Glen Ord 12 - Damned by Diageo

Look carefully upon that bottle, and that precious bit of whisky it still holds, as you may never see it's like again.

At least not in the US, Europe, Africa, South America, Antarctica and most of Asia.

I rarely swear at the computer screen while writing these reviews. After all, I'm drinking good whisky - that generally translates into a good mood.

But, as I was reacquainting myself with this old bottle of Glen Ord I unearthed from the back of liquor closet, sighing happily with each sip, I found myself damning those black hearted bastards at Diageo with vehemence I would normally reserve for some worthless, slack-jawed, jackass who just cut me off in traffic.

Those f$%#!!'s took my whisky away.

Yes, those blackguards at Diageo, the monstrous conglomerate that owns Glen Ord and several other distilleries, including Lagavulin and so help me God they'd better not pull this crap with that single malt, have ended the distillery editions of  Glen Ord. The whisky barely continues as a single malt as "The Singleton of Glen Ord" in 12- and 15-year-old expressions, but only at the distillery itself, and in Japan.

The other approximately 6.96 billion of us are S-O-L (shit outta luck).

If you look really hard (say, at the Whisky Exchange site in the UK) you might find a retailer with a small hoard some old stock of the Glen Ord 12-year-old.  That bottle will cost about $100 before shipping, which is a damn sight more than my old bottle cost me back in the day.

The rest of the distillery's production presumably goes into blended Scotches, for example, the various Johnny Walker blends (also owned by Diageo). I hope not too much of it ends up in Johnny Walker Red, as that would be a mighty sin.

And what makes this so sad is that this is a really excellent whisky. Glen Ord is a sherry cask aged Highland whisky. While it is similar to the Macallan and Glen Farclas whiskies I have previously reviewed, it does have a different character.

The Glen Ord 12 (RIP) was bottled at 80 proof (40% abv), which is pretty much at sipping strength. I prefer it with a small (very small) splash of water, as that opens up the aromas and flavor for me.

The aroma is sweet sherry with heather notes with a slight subtle hint of smoke. The spirit has a lovely amber color with a tinge of red.

"I shine, not burn" is the motto on the bottle, and that's exactly how it drinks. It start out with smooth sweetness of sherry, heather and honey. About midway through, some fire, a little spice and a suggestion of smoke that rapidly disappears enter the flavor mix. It all fades pleasantly away, leaving your fast buds demanding more.

Is it worth $100 and international shipping costs? That's a tough call. I easily like it as much as the Macallan 12, probably a little bit more. But $40 plus more? Damn Diageo for making me have to think about that.

If you are traveling, and do get a chance to taste the Glen Ord 12, then I recommend you leap at it. Because if you're one of the S-O-L 6.96 billion, it might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

(PS - let me know if you're going to be visiting the Glen Ord distillery. I might need a care package.)

Glenfarclas 12 - A Slightly Spicier Sherried Scotch

Glenfarclas 12 is a Speyside single malt aged in ex-sherry casks for 12 years.

Wait, that sounds familiar...isn't that Macallan? Or Aberlour?( Oh, A'Bunadh!)

Well, yes. It's the same general recipe: whisky made with water from the River Spey drainage, using low peat malted barely, and aged fully or partly in ex-sherry casks. However, these whiskies are not interchangeable, much the same way that Islay neighbors Lagavulin, Laphroig, and Ardbeg are not interchangeable. Despite the similarities, they all have distinctly different flavors.

Glenfarclas is usually compared most directly to Macallan. Because more folks in the US have encountered Macallan than Aberlour. I'll follow along with that convention.

Glenfarclas is bottled at 86 proof (43% abv), just a little more than the equivalent Macallan. There are folks who swear that they can tell the difference between and 80 proof and 86 proof whisky, but I am not one of them. I like both with just a small splash of water.

Glenfarclas 12 has a sweet sherry aroma that emanates pleasantly from the glass and that can be enjoyed from it sits upon the table. Raising the class to the nose to investigate further brings a bit of an unwelcome surprise - a sharp undertone that reminds me of rubbing alcohol.

Sipped, sherry is the first flavor, some fruit notes, then a hint of honey, and then a bit of spiciness,. The finish is on the short side - is that a little ginger I taste?

Glenfarclas 12 feels lighter in the mouth than the Macallan 12, and the Macallan has a slightly richer, sweeter, smoother flavor.

Which is better? That's a question of personal taste. I prefer the Macallan 12 to the Glenfarclas 12, but I can easily see others taking the opposite tack, finding more enjoyment in the lighter character and spicier flavor of the Glenfarclas.

As for which is the better value, at this age, only a couple of dollars separate the two, with the Glenfarclas being the cheaper. That differential is too small to  dissuade from buying the Macallan 12 instead, especially since both cost more than $50 a bottle.

Interestingly, the price differential expands more than exponentially as the two get older. The Glenfarclas 17 is  around $90, while the year older Macallan goes for about $150. A bottle of 25-year-old Macallan will set you back $850, while the Glenfarclas 25-year-old weighs in at a relatively modest $145 or so. So, if you're looking to add a quarter-century-old whisky to your bar for gravitas, but are on a tight budget, the Glenfarclas is the way to go.