Whisky Death Match! Glenfarclas 12 versus The Macallan 12

For your entertainment and gustatory pleasure, tonight's main event is a death match between two fierce sherried competitors:  The Macallan 12 years Highland Single Malt Scotch and Glenfarclas 12 years Highland Single Malt Scotch

These adversaries inhabit the Speyside region of Scotland and are sworn enemies on liquor store shelves everywhere.  They compete for territory in the 12 year old single malt sherried scotch marketplace jungle.

The Macallan 12 years Highland Single Malt
Introducing first:  making his way from the north side of the river Spey in Speyside, weighing in at 40% abv, fighting out of the sherried oak casks of Jerez, Spain corner, a legend of sherried single malt, third best selling single malt after Glenfiddich and Glenlivet, the one and only: The Suave & Sophisticated!  The Macallan 12 years!

Glenfarclas 12 years Highland Single Malt
Introducing the challenger to the sherried single malt 12 year old title belt:    Hailing from just south of the river Spey, weighing in at a robust 43% abv, this is no herbivore of a dinosaur, but a carnivore, looking to draw first blood from his no-caramel-added opponent!  The dangerous and unpredictable!  The Barbarian!  Glenfarclas 12 years!

Announcer:  Ok boys!  I wanna clean fight.  No caramel added and see what you can do to avoid being chill-filtered.
. . .

Announcer (con't):  The Macallan makes his move first stealthily with incredible finesse suggestive of the highest training in Aikido.  Lift your Glencairn glass of Macallan 12 to your nose and enjoy:  Cherry blossoms, crushed strawberries ready for making jam, vanilla and roses, which are caught up in a lungful of North Sea air.  Languid, sublime nose, simply fantastic!

With this terrific effort of aromas, it comes as no surprise the Macallan 12 lands a perfectly executed roundhouse kick to the snout of the Glenfarclas.

The Barbarian Glenfarclas stumbles from this unexpected assault upon his olfactory abilities.  He's bleeding heavily from the snout, as he attempts to retort:  Lifting the Glencairn glass of Glenfarclas 12 you will sniff concentrated sherry, port (even though port plays no part in production), big Cabernet Sauvignon notes too!  A little whiff of something untamed though, not raw alcohol, but something out of place, maybe like damp wood smoke, but eventually you get some hot cherry pie.  Not the best nose of a 12 year old malt, not terrible, just ok.  The Barbarian Glenfarclas' punch fails to land on the Suave and Sophisticated Macallan.

Palate (Macallan/undiluted)
The Macallan easily ducks his unrefined adversary's out-of-control lunge at his nose, and now aims for a deft combination punch to the jaw:   a nanosecond of ripe watermelon and then quickly moving into black grapes, before the flavor profile goes deeper into blackberries and plum.  French Pinot Noir notes, wine of the earth, red earth.  Subtle sherried dram with the elegance of an Audi meandering along the coastal highway of west coast wine country.  Should we stop in Carmel?  I dunno Becky?  Is it a little kinda been done to death?

Palate (Glenfarclas/undiluted)
The Barbarian laughs off this girlie man subtle attack upon his palate, and with his long reach slams the delicate jaw line of Macallan with a webbed and scaly fist of:  far more concentrated and robust sherry flavors; and then follows that up with a lightning uppercut to the palate with semi-sweet chocolate with delightful bitter moments.  The Macallan is stumbling . . . but the Barbarian is not done, as he unleashes a fury of combination punches delivering passion fruits, pomegranate, raspberries, dragonfruit, loganberry and then towering sherry in all its multifaceted ruby splendour. . . but the Barbarian goes too far.  The bell has rung ending the round, but he continues to strike his opponent.  He has gone too far leaving a slightly raw or bitter taste in the mouths of the judges.

Finish (Macallan/undiluted)
The Macallan 12 is wobbly as the end of the round nears.  He's unsteady as he vainly tries to launch a final assault of: rich, luxuriant Merlot like wine finish, with very faint smoke accompanied by orange chocolate.  Repeated sips delivers more smoke on the finish.

