Introduction
“Unbelievable! Am I reading this right?!” That was my reaction after opening an unsolicited package from Master of Malt containing the following surprise:
Somebody over at MoM must have failed to notice my scattered blog posting frequency lately, but it’s here now, and it’s MINE! Thanks guys! This is what the full bottle presentation looks like:
The Glenfarclas team really went all out on the samples they sent. I can’t believe I got a little magnetically closing box, and the same book (minus signing and numbering) that comes with the full bottle! And now, to taste it, trying not to be swayed by the presentation and history…
Tasting Notes
Glenfarclas 1953 58 Year; 47.2%; ~$9,400.00!!!
[Single Sherry Cask (American Oak)]
In one session, I tried this sample all by itself. In another, I did a head-to-head comparison with some other reasonably mature Glenfarclas releases. Glenfarclas fascinates me with the way its 25 and 30 year old standard bottlings seem so young and fresh for their age, still maintaining some of that Speyside apple fruitiness, even after many years in sherry casks. Is there a breaking point for this spirit? 58 years in a cask seems like a pretty good test!
On initial pour, the nose seemed muted by a strong woody sawdust smell. Letting it sit for 10 minutes…
Ok, much bigger nose now! Peaches, a dalmore-like chocolate orange, raisins, and the oak has turned to butterscotch. I also get a slightly musty note that reminds me of Glenmorangie Lasanta. Overall very rich and satisfying, with the usual Glenfarclas fresh fruitiness giving way to more mature, soft fruits and oak-influenced flavors.
Toffee sweetness in the mouth. Thick. Rich feeling. Juicy. Just a wonderful feeling on the tongue, with some white pepper coming on late. Slightly nutty late on the palate, too. Excellent delivery, and hard to believe it’s 58 years old!
Heading into the finish, it slowly grips the sides of the tongue, finally showing some stronger wood influence. A dryness slowly works from the sides over the top of the tongue on the long finish. I love this kind of drying action! Peaches and butterscotch are back in the nostrils, and then that musty note again. I hesitate to call it an “off” note. Although, this note does become more noticeable when doing head-to-head comparisons with other Glenfarclas bottlings. [Less of a problem in normal drinking conditions]
This 1953 bottling is definitely a different animal from the standard 21, 25 and 30 year Glenfarclas bottlings, which all have a much fruitier flavor. So there IS a point at which the oak can tame the Glenfarclas spirit a bit. I do get the feeling that bottling this cask 10 years earlier might have provided slightly more balance between fruit and oak-influenced flavors, and perhaps left the finish a little cleaner. That’s just speculation, obviously, and probably one I’m not experienced enough to make. 🙂
Conclusion
The 58 Year 1953 Glenfarclas is a lovely whisky, and one of the better Speyside whiskies I’ve tried to date. This tasting opportunity has been a tremendous education to see what can become of Glenfarclas spirit after such a long time in an American Oak cask. It’s good for 90-ish points on my personal scale, with a slightly musty note in the nose/finish bringing the otherwise complex nose and heavenly arrival back down to earth. I count myself extremely lucky for having been able to try this piece of history.
Postscript – The “S” word
I hesitated to use the S word (Sulphur) in the review. I don’t know if that Lasanta-like note was due to sulphur, but that’s what I had always attributed that smell/taste to in the Glenmorangie expression. Also, the fact that it was stronger when doing head-to-head comparisons with other whiskies made me think of my Lagavulin 21 experience. Anyway, just something to ponder out loud in the interest of full disclosure. I did encounter a couple of similar observations in Twitter conversations about this expression. Though, most of the reviews I’ve seen seem to place this expression almost beyond reproach.
Scotch Hobbyist's Blog 
is that price right? $10k a bottle?
yowza.
Yes, that is the going price for this bottle! $8000 more than their 1953 Family Cask 54 year bottle. On the other hand, it’s half what The Macallan is charging for their latest 60 year old. Plus, Glenfarclas makes their standard 40 year available for less than $500. All in all, I figure we can cut them some slack on this one extravagantly priced “collectible.” 🙂
I’ve seen a couple of reviews now that mention a “meatiness”, including one who attributed that meatiness to a potential sulphur influence. I’m thinking this is where my humble nose-to-brain process found a slight “mustiness” rather than the “meatiness” others are describing. And where I subtracted a point or two, others find it to be a perfectly pleasing addition to the complex nose.
I admit, I’m a bit slow to catch the meaty train when it comes to whisky flavor descriptors. Expressions that are often described as having meat-related tastes and smells just don’t come across that way to me.
Just a little insight into my own personal biases and flaws…
Cheers,
Jeff
Hi Jeff, first of all congratulations for your blog, it’s really well-written and quite unique, I think, for the ‘description of the experience’ of drinking whisky. So, bravo! Ok, ending up my captatio benevolentiae… I think it’s really interesting how sulphury and meaty notes (but even farmy ones) can affect different people in different ways: for instance, I don’t really dislike them, even the most aggressive sulphury notes, but when it comes to ‘rotten oranges’ I definitely can’t stand them. I actually think, no, I actually feel that when those notes come from the cask, they kind of annoy me, but when they’re from the spirit (as in some Mortalchs or Springbanks), I like them more. I’m not sure if it’s possible to clearly detect the origin of those notes in every single dram, and I suspect this is only some kind of conjectural inference of myslef, but still…
I haven’t tried this ‘farclas (damn it!) but I was reading your Brora 2007 post, ’cause I’ve reviewed it some days ago: I actually didn’t find the farmy notes too aggressive, but I just think it’s a matter or personal taste and ‘sensibility’ (if that makes sense in english…). Anyway, all this was just meant to say how lucky we are to be in love with such a sophisticated ‘beverage’ (?), so multi-layered and in which every personal predilection and idiosyncrasy gets always challenged.
Cheers Jeff, and go on drinking! 😉
Jacopo
I have a 1950’s White Heather Scotch in the original bottle and the original factory Christmas paper (untouched,) How much is this worth and how do I sell it?