The Glenfarclas 105 is the distillery’s young NAS* whisky—it seems like every distillery has one now—and is more specifically a challenger to the well-loved Aberlour A’bunadh in the “heavily sherried young whisky at a very high abv” category. Perhaps because Glenfarclas have not thought to release the 105 with batch numbers it’s never quite received the cult acclaim of the A’bunadh series. Or perhaps that’s because it’s just a little too young, raw and hot. At least, that was my impression on the very few occasions on which I’ve tried it in the past. Recently, however, some friends and I split some bottles and this was among them. I’m interested to see what I make of it when I’m paying a lot of attention to it.
By the way, as you probably know, the fact that the 105 is always at 60% doesn’t mean it’s ever diluted to reach that unlikely round number. Apparently, Glenfarclas vat casks at higher and lower strengths till they get to 60% (and I assume 105 refers to the proof—57% is abv in the imperial system which probably means 60% = 105%; it may say this on the bottle but I didn’t keep it after the split). So it’s always genuinely cask strength whisky. At least until we find out, Glendronach-style, that this is yet another term that means something very different to the industry from what we think it does.
Glenfarclas 105 (60%; from a bottle split with friends)
Nose: Intense sherry, yes, but quite bright—orange peel, plums. Quite a bit of oak too. The wood gets even stronger (and dustier) as it sits but there’s some other sweet fruit too now (apricots?) and spicy notes that actually call high-strength bourbons to mind. With water the wood gets pushed back and there’s much better balance now. The sweeter fruity notes comes out to the top: plum sauce and yes, apricots; there’s also something floral.
Palate: As on the nose, it’s obviously sherried but not in the usual raisins and caramel way. Again it’s brighter notes of dried orange peel that make the strongest impression, and, again there’s a lot of wood. The sweeter notes from the nose are not much in evidence here. The citrus gets brighter with time—more lemon than orange. But I think this is going to need water to pull out anything else that may be hiding in here under the wood. Water pushes back the wood on the palate too—though not as much as on the nose—but I’m not sure that anything new emerges as such (maybe a bit of toffee?); instead the wood becomes more palatable and more spicy (clove, cinnamon). Much nicer mouthfeel now.
Finish: Long. The citrus and wood slowly wash out and it gets quite salty at the end, leaving me finally with taste of rusted iron/blood in the mouth. Even with water there’s a fair bit of wood on the palate.
Comments: I quite liked the nose but there’s not a whole lot of interest on the palate. And, especially without water, the wood is just a bit too strong for my liking, especially on the finish. Maybe I didn’t get the water right. As is, I wouldn’t turn down a pour but this doesn’t make me want to buy a full bottle any time soon. If the next pour isn’t any better the rest of my split is probably headed into a home-blend. Advantage A’bunadh.
Rating: 82 points.
*Apologies for my laziness in not even bothering to turn the bottle around while pouring out the shares and then photographing it (I have a general lack of interest in distillery-blather on labels). Feedback after I made the post indicates this is probably actually 10 years old; the friends who took the bottle itself are out of the country—I’ll ask them to take a look at their bottle when they get back early next week.
My Annoying Opinions 
I seem to recall reading or hearing that they’d (recently) stuck a 10 year old age statement on it.
After a half-arsed search I can’t find anything to support this, however, so maybe I dreamt the whole thing.
LikeLike
You have not dreamed up the 10 year age statement. Unlike other bottles, the age statement is on the back label.
LikeLike
I never even bothered to look at the back label of our split bottle. I’ll ask the friends who got the bottle when they get back into town—is the 10 yo age statement a new thing? I’ve no idea when our bottle was released.
LikeLike
I’ve seen it on two bottles, one bought in 2010, the other in 2014.
Note these are for Canadian market (with French on the back label. I don’t imagine they would be available in the US), so bottlings for the American market may be different.
LikeLike
I think it’s recently been announced that the 105 is about to go NAS anyway – great times.
LikeLike
Just to add to the confusion, the 375 mL bottle I got from the UK a while back doesn’t have an age statement anywhere on it.
LikeLike
I almost think that one man’s ‘too woody’ is another’s ‘full of flavour’! I really like this one – you’re right, it is firey and raw, but for me, that’s where the magic lies.
Keep on waffling!
Nick
LikeLike
Certainly. It’s not my intention to pronounce on the absolute qualities of the whiskies I review, only on what I find in them. I found a lot of wood in this one, and it’s also the case that I am more sensitive to woody notes than some others are. I try to make it clear what the basis of my evaluations are so that others who may relate differently to the notes I find can make sense of them.
LikeLike
In fact, you’ve inspired me – I’m gonna have a crack at a review of this one!
LikeLike
For all it’s worth, I checked the Glenfarclas 105 bottle in a BevMo store yesterday, and it states clearly on the back label that it’s 10 years old.
LikeLike
That reminds me—the friends who have the bottle are back in town; I’ll ask them to take a look. My guess is the age will be on the label too and I will be proved, yet again, to be a lazy idiot.
LikeLike
Let the controversy end: I have a blurry phone picture of the back label from my friends and there is indeed an age statement of 10 years! My apologies to those who have been emotionally scarred or in any way harmed by all this confusion. It has been a tough five days for us all, but together we can heal.
LikeLike
Regardless of the NAS/10 y.o. controversy, it’s rubbish language. “Aged 10 years” or “10 years old” but not “Aged 10 years old”. Surely?
LikeLike
Somehow Ralfy missed all the angst and drama of #105gate last week. http://whiskyreviews.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/whisky-review-508-glenfarclas-single.html
LikeLike
Hey, you’re an inspiration – that Ralfy guy just did a review of the GF105. He gave it 83pts, just to be a bit different.
LikeLike
Interesting posts. I got a 105 a couple of years ago as a novice and loved it for the woodiness you are describing. Finished it and started looking for ways to get it again. Finally picked it up almost two years later and found the newer bottling to be nowhere as exciting. Batch variation or my tastes have changed? This was a vast difference I found.
LikeLike
And I guess I’d probably find a less woody version more to my taste! I actually swapped the remainder of my Glenfarclas 105 with Florin (he gave me the remainder of his Macallan CS)—hopefully he’ll sample it soon and weigh in here.
LikeLike
I drank most of it but didn’t take notes. The gist of it is, I agree with your grade (and comments). This was nowhere near the GF105 I had a few years back. There was a bothersome hotness and acidity to it. It may come from wood, but not from good wood. The kernel of sweet, smooth (can I say ‘smooth’?) sherry was there, but it was hidden pretty well. It sounds indeed like there’s batch variation.
LikeLike
Thanks for reporting back. Now get cracking on all the other samples!
LikeLike
I promised it a long time ago – but I finally wrote a review! http://whiskywaffle.com/2015/01/13/glenfarclas-105/ Whisky Waffle’s first cask strength, too!
Keep on waffling,
Nick
LikeLike
Tonight I had some of the 20 yo 105 released in 2012. It was a small pour, only about four or five small sips worth, but I can say that it is more than twice as good as the regulation 10 yo 105.
LikeLike