Finish (Glenfarclas/undiluted)
The Barbarian Glenfarclas attempts move in for the kill:  "Macallan you fool!" (pronounced with Mr. T's voice) unleashing a finish of: dusted sherry, old port and the powder dry tannins of Pio Cesare Ornato Barolo,  the red wine of kings and the king of wines, but what is happening now?  Camphor and French Roast coffee bean?  It's out of place, that last minute head fake was a mistake because the Macallan has landed one last blow!  Glenfarclas' raw and unruly taste mid-palate is there a little in the finish causing a tactical error in this match to the death.  The refinement of the Macallan in the palate and through to the finish results in an uppercut that takes the Barbarian to the mat and to his most certain death.

While the Suave and Sophisticated Macallan 12 would have preferred to settle the claims to his title with the upstart Glenfarclas by way of a more dignified duel, he nevertheless prevailed because he kept his balance and guard.

Announcer:  Well there you have it!  The raw and unruly midpalate attack of the Barbarian Glenfarclas was its downfall.  Had he been more balanced and poised as The Macallan 12, he would have been victorious.  Instead, he is under the heel of the Macallan.

Cheers!


Jason Debly

P.S.:  These are excellent 12 year old single malts.  Glenfarclas 12 is more robust and also more wild in its sherried flavor profile.  There is ginger or something akin to near alcohol that makes it a little out of balance, and for that reason I prefer the Macallan 12.  Macallan gets a lot of bad press for being too predictable, but I think such a view is a mistake.  The Macallan 12 is a surprisingly subtle whisky.  The sherry profile is complex, but subtle.  Some critics I think have equated subtlety with being predictable or not interesting.  That's the key to Macallan 12, the appreciation is in it's refinement and restraint.  Similarly, the failure of the Glenfarclas is it's a little too robust.

Copyright © Jason Debly, 2009-2012. All rights reserved. Any and all use is prohibited without permission.

Scotch Whisky Appreciation is Empiricism Tempered by Subjectivism

Prague Castle and Straka Academy at night from Cech Bridge, Prague 

I received a visitor from the Czech Republic.  Well, he did not actually visit me, but rather this blog, which is kinda like an extension of my home.  If you like whisky, I welcome you into my online abode.  In any event, my Czech visitor wrote the following email:

Hi Jason,


I just want to give you my big thanks for how you unflaggingly keep your blog alive which is immensely inspiring for a whisky newbie like me. I  tripped over your blog when searching for a good whisky I could present my friend with on the occasion of his 30`s birthdays few months ago and based on your reviews I chose Highland Park 15. Another friend of mine, also now in his 30`s, was gifted Macallan 12 cherry oak and, luckily, Hibiki 17 and so we decided to conduct our very first collective tasting. To make it even more interesting I had listened to you and contributed to this event by buying a bottle of Cragganmore 12 and, just for comparison, I also brought a recently opened bottle of Tullamore Dew 12. The order was following:

 1. Tullamore
 2. Cragganmore
 3. Macallan 12
 4. Highland Park 15
 5. Hibiki 17


 I have to say that until this tasting I was a 60% bourbon drinker and 40 % Irish whisky drinker, all I have  tasted so far from scotch was Johnnie Walker Red and Black several years ago, so I was honestly a little afraid if I could appreciate this excellent, but to me quite unknown stuff. I felt kinda like cast pearls before swine, meant me :) To my relief I can say, that there wasnt any whisky I didnt like.


 Started with Tullamore we agreed that it was a nice stuff, maybe still a little harsh but overall easy drinking. We were still musing about Tullamore while I was pouring us the Cragganmore and when we raised our glasses to our noses it caught us utterly unprepared to what arrived. The nose was, compared to Tullamore, so rich, complex and pleasantly overwhelming (it felt like smelling a jug of honey to me) that we just unbelievingly stared at each other and I was silently  praising you for having reccomended this whisky as a good choice  for newbies. Tullamore was immediately forgotten because we were kicked several stores above. And the finish was so long, the taste of oak went on and on and on, great! With anticipation we proceeded to Macallan.  I was personally anticipated quite a lot from this whisky but honestly it didnt WOW me. Do not take me wrong, it was a good experience, the nose and the palate were in my humble opinion very nice, smooth and all the tastes well refined together, but then, right after swallowing it, it was gone. Nothing. Compared to Cragganmore, Macallan did quite poorly speaking about the finish. The another day, when we gave Macallan another chance, the finish improved a bit (maybe because the air inside the bottle did some work?), but still, quite short. 


