Glenfarclas 15

----------------- yes.

liking and disliking the various kinds of scotch is an extremely personal thing. you can read jim murray and michael jackson, and you can read the various opinions of the more vocal participants of this newsgroup.

but why don't you sample a dram or two and make up your own mind, rather than depend on the beliefs of people you don't know whose tastes might be very different from your own?

i don't know why you purchased a bottle of whisky about which you know nothing. but having already done so, you really should drink some of it. you may even like it.

and then - and only then - you can tell us about it from your own experience.

tiger

Tiger,

I am not sure where you are from but where I am, the Liquor stores are government run, not private - thus no sampling. I could go to the local bar, but they only care a very limited selection of scotches. I know of one pub which prides itself on its scotch selection as it has over 100 bottles, and I do go there every so often. The only problem is that it costs $12-18 for most scotches when I can buy the entire bottle for $30-60. This to me is a better option as me and a couple of friends are fairly new scotch drinkers, and are still trying to find our way in looking for what we like. This gives us an opportunity to try different scotches - and not just one taste, as I personally have found that it may take a couple to actually accustomed yourself to the taste and truly appreciate the scotch.

I know that scotch is a personal thing, but I was just looking for opinions - not to form my own, but just curios.

I think Tiger was just suggesting reading up on any prospective acquisition first.

I know what you mean about state stores. I grew up in PA but moved to NJ and now to CA. State stores would almost be a deal-breaker for me to take a job in such a state.

Joe

"prophet" wrote

I agree that "sampling" a scotch for 1/2 the price of the bottle is a bit, uh, stupid...unless your thing is spending big bucks in overpriced bars. It's not my thing. In fact, when I started out, I made the following gambles: first, Laphroig 10, followed by Ardbeg 10, Talisker 10, Highland Park 12, Aberlour A'bunadh. Well, let's just say that I think it was worth the risk. All of these were purchased according to recommendations of this ng. I have expanded this significantly, and some I like more than others. None, however, are undrinkable. I would add to this rant that while I do not agree 100% with either MJ or JM, I would probably shy away from anything that both of them trash, and I would blindly buy anything that both of them like. Oddly, there is only one whisky (under $200) that both experts rank above 90. Tell us what you think of the GF 15.

nothing. but having already done so, you really should drink some of it. you may even like it. >>>

and then "Joe Halbleib" snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

----------- yup.

do your research first.

you can listen to those who love the fruity flowery highlands and lowlands, or you can listen to those who love that other stuff (i, for one, am firmly convinced that a conspiracy exists among islay distillers to hide the irrefutable fact that *all* their whisky is triple-filtered through pulverized rotting wet suits).

or you can drink a dram or two of the scotch that you bought.

tiger

*ROFL!*

Or, one man's ambrosia is another's horse piss.

So far, I've found that I've thoroughly enjoyed all of the Islays I've tried. This would be (in chronological order) Bowmore Darkest, Lagavulin 16, Ardbeg 10, and Laphroaig 10 cask strength (red stripe).

Fortunately for me, none of the single malts I've tried have been bad. Having read about Loch Dhu, though, I'm glad I've never encountered any. :) The shocking thing is that someone has actually

*faked* Loch Dhu!

My "scores" so far, purely subjective, of course:

93 Highland Park 18 Perfect balance between sweet and peat. 92 Aberlour A'bunadh (I've tried batches 10 and 11) The ultimate sherry monster. 92 Lagavulin 16 A velvet-fisted punch of peat. 92 Laphroaig 10 CS (red stripe) In-your-face peat... wow! 91 Ardbeg 10 In-your-face peat, Part II. 91 Talisker 10 Lagavulin-like, plus some fire. 89-91 Highland Park 20 (Signatory UCF, bottled for Binny's) A bit more fire than the OB 18 year. 86 Aberlour 10 Great bang-for-the-buck with a nice hit of sherry. 85 Bowmore Darkest Seaside bonfire. No hint of FWP. 80-86 Macallan CS (NAS) Needs to breathe a bit. 78 Isle of Jura 10 Has a slight oiliness to it. It's drinkable, but not the best. I'll have to see if it gets better with some time, like the Mac did.

Non-Scotch:

83 Maker's Mark (Bourbon) Smoooooth... easy drinking. 82 Forty Creek Barrel Select (Canadian) Something tasty from north of the border.

Ranges indicate improvement after opening.

It's kind of funny that, even though I started out with Aberlour (a sherried Speysider), I've gravitated toward the peaty Islays (plus Talisker). Why was I so afraid of them? I'll give the Bowmore credit for pushing me in that direction...

I had been leery of trying Laphroaig, but I decided that, if I was going to try it, I'd go whole-hog with the CS version. If peat's your thing, this is a great choice, and so is the Ardbeg 10, for that matter.

As much as I like the peat monsters, I can see how some folks might not care for them. "Love it or hate it," indeed!

