Glenfarclas 10 Year Old

Your narrative does nothing for those interested in tasting notes. It's simply subjective opinion with no concrete examples whatsoever.

There are a gazillion reviews of tasting notes whereby drinkers pull tastes out of nowhere that do not match what is really there. I refuse to fall into that trap, so I merely rate each one for points so that others can at least get started on their quest. I also believe that those one of a kind ancient bottlings that probably are aquired at auction should be classified in a separate group. Rating them together is like comparing a Lamborghini to a Honda Civic, whereby the very good Honda gets a lower rating. As I rate each one of these, I am considering availability and affordability. I try to keep each bottle at less than $100 US. In my bourbon quest, I often said that anything costing over $75 US was for snob appeal. That number would probably rise to over $100 US for single malts, with only two good single malts found at less than $40 US.

I only say that because some people might even doubt you are actually sampling all of these scotches in such a short span of time.

I don't doubt it, but some people might without any sort of tasting notes at all.

Without reasons and examples for your opinions they also are less valuable to others who might like something you don't, and hence might not agree. The way your reviews stand, it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

A review with no reasons to back up why something "tasted cheap" is like directions to get from Point A to Point B that simply advise one to "drive there." Some people like myself might need some sort of frame of reference to understand your viewpoint and appreciate it.

It's hard to know why you like one and not another without any sort of reason, such as, "The Glenfarclas 10 tasted cheap because the malt flavors were subdued with the hot alcohol burn taking front and center stage, and there just wasn't enough of a sherry influence, especially when compared to the Glenfarclas 12, for example. . . "

I see what you mean about price on this one. I agree heartily. The Glenfarclas 10 is actually more expensive than the 12 in Oregon, which seems a little counterintuitive, especially when the two are tasted side by side, which is always an interesting tasting experiment.

I would like to taste the Glenfarclas 10, 12, 17, 21, and 25 side by side. If I had a few more serious scotch friends in town, then this feat could be accomplished at the Highland Stillhouse Pub, for instance. But alas, I have never been able to do cool and interesting things like that because I can't drink that many scotches in a sitting. I rather enjoy sipping a little more than drinking a whole glass. Vintage Cocktail in SE Portland offers half glass pours for half price, which is a very nice choice for those of us who would like to sample scotches without buying a whole glass.

I'm also a bit miffed that I can't really buy tasters in the USA. They are plentiful in UK and not so expensive to ship from Scotland to Europe but they are bloody expensive to ship from Scotland to the USA, so we Americans can't enjoy that fun of buying tasters rather than entire bottles. That is a serious bummer indeed.

Rigmorole: I just got back from another two hour tasting mission of three malts. I usually try four, but I was too busy sharing stories with the very knowledgable bartender. He qualifies as a whiskey expert and should write a book.

What you saw with these recent spinoff reviews is the reult of quick bar tasting notes from weeks ago whereby I would never buy any of these. Sorry, but the only description I could give on this one was "tasted cheap". It was that forgettable.

By the way, half of my purchases of bottles for my home come from trusting these reviews and I have no regrets. The other half of my cabinet consists of being inspired by bar samples that impressed me, which is only about a third of what I sampled. I am also nearing the end of my one month quest to find good affordable and available malts, but I will still go back to talk with some of my favorite bartenders. By the way, each tasting session of 4 malts usually runs me about $50 or so, but saves me hundreds. These reviews are actually cheaper, but the trick is to find a fellow reviewer whose tastes are similar.

Another method to my style is that I can simply e-mail the link of all my reviews to friends and then we can discuss things before I transport opened bottles for them to try.

Some good ideas here. Take care! That's very nice you can get into tasting sessions like that.

Last night's tasting session merited an 89 point review already submitted for Lagavulin 16, an 86 point rating for Glenmorangie Ealanta that won't see a review coming (sherried Glenlivet 12?), and a yet to be decided rating for the third sample that inspired me enough to buy a bottle on the way home. That one is Laphroaig 18 and it will need time to breathe in the bottle and then compared side by side with my Caol Ila 12. All in all, this tasting session saved me about $200 on the two samples that I chose not to buy bottles on.

Now that I know a lot more than when I started a month ago, I will just depend upon these reviews. However, I don't see my cabinet growing any more. And to the best of my knowledge, Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit is the only whiskey that needs to be consumed in less than one month because it oxidizes and goes bad. I would appreciate any tips on others with low shelf life.

I tasted this sample at the same bar about a week ago to pinpoint why I hate it. The answer is simple. It reminded me of Lite pancake syrup. However, Glenfarclas 17 is now my number one favorite single malt and one store does stock Glenfarclas 12, which disappears off the shelf as soon as it gets restocked. This to me is another indicator of a good one, but no one seems to want this 10 YO. As soon as I get my bottle of 12 YO, I will do a review after it gets some air in the bottle.