Anyway, the next one was the Highland Park and I remembered your post about being in the presence of greatness :) Well, I have to admit that I could detect the quality hidden inside the bottle, the nose, the palate and the finish didnt dissapointed me a bit, but I just wasnt able to recognize so much flavors and scents out of it like for example from the Cragganmore.  Highland Park left me with a feeling that there are plenty of flavors, very well refined and mixed together, but due to my inexperience out of my reach its still a very long distance I have to make on my whisky-knowledge path before I will be able to detect them all. Anyway, an excellent whisky and I am looking forward to my next encounter with it! The last, but definitely not the least was Hibiki. The nose was absolutely fantastic! I couldnt help myself but I could mainly detect some punch-like cherry tones, strong yet smooth, something I definitely didnt expect to scent from any whisky. The taste was also very pleasing, no unpleasant notes there, blenders masterpiece I would say. The finish was very satisfying and we couldn agree if it was longer than in Cragganmore case or not. After various tastings here are the winners:


 1. Hibiki
 2. Highland Park
 3. Cragganmore (I still wonder if I didnt like it even more than Highland
 Park, but as I said, there is that definite quality hidden in HP I cannot deny
 4. Macallan
 5. Tullamore


 To conclude, this was a wonderful experience for all of us, like when you open a hidden door and find another world behind that you never new about before - the world of single malts (forgive me Hibiki) and since then we are all on the quest of discovering and relishing all the good things which whisky producers have prepared for us :)


Jason, thank you very much again because as my favorite blogger you have contributed greatly to this new hobby of mine and I will definitely stay faithful to your blog and will be looking forward to the post that you place there in the future!

Keep writing!
It is worth reading ;)


Best regards,
David


. . .

I am very flattered to have received that email!  Sure, it is always nice to hear someone likes what I am writing, but the real reason I post the email from David is to argue that whisky appreciation is not simply a matter of beauty in the eye of the beholder.  Moreover, I wish to challenge the generally held belief of most people that one's likes or dislikes of a given whisky are purely subjective and have no empirical/objective basis.

Absolute Truths
I believe that there are some absolute truths in this world of ours:

(1)  it is always wrong to torture children;

(2) never drink wine from a paper cup; and

(3) knowledge of good and inferior whiskies is obtained via sensory perception.

And guess what?  David's email is support of that final immutable proposition.

If you gave me the very same line-up of whiskies that he and his friends tasted and evaluated, I too, would have ranked them in the very same order.  So would most of my friends.  That's not a coincidence.  But, let's say someone would rank Hibiki second to say Highland Park 15, I could accept that and still believe my argument holds water that there are objective criteria distinguishing great from not-so-great whiskies.

The Myth of Subjectivism
If the beauty of whisky was truly in the eye of the beholder, then it would be true and self-evident to all that Ballantine's Finest or Bell's Blended Scotch is just as good a scotch whisky as say Royal Salute 21 years or Johnnie Walker Blue Label.  No one seriously believes that, nor does the fundamental economics law of supply and demand support such a view.

Why?  The two cheap blends are grainy while the latter two are not.  The two bottom-shelf residents are terribly sweet with no relief or flavor development.  The reasons are endless.  In other words, the high-end whiskies provide a much more pleasant tasting experience.  So, it is a myth to say that the merits of a whisky are solely in the eye of the beholder.  With so many examples of great versus terrible whisky comparisons that we can all agree on, it can't be true that it's all just in the 'eye of the beholder.'

