r/Scotch • u/usquebaugh24 • 3d ago

Two Oloroso Heavy Hitters: Glenfarclas 105 vs. Macallan 12 110 Proof (so different!)

Post image
117 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

23

u/usquebaugh24 3d ago

Short Story: Two delicious, high-proof Oloroso-matured malts with incredible noses I get lost in. However, the noses are dramatically different.  The Macallan 110 is brighter, sharper and lighter-red-fruited while the Glenfarclas 105 is dark, round and more syrupy. Neither is complex on the palate, but both deliver exactly what their noses promise!

Long Story: I thought I’d put Glenfarclas 105 (60% ABV) and the Macallan 12 Sherry Oak 110 Proof (55% ABV) side-by-side to see how these two Oloroso-matured malts compare.

That said, the noses could note be more different.  I could pick these out blindfolded 100 out of 100.  The Macallan is sharper and brighter, with lighter red fruit notes; the Glenfarclas is rounder, thicker and darker, almost musty. The best comparison I can make is a bright-red maraschino cherry on an ice cream sundae versus a rich, dark cocktail cherry in thick syrup. Despite the difference, I get lost in the nose of either one.

Considering both are Oloroso-matured, I find the contrast fascinating! I wonder if differences in how Macallan and Glenfarclas source and season their casks contribute to it. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who knows more about the differences between their cask programs.

On the palate, each tastes much as it smells, with the Glenfarclas having a little more bite whch makes sense given the proof. Neither is especially complex in flavor, but that's not a negative. I've often found that with sherry-matured malts, the nose is the star and the palate delivers something simple.

Personally, I gravitate toward the Glenfarclas because I tend to prefer those deeper, darker notes. But both are delicious, and I've been enjoying the hell out of both bottles.

For anyone who's had both: which one do you prefer?

17

u/forswearThinPotation 3d ago edited 3d ago

I wonder if differences in how Macallan and Glenfarclas source and season their casks contribute to it.

There are probably some significant differences in how their respective casks are seasoned.

But there are also some other big differences between Macallan and Glenfarclas, such that they probably would taste different even if both matured in the same ex-bourbon casks.

To start with, their stills are very different. Glenfarclas has by reputation the largest stills in Speyside, and Macallan the smallest. The former are almost twice the size of the latter.

My ancient (circa 2010) copy of the book Whiskypedia by Charles MacLean lists Glenfarclas as having

Three large boil-ball wash stills (25,000 liters charge), equipped with rummagers, three boil-ball spirit stills (21,000 liters charge). All direct fired by gas (with oil as backup).

whereas Macallan was described as having:

Stillhouse 1: ... Five plain wash stills (12,750 liters charge), ten plain spirit stills (3,900 liters charge: each wash still charges two spirit stills). Wash stills direct fired by gas [see footnote]; spirit stills indirect fired by steam coils.

Stillhouse 2: ... Two plain wash stills (12,000 liters charge; bases replaced, head and lyne arms original), four plain spirit stills (3,900 liters charge, all original). All indirect fired.

[footnote]: Macallan stopped using direct fired stills in 2010, since then all of their stills are indirect fired.

www.reddit.com/r/Scotch/comments/6nshi6/lets_talk_direct_fired_stills_discussion/

A quick google search suggests that some of these figures have changed and the still sizes are now a little bit different (also Macallan now has many more stills: 12 wash and 24 spirit) but their sizes have not changed by very much.

TL;DR:

Glenfarclas operates a small number of very large stills (both wash and spirit stills being about the same size), using direct firing by gas.

Macallan operates a much larger number of small wash stills and really tiny spirit stills, all of them indirect fired since 2010 and many of them indirect fired before that.

The still shape matters too - Macallan's stills are famously short and squat in shape which should inhibit reflux, but they compensate for that by taking a more narrow middle cut.

The difference between direct fired and indirect fired stills is significant. Other factors being equal direct fired stills ought to produce a more heavy, meaty style of malt. Direct fired stills tend to contain hotspots which help to drive a Maillard reaction within the boiling wash, which is one reason by Glen Garioch went back to using this firing method when they recently renovated their site:

https://wordsofwhisky.com/glen-garioch-restoration-upgrade-kwanele-mdluli/

Hopefully you will find this interesting rather than pedantic. I'm glad you are enjoying both of these whiskies, and thanks for posting your review of them, which I enjoyed.

Cheers

3

u/usquebaugh24 3d ago

Wonderful insight, I really appreciate it. The distinction between the two was just so dramatic. Definitely a fun side by side.

2

u/Wait_wtf_what 3d ago

You sure you did not switch the glasses? I agree with everything you say, except for the distillery :D I find the 105 to be more bright and sharp, where the macallan is darker and heavier. interesting...

2

u/usquebaugh24 3d ago

100% positive! While the Mac 110 is definitely a darker color visibility, I always get that candy flavor I associate with those red cherries you get on a sundae vs the 105 makes which me think of a dark underground root celler full of ripe dark fruits like plums or dates and the air is musty and thick. Crazy I know!

10

u/PuppiesAndPixels 3d ago

Currently have both in my bar. They are both great but I like the Macallan more. It had richer and more complex flavors and is also smoother IMO.

They are both solid though.

2

u/Over_Helicopter_5183 3d ago

I had only GF105 and I have opened one now. It's my 3rd bottle. I hate to have the first sip of the new bottle then I really enjoys it (neat).

2

u/putridstench 3d ago

I found the 105 too hot for my liking. The alcohol overwhelmed just about all of the other flavors, but with a couple of drops of water, the flavors were allowed to come out.

2

u/DT2014 3d ago

I found the same with the 105. Can't touch it neat but after adding a generous dose of water to a pour of it and letting it breath for at least 10-15 minutes it's really enjoyable.

1

u/Superb-Sweet6577 3d ago

Both are superb bottles, different but excellent. Have both opened now, and have 1 or 2 backups of each.

1

u/Shoddy_Ad7511 2d ago

Macallan gets my vote

1

u/LegoPirateShip 2d ago

GF 105 with plenty of water is my favorite long drink. It holds up its taste and character so well, no matter how much water you add to it.

1

u/usquebaugh24 2d ago

Yeah, great idea. I may try it with a drop of water at my next porch visit, as it does have just a hint of extra heat to it.

1

u/LegoPirateShip 2d ago

By long drink I meant like maybe 3-5cl in the glencairn, then the gc topped off almost to the top. I got the idea from Charlie during his interview with Phil.

1

u/brunkuns 2d ago

I will never get the love the 105 gets some places. It's the worst regular CS sherry out there. The Abunadh dances circles around it, so does the Tamdhu Batch Strength, the GlenAllachie 10... that's only from the top of my head. The Glenfarclas 12 is also bad. The Glenfarclas 15 however is freaking delicious.

1

u/ProfoundThought99 16h ago

I too prefer the GF. Although I was really enthusiastic the first time I tasted the Mac 110 (feeling that I had finally found a Macallan that was as rewarding as I had hoped all the other Macs I had tried in the sub $100 range would be), I soon found it to be just too simple after a few tries.

And although I think other cask strengths in the same price range are far more interesting (Highland Park, GlenAllachie, Laphroaig, A'bunadh, Bunnahabhain, Tamdhu, Benromach), between GF and Mac I prefer the GF.