Glenfarclas '105'

@RianC thank you for the review, I like your notes. I agree this one is great VFM. I prefer it without water, I just take it slow and easy and enjoy the ride.

It's interesting, I haven't tried the A'Bunadh 49 yet ( 6 months to go) but most of my batches I've enjoyed with drops of water and found that the 105 needed more water, and as hotter.

I've tasted Glenfarclas 105 only once, and I was disappointed in it. What I had seemed rough and inelegant, nothing like Glenfarclas 15 yo. That is probably why I have never purchased a bottle of it. I do read reviews stating that it improves with air exposure, which is a promising report. I am eager to try some more of it again, for sure.

@Victor was it the 10 yr or the NAS?

@Frost, NAS.

Interesting, the times I've tasted the NAS the bottle has been opened in advance (I can't say for what period of time). I have an unopened bottle of the 10 and will see how it goes when I open.

My own experience was with the 10 yo, I believe.

@Nozinan noted, thank you

@Frost - Thanks! I'll probably start neat but then add a few drops as I go. It's certainly palatable at that strength. Without going on too much of a tangent I find adding water to be a very changeable thing for me. Some days my palate seems to need it and others I prefer it as it comes - that's with all whiskys. Although some aren't helped at all by adding water it seems! I do find it impressive when a whisky at a higher strength can be enjoyed neat.

@Nozinan - I've just double checked and think I made an error on the batch number. I am certain the strength was less than 60% so must have been batch 53 or 50. I'd like to say 53 as I'm sure it was at 59.7 not 59.6 but my memory is clearly failing me ;) Sorry to not be 100% clear. I have a feeling I was eyeing up a 49er at another time and that number stuck.

It was also my first whisky at such a strength and so probably found it a bit harder to get accustomed to neat.

@RianC N o worries, I'll be getting to some of those higher batches some time in the future...

I find the need *and amount) to add water varies by whisky (even among CS expressions) and by my mood. The best example I can think of is Stagg Jr. Sometimes I like it neat, and other times I can't handle it without water.

I'm a big fan of 105 10 YO, but haven't bought it since it went NAS. I'm not that big on sherries whiskies, and Glendronach 15 and 18 became available here about that time (heavenly whiskies!!). I would drink a bit of it, (always with water!) then put it back for several months. Huge improvement once I pulled it out again in 6-9 months. Went from good (82-83) to excellent (90-92). Don't know if that works with NAS. Even better was the Macallan CS! Wow! I still dream of finding a dusty if that one!

@RianC : "[The 105] beefed up the 10 considerably."

Yes!

Obviously, the CS whisky you added increased the ABV (and reduced the relative amount of water)—I imagine you hit a "sweet spot" that very few whiskies come in from the seller. If we look across the whisky landscape, we see lots of 40% & 43% "mass market" stuff, you see a good number of 46% stuff for the enthusiasts, and some CS stuff for us nutjobs. But there's not much in the ~50% range. Sad! The only common 50% whiskies I can think of off the top of my head are recent Bruichladdichs, Cutty Sark Prohibition, Benriach Solstice, and Old Malt Cask IBs. I'm sure there are a few more, but there aren't tons.

Too bad. It's a nice "sweet spot," as I say, that delivers a big whollop of power and flavor without blowing your head off. And I think it's an obvious attraction for any of us nutjobs perusing the shelf.

(And yes, I can see the marketing arguments against selling whiskies in this "no man's land" of high- but not full-strength ABVs. But it's a shame.)