The Reality of Subjectivism
Having said the above, let's not dismiss entirely what we, ourselves, bring to the tasting experience.  We bring our own opinions, some held critically, while others dogmatically (i.e. Islay peat bombs are simply superior to Speyside honeyed malts).  A peat and smoke freak will invariably rank Laphroaig 18 higher than say Hibiki 17.  They are two very different whiskies.  So are Hibiki 17 and Highland Park 15 years.  A person who derives more delight in robust toffee and heather flavors will rank the Highland Park higher than the Hibiki.  Is this wrong?  I would say 'no.'  Am I contradicting myself?  No.

You might be thinking:

"Jason, you can't have it both ways.  Whisky appreciation cannot on one hand be based on objective criteria that we can all agree on, and on the other, be based in part on our subjective thoughts and feelings."

. . .

And, that my friend is exactly what I am saying.  Appreciation of great whisky is a two-step approach.  First, objective and then subjective.  

Hibiki 17 versus Highland Park 15 yrs
These are both fantastic whiskies.  Which is better?  It's kinda like saying my Mercedes S-Classs sedan is better than your BMW 7 Series sedan (by the way, I own neither).  One vehicle is not better than the other, just different.  One vehicle might accelerate half a second quicker, but the slower luxury sedan has a quieter engine.   They are both majestic automobiles.

At the same time, we can easily agree that the Mercedes S-Class is superior to the Hyundai Accent.  We have objective, sensory based data that we can measure.  The Mercedes drives quieter, has more horse power, all-wheel-drive versus front wheel drive, softer leather, greater aesthetics (ie. wood grain dash versus plastic).  Like the Ballantine's Finest versus Royal Salute comparison, the list of reasons goes on endlessly too.

However, when we compare the Mercedes S-class to a BMW 7-series, it is no longer readily apparent that one vehicle is better than the other.  Both have beautiful leather seating, quiet ride, immaculate handling, etc.  The vehicle you rank higher will now depend on your second phase of analysis that involves your own personal preferences, like an affection for sports car performance (BMW) or placing a premium on a serene driving experience like floating on a cloud (Mercedes).  Whichever one you end up ranking as the best is just as valid as my own opposing view.  

The Hybrid Approach
Similarly, in the appreciation of whisky, there is an objective basis for declaring some whiskies are great (Royal Salute 21) and others not (Bell's).  But, between two great whiskies, the competition becomes based upon the likes or dislikes of the individual.  Between two great whiskies, the beauty in the eye of the beholder view has merit.  Accordingly, we need to recognize that we practice a two-phase or hybrid approach to whisky appreciation.  First, there is an initial objective review followed by a secondary subjective review.

Conclusion
What can we take away from this discussion?

I think it is fair to declare some whiskies are not as good as others.  We can make that determination about other consumer goods, why not whisky?  Of course, once a whisky meets a certain benchmark of excellence of craft, the decision of whether or not one is better than the other is not verifiable, except by reference to your own likes and dislikes.  Hence, I can declare with authority that poor old Bell's or Ballantine's Finest cannot hold a candle to a great many other scotch whiskies, but not authoritatively state Royal Salute is better than Johnnie Walker Blue, without relying heavily on my individual likes and dislikes.  Difficulties arise when we try to decide which whiskies among the great are better.  This is because we have a differing sense of where the 'certain benchmark of excellence' a whisky must obtain is located.

For me, a whisky can be great where it exhibits the following:

• smooth but interesting;
• no raw alcohol taste;
• no nasty bite or bitterness;
• there has to be an evolution of the flavor profile;  It has to go somewhere.  It can't be just smooth and sweet.  The whisky needs to transition from sweet to big sherry or big peat or slight sherry, slight lemon or whatever.  It can start sweet but become drying by the time of the finish.  
• There needs to be some texture, tapestry of flavor woven in with that smooth overall character;
• Finally, a great whisky needs to be 'complex';  The meaning of this term is most elusive, but I will try anyway:  an intricacy of flavor that is original, attractive, and takes time to understand. 

How's that for a stab?

And for the record, the Hibiki 17 years is superior to Highland Park 15, but only by the slimmest of margins!