The Macallan NAS cask strength was initially somewhat disappointing - the first few drams had a bitter edge that I haven't found in A'bunadh. After setting the bottle aside for a while, I came back to it the other day and found that the bitterness wasn't there. Much better, but the A'bunadh is still superior. If this is any indication, Macallan needs to concentrate on whisky instead of hype.

Russ

There are long traditions on this group (I've been lurking and/or posting here for five or six years) of doing advance research, and of asking other posters how they liked a malt you've bought before you've found the occasion to taste it yourself, and of tasting it yourself, and of posting about it after, and of discussing the impressions that you did and didn't agree on, etc.

Keep in mind that the group is about discussing single malt whisky. Flaming other posters, however mildly, for asking them to share their opinions of a malt is, well, a bit contrary to how we have generally done things.

cheers.

bill

Question: as everyone seems to have a different pallet, how am I to truly "do research" unless I actually try the scotch myself???????

This is why I bought the bottle in question....to see if I would enjoy it.

I only asked the question to see other peoples impressions - I have the bottle, so trust me, I will drink it! - and if I like it, that will be up to me, not other peoples thoughts. Nor did I post the question to create a controversy - just curious.

acquisition

Yes, I understand that, and to Tiger, I am sorry if I sounded defensive, but I like to jump right in sometimes - and like I mentioned earlier, it is almost as cheap for me to just buy the bottle as to try it.

I sure wish that we could sample here, but I am yet to find a store here in B.C. that will let me.

. I would add to this rant that while I do not agree 100%

so where do I find their opinions.

So I am yet to hear a review.....does this mean that nobody has tried this scotch - or is it that it is not you do not feel that it is worth mentioning

I just wanted to clarify one thing.....

the reason I bout the bottle, was due to the fact that the bartender of the scotch bar I sometimes go to suggested the 17yr. She did so knowing which scotches I enjoy - and she has not steered me wrong yet.

I know that it was not the 17yr that I bought, but I can not find the 17yr, so I thought that I would try the 15 year in it's stead.

"prophet" skrev i melding news:4FBWc.49390$X12.19969@edtnps84...

Hi!

I have no idea why this Tiger reacted as he did, of course it's allright to ask questions like yours here - happens all the time!

Maybe no one has tried the Glenfarclas 15, or maybe the ones who has is on vacation - I don't know. Sorry you don't get decent replies, though.

I haven't tried it my self, but the 12 is rather nice, noticable sherry, smooth, rather long caramelly sweet finish. And the Glenfarclas "105" (no age statement, 105 proof) is in my opinion simply exellent if you are in to the sherry-thing: Comparable with the Aberlour A'bunadh, but somewhat tougher in style, lots of flower, sherry, chocolate, vanilla, camfer, oak, some sweetness.. really something.

Here is what Michael Jackson writes about the 15 in his Malt Whisky Companion, 5th ed:

Quote: Many enthusiast feel that this age most deftly demonstrates the complexity of this malt. Certainly the best-balanced Glenfarclas. Colour: Amber. Nose: Plenty of sherry, oak, maltiness, and a hint of smokiness - all elements of a lovely, mixed bouquet. Body: Firm, rounded. Palate: Assertive, again with all the elements beautifully melded. Finish: Long and smooth. Score: 88. Unquote. (Sounds promising!)

Hope this was to some help. Like to hear what you think of it your self when you've tried a few drams!

Gunnar

Why deny yourself the experience? Are you afraid it's going to harm you somehow?

8;)

Have you tasted Sheep Dip? Three year old sm's sold in Italy? Believe me, Loch Dhu is no worse than those, unless your mind sees the dark coloration and is too weak to overcome it.

I consider it drinbable, but a bit different. Only half a bottle left!

-- Larry

If you get a chance try the Forty Creek 3 grain, very worthy whiskey. (I am a bit partial, I have the barrel select AND the 3 grain right now)

email: My foot isn't medium, it's big.

I've had it. It didn't blow me away but it wasn't particularly crappy either. I ten to like Islay's and other stronger (in flavor) drams myself.

email: My foot isn't medium, it's big.

Both of these fellows, Michael Jackson and Jim Murray, are the formidable whisky "experts." You can see my comments on them in the post that I am about to make, which will be entitled "Research Rant." Anyway, both of them have a primary, cohesive book. MJ's is called 'Michael Jackson's Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch, 5th ed.' I have the fourth ed., which I purchased from Amazon at low cost. JM's book is called 'Jim Murray's Whisk(e)y Bible 200x.' I have the '04 version, and because it's a US book, it's Whiskey...two entitlements exist, spanning both spellings. It was also acquired through Amazon. I tend to agree more with Michael Jackson than Jim Murray, but it's just my opinion. Both books are worth having, I believe. If nothing else, they shed perspective, and reputable ones at that.