appreciate it. And there's nothing wrong with it other than the disappointment of being so much less impressive than the standard Glenfarclas 25 bottling.

Tasted without knowing what it was. It's a crisp yellow with very thin, fast legs. Nose: Wood reminiscent of bourbon, chocolate chip cookies, dried mango, old library books, and pomegranate. Palate: Hits a bit hot initially with plenty of dark honey malt and leather, moving towards some floral notes and then dark chocolate chip cookies with macadamia nuts. The body is thin to medium. Toffee appears with the macadamia nuts on the finish. There's a faint allspice tingle but no more than bittersweet. Finish: Very subtle with dusty, dark malt and bittersweet toffee and shortbread cookies. Impression: It's refreshing to experience straightforward, pure malt flavors now and then. This seems like the Master's Keep 17y BiB equivalent of something like Oban or Glenfiddich 14 bourbon barrel finished. It possesses a "dusty" quality and bourbon influence (essentially wood) without the distractions of peat, smoke, or a strong wine barrel finish. Nothing about this excites me deeply, but nothing is off-putting either. It's a pleasant, mature malt. Reveal: Glenfarclas 1990 (2018 bottling) CS So the age would make this a 28-year-old Glenfarclas! Those who are good with numbers might be disappointed, but as someone who struggles with math and is easily amused, I'm fascinated by the difference between the standard 25 and this 28. For one thing, I had no idea this was cask strength. It doesn't have a sharp edge. The "dusty" characteristic helps showcase the additional aging and isn't overwhelming at all. The three-year age difference does seem to replace the sweeter raisin finish with one that is bittersweet and more "mature." I personally enjoy sherry and will occasionally pour it after dinner. While many younger expressions lean towards a whisky finish, the older ones I've had are definitely more sherry-finished whisky. At this stage of aging, my palate can no longer detect the subtle sherry influence. So far, a friend is greatly assisting me in figuring out my preferred age range for scotch, and it appears to be between 15 and 25 years (for my palate and budget). This pour was a great experience, but for now, my palate just can't appreciate anything much over 25 years old or costing more than $150.

My exploration of Glenfarclas continues with this 28-year-old cask strength expression, aged from 1990 to 2018. The nose begins with an alcoholic blast of sherry mustiness, reminiscent of chocolate-covered raisins, followed by orange peel, honeysuckle, and apricot jam. It then leads to freshly baked Cinnabon rolls with vanilla maple cream cheese frosting, and spices like ginger, cloves, chestnuts, leather, and aged polished mahogany, accompanied by a strong ethanol burn. The palate offers a viscous mouthfeel, starting with rich sherry caramel over chocolate-covered raisins. Next are orange peel-infused cream cheese frosting atop Cinnabon rolls, honeydew, and apricots. It then transitions into a bitter and spicy flavor profile with grapefruit pith, ginger, cloves, chestnuts, and black pepper, again with a significant ethanol burn. The finish is of medium length, featuring sherry notes of chocolate-covered raisins, cloves, chestnuts, grapefruit pith, leather, and bitter old oak. This is a potent whisky, one I likely should have diluted with water to moderate, but my tendency is to overdo it, resulting in diluted whisky flavors. It shares many characteristics with the 25-year-old, but also exhibits some of the bitterness found in the 17-year-old, with grapefruit pith, oak bitterness, and a high-octane alcohol burn appearing mid-palate, overpowering the rest of the dram. It doesn't achieve the balance and mastery of the 25-year-old, nor is it as bitter as the 17-year-old, sitting somewhere between the two. Many thanks to for the sample; please let me know if adding water unlocks more of its flavors.