Cheers!



Jason Debly

Copyright © Jason Debly, 2009-2011. All rights reserved. Any and all use is prohibited without permission except for the photograph of Prague and various automobiles.  The photograph is used with permission of the photographer, Vlastula.  He retains all copyright and license to this photo.  Please click on his name for a link to Flickr where you can enjoy more of his great photography.  Photographs of Hyundai and Mercedes were taken by Wikipedia user IFCAR.  All rights to these images have been released into the public domain.  Photograph of BMW 7 Series was by Wikipedia user Mariordo who has granted a license for its image to be used here.

The Macallan 18 yr old Sherry version - Single Malt Scotch Review

The Macallan Distillery is located in the Speyside region of Scotland. Established in the 19th century, needless to say, this is another distiller with a long track record and tradition of producing fine single malt scotch.This distillery is well known for producing a scotch which is aged in Spanisk oak casks that had previously held sherry for a couple of years. As I mentioned in my review of the 12 year old, the sherry soaked Spanish wood imparts its flavor into the Macallan spirit that is aged in these casks for many years. The result is a very sherried scotch. If you do not drink sherry and therefore unsure what is meant by this term (sherry), try this whisky and you will come face to face with the flavor of sherry as found in whisky.The Macallan Distillery has what it calls Sherry Oak Series which is comprised of several different scotches that differ in terms of aging. They are: 7, 10, 12, 18, 25, & 30 years old. And guess what? The price adjusts upwards as they progress in age. It will come as no surprise that the quality is commensurate with age too.

Suggested Setting
The Macallan 18yr. old is not intended for barbecues or throwing darts with the guys out in the garage. This is a single malt that should be carefully sampled in the quiet of one's home when all the distractions of life are at bay. Maybe by the fireplace (if you've got one), on a cold winter's night, watching the snowfall cloud the street lights. Having set up the scene, lets move to the actual serving.

Suggested Serving
In a whisky glass or a tumbler pour a small amount and swirl. This is drinking "neat" or "straight up" as others might put it. If your preference is to add water then I recommend distilled water, but only a drop or two. This will open up some flavours and aromas. I would recommend against adding ice. Ice dilutes the scotch and a lot of its complexity and the many nuances of flavours available. If you are a casual drinker of scotch and always add lots of ice or even a cube, there are a lot of cheaper single malts and blends that will meet your requirements. To add ice to this scotch is an expensive proposition because within ten minutes you will have diluted it such that its really distored in terms of what you will taste. If you like the watered down taste, again choose something cheaper like "Famous Grouse", the #1 selling scotch blend in Scotland. By the way, its key ingredients are the Macallan and Highland Park. Add all the ice of water you want to a tumbler of "Famous Grouse" as it only costs around $20 a bottle.

Nose
Sherry and brandy. A fine bouquet that tells you a treat awaits. Nosing this can go on for quite a while. You will not detect much if any peat scents wafting upward.

Palate
Take a little sip and hold it in your mouth for a second. You will note thick, rich sun beams of sherry, concentrated sweet berries like a big Napa cabernet sauvignon (think Caymus or Cakebread) building towards a crescendo of oak. This is a scotch of great complexity, body and above all, concentration of dark fruit flavors.

Finish
The 'finish' is a term referring to how long the flavor lingers and how it concludes before leaving the palate entirely. In this case, the Macallan 18yr old provides the dry yet sweet taste of oak, ginger and smoke lingering long after you have swallowed that tiny sip. The finish is excellent.

General Impressions
This is a high quality single malt scotch. If you are familiar with the 12 year old Macallan, then you can think of the 18yr old as simply having all the attributes the 12 yr old lacks. The 12 has the flavour of sherry and smoke but lacks the sophistication, refinement and dark berry fruit. The 18 delivers what the palate of the 12 yr old promises but can't come good for. If I were to sum up the 18 in a word, it would be "concentration." Concentration of sherry/smoke and berry flavours in an intriguing fashion.

Cheers!


Jason Debly
© Jason Debly, 2009-2011. All rights reserved.